On March 11, 2014, ALJ E. James Gildea issued the public version of Order No. 54 (dated March 4, 2014) in Certain Consumer Electronics with Display and Processing Capabilities (Inv. No. 337-TA-884). In the Order, ALJ Gildea denied Respondents Toshiba Corp., Toshiba America, Inc., and Toshiba Information Systems, Inc.’s (collectively, “Toshiba”) motion seeking a summary determination that Complainant Graphics Properties Holdings, Inc. (“GPH”) cannot meet its burden to show that the accused Toshiba “TV Products” and “Tablet Products” infringe the asserted patents.
According to the Order, Toshiba argued that GPH lacks certain evidence relating to the underlying graphics processor units (GPUs) and computer processing units (CPUs) used in Toshiba’s accused products. The exact nature of Toshiba’s arguments is not clear from the redacted public version of the Order.
In any event, GPH opposed the motion, arguing that it will be able to meet its burden of establishing infringement by a preponderance of the evidence and that Toshiba has applied false logic with respect to perceived gaps in the evidence. GPH further argued that Toshiba has ignored established patent law that permits a party to allege infringement using circumstantial evidence. Additionally, GPH argued that the facts of the instant investigation are distinguishable from those of the case law relied upon by Toshiba.
After considering the arguments, ALJ Gildea determined to deny Toshiba’s motion. The ALJ distinguished a district court case relied upon by Toshiba, and further reminded Toshiba “of its obligations pursuant to Commission Rule 210.4(c)(2) to ensure that its contentions are warranted by existing law.” ALJ Gildea then found that Toshiba had failed to meet its initial burden of establishing that there is an absence of a genuine issue of material fact and that it is entitled to judgment as a matter of law with respect to non-infringement. Accordingly, the ALJ found that summary determination of non-infringement in advance of the evidentiary hearing was not appropriate, and denied Toshiba’s motion.