On August 18, 2011, ALJ E. James Gildea issued the public version of Order No. 23 (dated August 5, 2011) in Certain Motion-Sensitive Sound Effects Devices And Image Display Devices and Components and Products Containing Same (Inv. No. 337-TA-773).  In the Order, ALJ Gildea denied without prejudice Respondent 3M Company’s (“3M”) motion for summary determination of no violation of 19 U.S.C. § 1337.

According to the Order, 3M argued that its sole accused product named in Ogma LLC’s (“Ogma”) complaint, referred to as the WX20 digital projector, is protected by license, because 3M purchased the projector from an entity licensed by Ogma to practice asserted U.S. Patent No. 5,825,427.  Ogma acknowledged that 3M’s WX20 projector is covered by a license and therefore withdrew its allegations of infringement with respect to the WX20 projector.  However, Ogma, supported by the Commission Investigative Staff (“OUII”), opposed 3M’s motion on the grounds that other 3M products beyond the WX20 projector are accused of infringement in this Investigation that form a possible basis for finding a violation of 19 U.S.C. § 1337.  OUII also argued that 3M’s motion should be denied for failing to include a separate statement of the material facts as to which there are no genuine issues in dispute, as required by Ground Rule 2.3.

ALJ Gildea determined that it was not possible to reach the question of whether material facts are in dispute because 3M’s motion failed to include the statements required by Ground Rule 2.3.  ALJ Gildea therefore determined that 3M’s motion was defective and denied it without prejudice.  ALJ Gildea did find that Ogma is bound by its statement that its claims with respect to 3M’s WX20 projector are withdrawn.