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.

Search results

Order by: most recent most popular relevance



Results: 1-10 of 21

ALJ Rogers denies motion for summary determination in Certain Digital Models, Digital Data, and Treatment Plans For Use In Making Incremental Dental Positioning Adjustment Appliances (337-TA-833)
  • Oblon
  • USA
  • January 23 2013

On January 15, 2013, ALJ Robert K. Rogers, Jr. Issued Order No. 22 in Certain Digital Models, Digital Data, and Treatment Plans For Use In Making


ALJ Bullock denies respondent ZTE’s motion to certify subpoenas to Intel in certain wireless devices with 3G andor 4G capabilities (337-TA-868)
  • Oblon
  • USA
  • September 18 2013

On September 10, 2013, Chief ALJ Charles E. Bullock issued the public version of Order No. 63 (dated August 29, 2013) denying Respondent ZTE


ALJ Gildea denies motion for protective order in Certain Silicon Microphone Packages (337-TA-888)
  • Oblon
  • USA
  • January 8 2014

On December 19, 2013, ALJ E. James Gildea issued the public version of Order No. 14 (dated December 5, 2013) denying Complainant Knowles Electronics


ITC issues final determination of violation and issues remedial orders in Certain Optoelectronic Devices for Fiber Optic Communications (337-TA-860)
  • Oblon
  • USA
  • April 23 2014

On April 17, 2014, the International Trade Commission (the "Commission") issued a notice in Certain Optoelectronic Devices for Fiber Optic


ALJ Rogers rules on motion to preclude certain invalidity defenses in Certain Digital Models, Digital Data, and Treatment Plans for use in Making Incremental Dental Positioning Adjustment appliances (337-TA-833)
  • Oblon
  • USA
  • January 18 2013

On January 10, 2013, ALJ Robert K. Rogers, Jr. Issued Order No. 19 denying Complainant Align Technology, Inc.'s ("Align") motion to preclude certain


ITC decides to review-in-part Initial Determination in Certain Electronic Imaging Devices (337-TA-850)
  • Oblon
  • USA
  • December 23 2013

On December 16, 2013, the International Trade Commission (the "Commission") issued a notice determining to review in part the Initial Determination


ALJ Pender denies motion for non-monetary sanctions in Certain Dimmable Compact Fluorescent Bulbs (337-TA-830)
  • Oblon
  • USA
  • August 10 2012

On July 30, 2012, ALJ Thomas B. Pender issued Order No. 10 denying Complainants’ Neptun Light, Inc. and Andrzej Bobel (collectively, “Complainants”) motion for non-monetary sanctions against Respondents U Lighting America, Inc. (“ULA”) and Feit Electric Company (“Feit”) in Certain Dimmable Compact Fluorescent Lamps and Products Containing Same (Inv. No. 337-TA-830


ITC decides to modify final initial determination in certain biometric scanning devices (337-TA-720)
  • Oblon
  • USA
  • October 26 2011

On October 24, 2011, the International Trade Commission (the “Commission”) issued a notice determining to modify the final initial determination (“ID”) issued by former Chief ALJ Paul J. Luckern on June 17, 2011, finding a violation of Section 337 in Certain Biometric Scanning Devices, Components Thereof, Associated Software, and Products Containing the Same (Inv. No. 337-TA-720


ALJ Bullock issues claim construction order in certain digital televisions (337-TA-789)
  • Oblon
  • USA
  • April 19 2012

On March 14, 2012, Chief ALJ Charles E. Bullock issued the public version of Order No. 32 (dated March 1, 2012) in Certain Digital Televisions and Components Thereof (Inv. No. 337-TA-789


ALJ Pender denies motion to quash in certain computing devices with associated instruction sets and software (337-TA-812)
  • Oblon
  • USA
  • August 1 2012

On July 24, 2012, ALJ Thomas B. Pender issued Order No. 9 in Certain Computing Devices With Associated Instruction Sets And Software (Inv. No. 337-TA-812) denying non-party ARM, Inc.’s (“ARM”) motion to quash or limit a subpoena duces tecum and ad testificandum served upon it by Complainants VIA Technologies, Inc., IP-First, LLC, and Centaur Technology, Inc. (collectively, “VIA”