On May 28, 2013, the International Trade Commission (the “Commission”) issued a notice determining to modify in part Chief ALJ Charles E. Bullock’s Remand Initial Determination (“RID”) finding no violation of Section 337 in Certain Automated Media Library Devices (Inv. No. 337-TA-746).  The Commission terminated the investigation with a finding of no violation.

By way of background, the Complainant in this investigation is Overland Storage, Inc. (“Overland”) and the remaining Respondents are BDT AG, BDT Products, Inc., BDT Automation Technology (Zhuhai FTZ) Co., Ltd., and BDT de México, S. de R.L. de C.V. (collectively, the “BDT Respondents”).  On June 20, 2012, ALJ Bullock issued an Initial Determination (“ID”) finding that (1) the BDT Respondents do not infringe U.S. Patent Nos. 6,328,766 (the ‘766 patent) and 6,353,581 (the ‘581 patent); (2) the ‘766 and ‘581 patents are not invalid, except for claim 15 of the ‘581 patent; and (3) a domestic industry exists for the ‘766 patent, but not for the ‘581 patent.  See our July 27, 2012 post for more details. 

On August 20, 2012, the Commission determined to review the ID in part.  On review, the Commission determined, inter alia, to remand the investigation to ALJ Bullock to consider whether certain prior art anticipates or renders obvious the asserted claims of the ‘766 patent, and to consider whether Overland has satisfied the economic prong of the domestic industry requirement with respect to the ‘581 patent.  See our October 31, 2012 post for more details.  The Commission subsequently determined to also remand with respect to whether the BDT Respondents infringe claims 10, 12, and 16 of the of the ‘581 patent.

In the RID, ALJ Bullock found no violation of Section 337.  In particular, the ALJ found that the BDT Respondents do not infringe claims 10, 12, and 16 of the ‘581 patent, and that claims 1, 2, 3, and 7-9 of the ‘766 patent are invalid as anticipated.  ALJ Bullock also determined that Overland has satisfied the economic prong of the domestic industry requirement with respect to the ‘581 patent.  See our April 29, 2013 post for more details.

On April 8, 2013, Overland petitioned for review of certain aspects of the RID.  In particular, Overland requested that the Commission review and reverse the ALJ’s findings that (1) claims 10, 12 and 16 of the ‘581 patent are not infringed, and (2) the asserted claims of the ‘766 patent are invalid as anticipated.  The BDT Respondents opposed Overland’s petition for review.  On May 10, 2013, the Commission determined to review the RID in part.  Specifically, the Commission determined to review the infringement finding with respect to claim 16 of the ‘581 patent, as well as the anticipation finding with respect to the asserted claims of the ‘766 patent.  See our May 20, 2013 post for more details.

According to the May 28 notice, on review, the Commission  determined to affirm, based on the Commission’s own construction of the limitation “cells in fixed relative position,” the RID’s finding that the BDT Respondents do not infringe claim 16 of the ‘581 patent.  The Commission also determined to affirm the RID’s finding that the asserted claims of the ‘766 patent are invalid as anticipated.  Accordingly, the Commission upheld ALJ Bullock’s ultimate finding of no violation of Section 337, and terminated the investigation.