On October 28, 2011, ALJ Robert K. Rogers, Jr. issued the public versions of Order No. 17C (dated July 18, 2011), Order No. 18C (dated July 19, 2011) and Order No. 19C (dated July 19, 2011) in Certain Liquid Crystal Display Devices, Including Monitors, Televisions, and Modules, and Components Thereof (Inv. No. 337-TA-741/749).
According to Order No. 17C, Respondents Chimei InnoLux Corp., InnoLux Corp., and Chi Mei Optoelectronics USA, Inc. (collectively, “CMI”) moved to strike portions of expert reports served by Complainants Thomson Licensing SAS and Thomson Licensing LLC (collectively, “Thomson”). CMI alleged that Thomson identified only a single CMI product accused of infringing claim 7 of U.S. Patent No. 5,375,006 (the ‘006 patent) in its interrogatory response and expert reports, but then identified over 100 accused CMI products five days after expert reports were due. Thus, CMI sought to preclude Thomson from accusing the over 100 CMI products not timely identified. Thomson responded that its expert had opined that all CMI accused products using Fuji wide view compensating films infringe claim 7 of the ‘006 patent, and that it disclosed in a supplemental interrogatory response that its infringement contentions extended to further CMI products. Based on the parties’ submissions, ALJ Rogers denied the motion with respect to claim 7 of the ‘006 patent. However, ALJ Rogers granted CMI’s motion insofar as all portions of Thomson’s expert reports addressing claim 3 of the ‘006 patent and claim 9 of U.S. Patent No. 5,978,063 (the ‘063 patent) were stricken pursuant to Order No. 16C.
According to Order No. 18C, CMI moved for summary determination of non-infringement of claims 1-4 and 8 the ‘063 patent on the grounds that the affixing layer must be distinct from the spacing elements according to CMI’s proposed construction of claim 1, and that the accused products do not meet this limitation. Thomson countered that the parties dispute the meaning of “affixing layer,” as Thomson does not believe the affixing layer must be distinct from the spacing elements, and that the ‘063 patent discloses an embodiment where the spacers and the affixing layer are made of the same photoreactive material. Thomson also offered a declaration from its expert explaining how CMI’s products allegedly infringe the ‘063 patent under either party’s proposed claim construction. ALJ Rogers noted that the parties did not agree on the construction of “affixing layer” and declined to construe the term on an abbreviated record, and found that genuine issues of material fact exist as to whether CMI’s products include an “affixing layer” which preclude summary determination of non-infringment.
According to Order No. 19C, CMI moved for summary determination of non-infringement of claim 3 of U.S. Patent No. 5,621,556 on the grounds that its accused products lack the “etch stopper” limitation required by the claim as properly construed. Again, Thomson asserted that the construction of “etch stopper” is a disputed issue, and that regardless of which party’s construction is adopted, a genuine issue of fact exists that precludes summary determination of non-infringement. Thomson offered a declaration from its expert explaining how CMI’s products meet the “etch stopper” limitation under either party’s proposed construction. Based on the parties’ submissions, ALJ Rogers denied the motion.