Replies to post #268982 on InterDigital Inc (IDCC)

[revlis]

whizzer,

nivkyc even gave me a better idea. I am going to restrict to those instances where the ALJ rules non-infringement. See if I can come up with anything.

mo

[revlis]

I concentrated on those investigations conducted by Luckern from
from 501 to 599 - the most recent investigations.

These are the cases of no violations.

578,561,552,530,526,506,533. 578 was Nokia vs Qualcomm. 533 was a split decision. One respondent no violation and 2 respondents violation.

These are case of violations.

545,598,557,541,538,503.

I will look at those no violation cases tomorrow.

mo

[revlis]

Update on ITC Luckern no violation inveestigations.

578 - No review

561 - Review granted but can not find out what happened

533 - Review and ALJ decisin confirmed

530 - Can not find what happened

526 - Can not find what happened

506 = Reviewed and reversed to violation

mo

Will try to find more info tomorrow. Will watch a little football.

[olddog967]

Whizzeresq: To understand how the Commission makes a decision, I think it would be helpful if everyone read their final determination for 337-631 (Samsung v.Sharp). This and a related case (637-634) were previously discussed to a limited extent.

https://edis.usitc.gov/edis3-external/514836-406905.pdf?sp=ZH4sIAAAAAAAAAFvzloG1uIjBND2%2FTK%2B0OLMkWa8ksSC1uKSoUi81Lz0zL1XPNSWzODg1uSQzPy84tagsMzk1ILEoMTe1JLXoPxB8qdrSzMTA7MPAlZKfXJqbmlfimVLCIOCTlViWqJ%2BTmJeu75Ofl27tw8BZDDHEM6WQoY6B0YdBECoQkl8QkppbEFqUWcLAB9GXl1qiHxrkaV1RAHQbH0hID2SUHtio7icTzvQr32diYPRiYC1LzClNrShiEEAo8ivNTUotalszVZZ7yoNuJgaGigIGEGAzrSwGWc0C5rHfFikAAHBksXb9AAAA



A summary of the case is posted below:

On June 24, 2009, the ITC issued a Notice of Commission Decision to affirm-in-part and reverse-in-part a final Initial Determination (“ID”) finding a violation of section 337 by Sharp Corporation, Sharp Electronics Corporation, and Sharp Electronics Manufacturing Company of America, Inc. (collectively, “Sharp”) as a result of infringement of certain claims of U.S. Patent No. 6,771,344 (the “‘344 patent”).
This investigation was instituted on January 25, 2008, based on a complaint filed by Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. of Korea.
On January 26, 2009, Chief ALJ Paul J. Luckern issued his final ID finding a violation of section 337 by Sharp as to the ‘344 patent and U.S. Patent No. 6,937,311 (the “‘311 patent”).
On March 30, 2009, the Commission determined to review: (1) the ALJ’s construction of the claim term “domain dividers” found in the ‘311 patent; (2) the ALJ’s determination that Sharp’s LCD devices infringe the ‘311 patent; (3) the ALJ’s determination that the ‘311 patent is not unenforceable; and (4) the ALJ’s determination that the asserted claims of the ‘344 patent are not invalid as anticipated by U.S. Patent No. 5,309,264 (the “264 patent”).
In the Notice, the Commission construed the term “domain dividers” in the ‘311 patent to mean “apertures formed in the conductive layer comprising the electrode.”  The Commission also reversed ALJ Luckern’s ruling that Sharp’s LCD devices infringed the asserted claims of the ‘311 patent in view of its new claim construction for the term “domain dividers.”  Further, the Commission took no position on the validity of the ‘311 patent under 35 U.S.C. § 112 ¶ 1, or the unenforceability of the ‘311 patent.  Additionally, the Commission affirmed ALJ Luckern’s finding that the asserted claims of the ‘344 patent are not invalid in view of the ‘264 patent.  The Commission also affirmed ALJ Luckern’s determination of a violation of section 337 with respect to the ‘344 patent.
Regarding the issues of remedy, the public interest, and bonding, the Commission also (1) issued a limited exclusion order against Sharp; (2) issued cease and desist orders prohibiting Sharp Electronics Corp. and Sharp Electronics Manufacturing Co. from conducting certain activities in the U.S.; (3) found that the public interest factors do not preclude issuance of such orders; and (4) found that there should be no bond during the Presidential review period.

http://www.itcblog.com/20090626/itc-issues-final-determination-of-violation-in-certain-liquid-crystal-display-devices-337-ta-631/


In regard to the Commission's voting, what I found interesting, was that the final vote of Commission, just before they issued their determination, was not a unanimous vote in support of their decision, but a unanimous vote of disapproval (with comments) of the ALJ's determination.


https://edis.usitc.gov/edis3-external/513257-406075.pdf?sp=ZH4sIAAAAAAAAAFvzloG1uIjBND2%2FTK%2B0OLMkWa8ksSC1uKSoUi81Lz0zL1XPNSWzODg1uSQzPy84tagsMzk1ILEoMTe1JLXoPxB8qdrSzMTA7MPAlZKfXJqbmlfimVLCIOCTlViWqJ%2BTmJeu75Ofl27tw8BZDDHEM6WQoY6B0YdBECoQkl8QkppbEFqUWcLAB9GXl1qiHxrkaV1RAHQbH0hID2SUHtio7icTzvQr32diYPRiYC1LzClNrShiEEAo8ivNTUotalszVZZ7yoNuJgaGigIGEGAzsi4GWc0C5rFfeVkAAG8Ts1X9AAAA

[olddog967]

whizzeresq: You asked, "In those instances where the full commission has voted to reverse an ALJ, it would be interesting to see how many of those were unanimous or close to it." I think revlis might be trying to respond along the lines you asked. For ease of research, I took a different approach. I decided to review all the votes that the Commissioners took during a case to see how their voting ran. I originally intended looking at 10-20 cases starting with 337-600, which would be around the same time frame as our cases. However, after reviewing the first five cases (600-604), which included 53 votes by the Commissioners, I stopped, as in all instances, whatever was being voted on was by a unanimous vote of the six Commissioners. While not a large or valid statistical sample, i think a trend was clearly shown.