On September 17, 2014, ALJ Dee Lord issued Order No. 99 and on September 23, 2014, ALJ Lord issued Order Nos. 102 and 103 in Certain Optical Disc Drives, Components Thereof, and Products Containing the Same (Inv. No. 337-TA-897).

By way of background, this investigation is based on a September 3, 2013 complaint filed by Optical Devices, LLC ("Optical") alleging violation of Section 337 in the importation into the U.S. and sale of certain optical disc drives, components thereof, and products containing the same that infringe one or more claims of U.S. Patent Nos. 6,904,007; 7,196,979; 8,416,651; RE40,927; RE42,913; and RE43,681.  See our September 6, 2013 and October 23, 2013 posts for more details on the complaint and Notice of Investigation, respectively. 

According to Order No. 99, Respondents Panasonic Corporation, Panasonic Corporation of North America, Nintendo Co., Ltd., Nintendo of America, Inc., Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd., Samsung Electronics America, Inc., LG Electronics, Inc., LG Electronics U.S.A., Inc., Lenovo Group Ltd., Lenovo (United States) Inc., Toshiba Corporation, and Toshiba America Information Systems, Inc. (collectively, "Respondents") filed a motion for summary determination of unenforceability of the "Wild Patents" under the doctrine of prosecution laches.  Optical opposed the motion.

After reviewing the parties' briefs and the attached exhibits, ALJ Lord found that Respondents had not shown that there were no genuine issues as to any material facts and that Respondents were entitled to summary determination.  Accordingly, the motion was denied.

According to Order No. 102, Respondents Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. and Samsung Electronics America, Inc. (collectively, "Samsung") filed a motion for summary determination of non-infringement of the '007, the '979, and the '651 patents. Optical filed an opposition to Samsung's motion.  On September 2, 2014, Samsung was terminated from the Investigation due to a settlement agreement.  See our September 10, 2014 post for more details.  Accordingly, Samsung's motion for summary determination was denied as moot.

According to Order No. 103, on June 4, 2014 Respondents filed a motion for summary determination of non-infringement of the '927, '913, and '681 patents.  Optical opposed the motion.

After reviewing the parties' briefs and the attached exhibits, ALJ Lord found that the incomplete record on claim construction precluded summary judgment.  Accordingly, Respondents' motion for summary determination was denied.