ALJ Thomas B. Pender issued Order No. 27 (dated June 23, 2015), Order No. 29 (dated June 24, 2015), Order No. 30 (dated June 25, 2015), Order No. 31 (dated June 30, 2015), and Order No. 32 (dated June 30, 2015) in Certain Windshield Wipers and Components Thereof (Inv. No. 337-TA-928/937).  Please note that Oblon represents Complainants in this matter.

By way of background, the investigation is based on July 25, 2014 and October 15, 2014 complaints filed by Valeo North America, Inc. of Troy, Michigan and Delmex de Juarez S. de R.L. de C.V. of Mexico (collectively, "Valeo") alleging violation of Section 337 in the importation into the U.S. and sale of certain windshield wipers and components thereof.  See our August 1, 2014August 28, 2014October 16, 2014, and November 19, 2014 posts for more details on the complaints and Notices of Investigation in the 928 and 937 investigations.  On December 9, 2014, ALJ Pender consolidated the 928 and 937 investigations.  See our December 15, 2014 post for more details. 

According to Order No. 27, ALJ Pender denied Respondents Trico Products Corporation and Trico Componentes SA de CV (collectively, "Trico") motion for summary determination of invalidity of the asserted patents under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b).  Specifically, ALJ Pender determined that summary determination is inappropriate because genuine issues of material fact remain.

According to Order No. 29, ALJ Pender denied Valeo's motion for summary determination on the importation requirement. Specifically, ALJ Pender determined, among other things, that "[a]lthough I find Trico's arguments not very persuasive, I will reserve my ruling on this issue until the evidentiary hearing...Trico must be prepared to discuss and compare the facts of the present investigation and those of Investigation No. 337-TA-881 and to discuss Chief Judge Bullock's Order No. 21 granting complainants' motion for summary determination as to the importation of Trico's accused products."

According to Order No. 30, ALJ Pender denied Valeo's motion for summary determination on the economic prong of the domestic industry requirement. Specifically, ALJ Pender determined that summary determination is inappropriate because genuine issues of material fact remain.

According to Order No. 31, ALJ Pender denied Trico's motion for summary determination of non-infringement. Specifically, ALJ Pender determined that summary determination is inappropriate because genuine issues of material fact remain.

According to Order No. 32, ALJ Pender denied Trico's motion for summary determination on technical prong, i.e., that the alleged domestic industry products do not practice the claims of the asserted patents. Specifically, ALJ Pender determined that summary determination is inappropriate because genuine issues of material fact remain.