On May 10, 2013, the International Trade Commission (“the Commission”) issued a notice determining to review in part the Remand Initial Determination (“RID”) issued by Chief ALJ Charles E. Bullock on March 26, 2013 finding no violation of Section 337 in Certain Automated Media Library Devices (Inv. No. 337-TA-746).
By way of background, the Complainant in this matter is Overland Storage, Inc. (“Overland”) and the remaining Respondents are BDT AG, BDT-Solutions GmbH & Co. KG, BDT Products, Inc., BDT Automation Technology (Zhuhai FTZ) Co., Ltd., and BDT de México, S. de R.L. de C.V. (collectively, “Respondents”). Overland asserted U.S. Patent Nos. 6,328,766 (the ‘766 patent) and 6,353,581 (the ‘581 patent) which are directed to automated media library devices, also known as tape libraries. In his June 20, 2012 Initial Determination, ALJ Bullock determined that (1) the ‘766 and ‘581 patents are not infringed by BDT; (2) the 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 October 25, 2012, the Commission issued a notice and order remanding the investigation. See our October 31, 2012 and November 28, 2012 posts for additional information.
According to the RID, ALJ Bullock found no violation of Section 337 with respect to claims 10, 12 and 16 of the ‘581 patent. The ALJ further determined that there is no violation of Section 337 with respect to claims 1-3 and 7-9 of the ‘766 patent as these claims were found to be invalid as anticipated. ALJ Bullock also determined that the economic prong of the domestic industry requirement has been satisfied for the ‘581 patent. See our April 29, 2013 post for more details.
On April 8, 2013, Overland petitioned for review of the RID, requesting that the Commission review and reverse the ALJ’s finding that (1) claims 10, 12 and 16 of the ‘581 patent are not infringed by the accused devices, and (2) the asserted claims of the ‘766 patent are invalid as anticipated. Respondents opposed Overland’s petition for review.
After examining the record of the investigation and the parties’ submissions, the Commission determined to review the finding in the RID that Overland had not shown by a preponderance of the evidence that the accused products infringe claim 16 of the ‘581 patent. The Commission also determined to review the finding that the asserted claims of the ‘766 patent are invalid as anticipated.
The Commission determined not to review the remaining issues decided by the ALJ and did not request briefing on the reviewed issues or additional briefing on remedy, bonding, and the public interest.