We use cookies to customise content for your subscription and for analytics.
If you continue to browse Lexology, we will assume that you are happy to receive all our cookies. For further information please read our Cookie Policy.
Lexology logo
  Request new password

Search results

Order by most recent / most popular / relevance

Results: 1-10 of 23

ALJ Bullock issues public version of remand determination finding no violation of Section 337 in Certain Automated Media Library Devices (337-TA-746)

  • Oblon Spivak McClelland Maier & Neustadt LLP
  • -
  • USA
  • -
  • April 29 2013

On April 23, 2013, Chief ALJ Charles E. Bullock issued the public version of the Remand Initial Determination (the "Remand ID") (dated March 26

ALJ Essex grants-in-part motion for protective order limiting e-discovery in certain electronic imaging devices (337-TA-850)

  • Oblon Spivak McClelland Maier & Neustadt LLP
  • -
  • USA
  • -
  • November 26 2012

On November 19, 2012, ALJ Theodore R. Essex issued Order No. 12 granting-in-part Complainant FlashPoint Technology, Inc.’s (“FlashPoint”) motion for a protective order to limit the discovery of electronically stored information in Certain Electronic Imaging Devices (Inv. No. 337-TA-850

ITC issues opinion in certain video game systems (337-TA-770)

  • Oblon Spivak McClelland Maier & Neustadt LLP
  • -
  • USA
  • -
  • November 12 2012

On November 6, 2012, the International Trade Commission issued an opinion in Certain Video Game Systems and Wireless Controllers and Components Thereof (337-TA-770) construing the term “toy wand” and remanding the case to Chief ALJ Charles E. Bullock to determine infringement in light of the Commission’s construction

ALJ Shaw denies motions for summary determination in Certain Wireless Devices with 3G Capabilities (337-TA-800)

  • Oblon Spivak McClelland Maier & Neustadt LLP
  • -
  • USA
  • -
  • April 1 2013

On March 21, 2013, ALJ David P. Shaw issued the public versions of Order Nos. 92, 93, and 99 in Certain Wireless Devices with 3G Capabilities and

Lamina packaging files new 337 complaint regarding Certain Laminated Packaging Products

  • Oblon Spivak McClelland Maier & Neustadt LLP
  • -
  • USA
  • -
  • February 21 2013

On February 20, 2013, Lamina Packaging Innovations LLC of Longview, Texas ("Lamina") filed a complaint requesting that the ITC commence an

Did you knowParties may request a shortened period during which opposition motions may be filed?

  • Oblon Spivak McClelland Maier & Neustadt LLP
  • -
  • USA
  • -
  • April 11 2012

Investigations at the ITC already move very quickly, but did you know that the parties can make investigations move even more rapidly?

ALJ Bullock issues claim construction order in certain digital televisions and components thereof (337-TA-806)

  • Oblon Spivak McClelland Maier & Neustadt LLP
  • -
  • USA
  • -
  • April 19 2012

On April 13, 2012, Chief ALJ Charles E. Bullock issued Order No. 6 construing certain terms of the asserted claims in Certain Digital Televisions and Components Thereof (Inv. No. 337-TA-806

ALJ Shaw denies motion to postpone evidentiary hearing in certain microprocessors (337-TA-781)

  • Oblon Spivak McClelland Maier & Neustadt LLP
  • -
  • USA
  • -
  • June 13 2012

On June 12, 2012, ALJ David P. Shaw issued Order No. 34 in Certain Microprocessors, Components Thereof, and Products Containing Same (Inv. No. 337-TA-781

Nokia files new 337 complaint regarding certain electronic devices, including mobile phones and tablet computers

  • Oblon Spivak McClelland Maier & Neustadt LLP
  • -
  • USA
  • -
  • May 3 2012

On May 2, 2012, Nokia Corporation of Finland, Nokia Inc. of Sunnyvale, California, and Intellisync Corporation of Sunnyvale, California (collectively, “Nokia”) filed a complaint requesting that the ITC commence an investigation pursuant to Section 337

ALJ Rogers denies motion to disqualify in certain light-emitting diodes (337-TA-798)

  • Oblon Spivak McClelland Maier & Neustadt LLP
  • -
  • USA
  • -
  • May 2 2012

On April 27, 2012, ALJ Robert K. Rogers, Jr. issued the public version of Order No. 19 (dated January 26, 2012) denying Complainant Samsung LED Co., Ltd.’s motion to disqualify Respondents OSRAM AG, OSRAM Opto Semiconductors GmbH, OSRAM Opto Semiconductors Inc., and OSRAM Sylvania Inc.’s expert witness, Dr. Wetzel, and bar his access to confidential business information in Certain Light-Emitting Diodes and Products Containing Same (Inv. No. 337-TA-798