|
Post by forkodak on Dec 12, 2012 19:36:22 GMT -5
ALJ Gildea Grants-In-Part Motions To Compel In Certain Electronic Devices For Capturing And Transmitting Images (337-TA-831) Posted On: December 11, 2012 By: John Presper and Lisa Mandrusiak Topics: ALJ Gildea, ALJ Orders On December 7, 2012, ALJ James E. Gildea issued the public versions of Order No. 42 and Order No. 43 (dated November 14, 2012) and Order No. 44 and Order No. 45 (dated November 16, 2012) in Certain Electronic Devices for Capturing and Transmitting Images and Components Thereof (Inv. No. 337-TA-831). By way of background, the investigation is based on a complaint filed by Eastman Kodak Company (“Kodak”) alleging violation of Section 337 in the importation into the U.S. and sale of certain electronic devices for capturing and transmitting images and components thereof that infringe various patents. See our January 13, 2012 post for more details. Order No. 42: According to the Order, Kodak filed a motion seeking to compel Respondents HTC Corp. and HTC America, Inc. (collectively, “HTC”) to supplement several interrogatories and to provide samples of four specific accused products. Kodak argued that HTC had inappropriately responded or not responded as promised and refused to make samples available. HTC opposed the motion, noting it has already made 28 devices available for inspection and will supplement interrogatory responses when its unreleased products are “sufficiently finalized.” ALJ Gildea began by questioning “why Kodak and HTC were not able to arrive at a resolution” of discovery disputes where the parties agree as to the scope and relevance of the requested discovery, and ordered HTC to make samples available or provide a sworn affidavit that samples of the accused products are outside of its control. The ALJ also ordered HTC to provide full, complete, and appropriate responses to the outstanding interrogatories. Order No. 43: According to the Order, HTC filed a motion seeking to compel six pieces of discovery: (i) inventor emails; (ii) entries in the “invention database”; (iii) testimony and documents related to an alleged prior art device (the Sharp Zaurus); (iv) documents related to commercially available Kodak cameras; (v) materials from a related litigation; and (vi) responsive Bates ranges for particular interrogatories. ALJ Gildea ordered Kodak to produce inventor emails and documents from the invention database to the extent it has not done so. The ALJ specifically noted that an invention database is not akin to lab notebooks that should be produced in their entirety, and that only relevant entries and their associated attachments should be produced. ALJ Gildea was persuaded by Kodak’s argument that documents and things related to the Sharp Zaurus are “intertwined with receiving legal advice from counsel” and therefore privileged, although he noted that attachments containing only facts and information may not be so protected and should be produced. The ALJ sided with HTC regarding documents related to commercially available cameras, noting that Kodak’s responses as to its efforts were “vague,” and Kodak must search for and produce the requested documents. Relevant and non-privileged documents from the related litigation were ordered to be produced. HTC’s last request, that Kodak identify by Bates number the documents produced in response to each request for production of documents, was denied. ALJ Gildea agreed that “HTC should inspect Kodak’s production itself” to determine whether key documents have been produced. Order No. 44: According to the Order, Kodak filed a motion to compel Respondent Apple Inc. (“Apple”) to provide responses to specific interrogatories and requests for documents alleged to be missing. The first request, for identification of a particular witness in relation to testing functionality, was denied with ALJ Gildea noting that Apple has already designated witnesses and that Kodak did not assert that any were unprepared to testify as to functionality. Kodak’s second request, for information proving that Apple employees contributed to the invention, was partially granted, with ALJ agreeing that Apple’s responses lack detail and should be supplemented with specific relevant answers. However, in instances where Kodak was able to depose witnesses at length and failed to identify a particular deficiency, the request was denied. Apple was ordered to produce non-privileged documents and things if it had not done so in response to the remaining requests indicated by Kodak, with ALJ Gildea specifically noting that the recent release of the iPhone 5 meant that supplementation was required. Order No. 45: According to the Order, Kodak filed a motion to compel HTC and Apple “to provide narrowed interrogatory responses relating to their invalidity contentions.” Kodak argued that HTC and Apple have named large quantities of prior art “obscuring the real references” and have failed to provide detailed content. Respondents opposed, stating Kodak is to blame by asserting a large number of patents. ALJ Gildea began by noting “Respondents’ attempt to point the finger back at Kodak here is not effective.” ALJ Gildea stated that it is reasonable that Apple and HTC should know at this stage of the investigation the specific prior art and combination they will rely on, and were ordered to supplement their responses with detailed claim charts. In granting the motion, the ALJ gave specific warning that generic language such as “any of the references in the attached charts could be combined” or reservations that additional prior art may be identified in the future are not appropriate. www.itcblog.com/
|
|
|
Post by newyorkled2008 on Dec 12, 2012 19:44:11 GMT -5
Excellent Fork!
|
|
|
Post by Marriott on Dec 12, 2012 19:56:48 GMT -5
" ALJ Gildea began by noting “Respondents’ attempt to point the finger back at Kodak here is not effective.” ALJ Gildea stated that it is reasonable that Apple and HTC should know at this stage of the investigation the specific prior art and combination they will rely on, and were ordered to supplement their responses with detailed claim charts. In granting the motion, the ALJ gave specific warning that generic language such as “any of the references in the attached charts could be combined” or reservations that additional prior art may be identified in the future are not appropriate. " Translation : Generic language - We have nothing and we're blowing smoke.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 12, 2012 20:55:31 GMT -5
Doc2550 During the Second Interim Fee Period, Brinks professionals and paraprofessionals spent an aggregate of 11,461.80 hours performing services for the Debtors in connection with (a) the Debtors’ assertion of its U.S. patents Nos. 7,742,084; 7,210,161; 7,453,605; 7,936,391 and/or 6,292,218 and other patents within Debtors’ patent portfolio, and (b) representation of the Debtors before the International Trade Commission (USITC Inv. No. 337-TA-831) and in the United States federal district court for the Western District of New York in patent infringement actions asserted against Apple, Inc., HTC Corporation, and Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. USITC Inv. No. 337-TA-831 USITC INSTITUTES SECTION 337 INVESTIGATION ON CERTAIN ELECTRONIC DEVICES FOR CAPTURING AND TRANSMITTING IMAGES AND COMPONENTS THEREOF The U.S. International Trade Commission (USITC) has voted to institute an investigation of certain electronic devices for capturing and transmitting images and components thereof. The products at issue in this investigation are camera phones, tablet computers, and other handheld devices for capturing and transmitting images. The investigation is based on a complaint filed by Eastman Kodak Company of Rochester, NY, on January 10, 2012. The complaint alleges violations of section 337 of the Tariff Act of 1930 in the importation into the United States and sale of certain electronic devices for capturing and transmitting images and components thereof that infringe patents asserted by Kodak. The complainant requests that the USITC issue an exclusion order and cease and desist orders. The USITC has identified the following as respondents in this investigation: Apple Inc., of Cupertino, CA; High Tech Computer Corp. a/k/a HTC Corp., of Taiwan; HTC America, Inc., of Bellevue, WA; and Exedea, Inc., of Houston, TX. By instituting this investigation (337-TA-831), the USITC has not yet made any decision on the merits of the case. The USITC's Chief Administrative Law Judge will assign the case to one of the USITC's six administrative law judges (ALJ), who will schedule and hold an evidentiary hearing. The ALJ will make an initial determination as to whether there is a violation of section 337; that initial determination is subject to review by the Commission. The USITC will make a final determination in the investigation at the earliest practicable time.
|
|
|
Post by littlefred747 on Dec 12, 2012 22:03:49 GMT -5
What the heck are we looking at...is this "live" ammo? Holy smokes...thats "Live Action"
|
|
|
Post by kevinblandford on Dec 13, 2012 12:10:48 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by forkodak on Dec 13, 2012 16:37:14 GMT -5
Mixing things together here is the link from Monday on Kodak's 218 appeal ***** Anyone know when the Judge will rule?? *T*H*A*N*K*S* " Kodak Tells Fed. Circ. Digital Camera Patent Is Valid By Bill Donahue Law360, New York (December 12, 2012, 5:56 PM ET) -- Eastman Kodak Co. urged the Federal Circuit on Monday to overturn a ruling by the U.S. International Trade Commission that one of the company's digital camera patents was invalid, blasting the decision as unsupported by evidence. Kodak said it was “hard to imagine a weaker record” to back the commission's July determination that its patent for digital camera preview technology was obvious. The ruling let Apple Inc. and Research In Motion Ltd. off the hook for infringement claims and a possible import ban. " www.law360.com/ip/articles/401159/kodak-tells-fed-circ-digital-camera-patent-is-valid
|
|
|
Post by newyorkled2008 on Dec 13, 2012 16:42:30 GMT -5
No idea on the date Fork.
Had read the article and the accompanying docket. Let's just say Kodak's putting on a good fight.
Anyone else know about the date?
|
|
|
Post by forkodak on Dec 13, 2012 17:25:21 GMT -5
Mixing things together here is the link from Monday on Kodak's 218 appeal ***** Anyone know when the Judge will rule?? *T*H*A*N*K*S* " Kodak Tells Fed. Circ. Digital Camera Patent Is Valid By Bill Donahue Law360, New York (December 12, 2012, 5:56 PM ET) -- Eastman Kodak Co. urged the Federal Circuit on Monday to overturn a ruling by the U.S. International Trade Commission that one of the company's digital camera patents was invalid, blasting the decision as unsupported by evidence. Kodak said it was “hard to imagine a weaker record” to back the commission's July determination that its patent for digital camera preview technology was obvious. The ruling let Apple Inc. and Research In Motion Ltd. off the hook for infringement claims and a possible import ban. " www.law360.com/ip/articles/401159/kodak-tells-fed-circ-digital-camera-patent-is-valid218 was filed in 2010, then the Luckner deal, Pender ruled on May 21, 2012, then confirmed in July I think... Oral arguments sound like were Monday it is not like this is a new issue-- would think the judge would rule soon == In particular with Kodak in bankruptcy just to get 218 ruled on...
|
|
jim
New Member
Posts: 62
|
Post by jim on Dec 13, 2012 17:31:55 GMT -5
Why would Kodak go through this effort if they had just agreed ( over the weekend or late last week ) or considering ( per the rumored 500 mil bid) to sell these patents to Apple / Google?
|
|
|
Post by newyorkled2008 on Dec 13, 2012 17:34:44 GMT -5
That's based on the presumption Jim that they were 'Actually' selling the full kaboodle (1100 patents). I refuse to believe that if in fact there's a deal for just over $500 million...that it'd be for all of the patents.
But hey, that's just me.
|
|
|
Post by forkodak on Dec 13, 2012 17:38:29 GMT -5
Why would Kodak go through this effort if they had just agreed ( over the weekend or late last week ) or considering ( per the rumored 500 mil bid) to sell these patents to Apple / Google? The only thing I believe is that there is a minimum bid of $500 million for some unidentified patents. We know the low end not the high end; I would expect 218 to be ruled on and ITC 377-TA-831 to be ruled on before patent sale final some time next year... If Kodak wins price goes higher...
|
|
|
Post by newyorkled2008 on Dec 13, 2012 17:45:36 GMT -5
Fork, the dates you went over look correct. 'and yes, that most recent argument was made on December 10, this year.
also:
On July 20, 2012, the Commission affirmed on modified grounds the final Initial Determination of an administrative law judge in Investigation No. 337-TA-703. The Commission’s decision is final.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ 'thus the next step was the Federal Court of Appeals.
|
|
|
Post by forkodak on Dec 14, 2012 17:01:11 GMT -5
New Doc on ITC page 377-TA-831 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I, Rayline Petitt, certify that a copy of the foregoing Protective Order Application for Kori Anne Bagrowski was served as indicated to the parties listed below on this 11th day of December, 2012.
|
|
|
Post by sprecken on Dec 15, 2012 11:42:22 GMT -5
Good morning everyone!
I just recently celebrated (or admit to) holding EK for a year. It has been one roller coaster ride as you all know. I dont post much but I read this board everyday and appreciate all of your thoughts....
I have been thinking about the 218 and the $500 MIL bid. I am of the thought that the 218 is most certainly not included in the bid we got. As Forkodak said, the bid is for an undisclosed amount/type/group of patents.
I would not be suprised (given the lack of control with courts) if Kodak is banking on the ITC decision to be overturned and planning to keep 218. Once they have this they can aim that now VALID/INFRINGED UPON patent at RIM/APPLE and all the freaking tablets. It has been discussed that there may be 1BIL out there in prior infringements not to mention the tablets. I believe (as discussed before here) that EK is lining up both the best case (hidden) scenario as well as the worst case (500MIL bid/exit DIP) situation. In the worst case scenario we get $500 mil , we sell some divisions, we get exit financing, chop down the UK pension...and may get Diluted as equity holders.
In the best case, we get the ITC overturned soon, and the patents game is changed.
Just my thoughts on this EKDKQ Saturday...
|
|
|
Post by mglassma on Dec 15, 2012 12:05:12 GMT -5
Sprecken,
I hear what your saying. 218 alone would be good enough to shake the trees for past infringement bucks. 218 is NOT the grand nuke in this scheme anymore because 1. companies have built around it and 2. it does not have the shelf life of the others. 218 was great because it had been licensed already. I imagine some of the other patents that Kodak has sued Apple for have more long term value and is more relevant towards blocking new technology.I think a 218 ruling in our favor would set the floor. What I mean is if Kodak is owed 2 billion from past infringement than you know the starting point has to be atleast 2 billion.
|
|
|
Post by forkodak on Dec 15, 2012 12:25:07 GMT -5
The ITC only ruled some i-phone (3G) models infringed on 218; it has be suggested that some newer phone designs have worked around 218 so newer phone or tablets might not infringe. If this court only rules that 218 is a valid patent then I assume it would fall back to the ITC which has found infringement by some products but not all products assuming 218 is valid. The big deal might be if this court goes beyond just ruling on if 218 is a patent or not and examines or expands the infringement to include additional products. But in addition Kodak added the 4 additional patents to their infringement claims filed in Jan 2112 targeting new products that might have the 218 work around. This is the new ITC on going case 377-TA-831… This is from August link at bottom dated Aug 17, 2012 ITC Issues Public Version of Opinion In Certain Mobile Telephones And Wireless Communication Devices Featuring Digital Cameras (337-TA-703) Posted On: August 17, 2012 by: Eric Schweibenz and Lindsay Kile Topics: Commission Opinions Further to our July 23, 2012 post, on August 10, 2012, the International Trade Commission (the “Commission”) issued the public version of its opinion finding no violation of Section 337 in Certain Mobile Telephones and Wireless Communication Devices Featuring Digital Cameras, and Components Thereof (Inv. No. 337-TA-703). By way of background, the Complainant in this investigation is Eastman Kodak Company (“Kodak”). The Respondents are Apple Inc. (“Apple”) and Research in Motion, Ltd. and Research in Motion Corp. (collectively, “RIM”). On January 24, 2011, former Chief ALJ Paul J. Luckern issued an Initial Determination (“ID”) finding no violation of Section 337. See our March 18, 2011 post for more details. On June 30, 2011, the Commission issued a notice determining to affirm-in-part, reverse-in-part, and remand-in-part the ID. See our July 6, 2011 and August 8, 2011 posts for more details. After remand, the investigation was reassigned to ALJ Pender. On May 21, 2012, ALJ Pender issued a Remand Initial Determination (“RID”) finding no violation of Section 337. Specifically, ALJ Pender determined that the Apple iPhone 3G and the accused RIM products infringed claim 15 of U.S. Patent No. 6,292,218 (the ‘218 patent) and that the accused Apple iPhone 3GS and iPhone 4 did not infringe claim 15 of the ‘218 patent under the doctrine of equivalents. In addition, ALJ Pender determined that claim 15 of the ‘218 patent was invalid for obviousness in view of a Japanese patent application to Mori (“Mori”) and a U.S. patent to Parulski (“Parulski”). See our July 2, 2012 post for more details. Kodak, Apple, RIM, and the Commission Investigative Staff (“OUII”) each filed petitions for review of various portions of ALJ Pender’s RID. OUII, Apple, and RIM filed responses to Kodak’s petition. OUII and Kodak filed responses to Apple’s and RIM’s petitions. After considering the ID, RID, and the parties’ briefing, the Commission determined to review the RID in-part. Specifically, the Commission determined to review ALJ Pender’s finding of infringement by the accused RIM products and the Apple iPhone 3G. The Commission also determined to review ALJ Pender’s finding that claim 15 is invalid as obvious in view of Mori and Parulski. The ‘218 patent is directed to a digital camera with an LCD screen that enables images to be previewed in real time. Claim 15 of the ‘218 patent, the sole claim at issue in this investigation, recites such a camera, generally comprising of an image sensor, a motion processor, a color display, a capture button, a still processor, and a digital memory. Infringement The Commission’s analysis as to infringement focused on its previous claim construction finding that the two processors recited in claim 15, the motion processor and the still processor, could share circuitry but could not have total overlap. Regarding RIM’s accused devices, ALJ Pender previously determined that although these accused products’ processors shared some circuitry, they were in-fact distinct. Although the Commission disagreed with the ALJ’s analysis as to the distinctness of certain components, overall, it affirmed ALJ Pender’s finding of infringement, determining that even though some components of the RIM products’ processors were shared, each included enough unique components so as to be sufficiently distinct for purposes of claim 15. Similarly, as to the accused Apple iPhone 3G, ALJ Pender determined that the iPhone 3G’s motion processor and still processor shared some circuitry, but, for purposes of claim 15, were distinct. The Commission affirmed this finding, determining that even though some components of the iPhone 3G’s processors were shared, each included enough unique components so as to be sufficiently distinct. Thus, the Apple iPhone 3G infringed claim 15. Invalidity As to invalidity, in the RID, ALJ Pender determined that claim 15 was rendered obvious by Mori in view of Parulski, finding no objective indicia of nonobviousness. Though it ultimately agreed with ALJ Pender’s finding of invalidity, the Commission disagreed with the ALJ’s determination as to the existence of objective indicia of nonobviousness. Specifically, ALJ Pender reasoned in the RID that no such indicia need be substantively considered because Kodak had not established a sufficient nexus between the ‘218 patent and its licensing program. The Commission reversed this analysis, finding that Kodak did in fact show the required nexus, but ultimately determining that even with the objective indicia in mind, claim 15 was obvious for the reasons set forth in the ID and RID. Having affirmed ALJ Pender’s determination that claim 15 is invalid for obviousness, the Commission also upheld ALJ Pender’s ultimate finding of no violation of Section 337, and terminated the investigation. www.itcblog.com/20120817/itc-issues-public-version-of-opinion-in-certain-mobile-telephones-and-wireless-communication-devices-featuring-digital-cameras-337-ta-703-2/
|
|
|
Post by forkodak on Dec 15, 2012 13:19:22 GMT -5
Has anyone gone to see the on going Kodak appeal of 218, is it open to the public? Maybe the arguments have lead people to think one way or another in regard to how the court might rule. For some reason we seem to have people lining up to loan Kodak money and Apple stock has dropped to around $500 bucks...
|
|
doji3333
Junior Member
Step Away From The Keyboard Slowly
Posts: 230
|
Post by doji3333 on Dec 15, 2012 13:46:03 GMT -5
Has anyone gone to see the on going Kodak appeal of 218, is it open to the public? Maybe the arguments have lead people to think one way or another in regard to how the court might rule. For some reason we seem to have people lining up to loan Kodak money and Apple stock has dropped to around $500 bucks... Apple is going lower. A friend just contacted me with a new target of $402 for the immediate few weeks.
|
|
|
Post by Admin on Dec 15, 2012 13:48:04 GMT -5
I agree DOJ!
I saw a segment on Bloomberg and they said that the component suppliers said that the demand for components is dropping.
Once $500 is breached, it will drop like a rock as those who invested earlier will want to lock in the profits they made by getting earlier.
SBG
|
|
|
Post by forkodak on Dec 15, 2012 14:15:01 GMT -5
I agree DOJ! I saw a segment on Bloomberg and they said that the component suppliers said that the demand for components is dropping. Once $500 is breached, it will drop like a rock as those who invested earlier will want to lock in the profits they made by getting earlier. SBG Is Bloomberg trying to give cover for the real reason Apple stock is dropping with the story about component sales? Maybe Apple stock appreciated to a 52 week high of $705.07 from a 52 week low of $380.48 based in part on Kodak and its’ failing legal claims and now is correcting as new rulings appear to be near.
|
|
|
Post by newyorkled2008 on Dec 15, 2012 14:19:52 GMT -5
Has anyone gone to see the on going Kodak appeal of 218, is it open to the public? Maybe the arguments have lead people to think one way or another in regard to how the court might rule. For some reason we seem to have people lining up to loan Kodak money and Apple stock has dropped to around $500 bucks... Fork, that item from December 10 was I believe merely a docket filed. I do not believe it was in person, since reading the docket I can't imagine it having been carried out that way.
|
|
|
Post by forkodak on Dec 15, 2012 14:38:33 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by forkodak on Dec 15, 2012 14:40:25 GMT -5
Found this from the above link to be interesting;
Re: US SYSTEM has a FEDERAL APPEALS COURTpro4.kodak by pro4.kodak . Aug 25, 2012 9:45 AM . Permalink .>>>"appeal can only rule on application of law or procedure. "<<&...
>>>"appeal can only rule on application of law or procedure. "<<<
WRONG!
In a patent case before the Federal Appellate court, the entire case will be RE heard.
The JUSTICES will look at the FACTS from a different perspective than that of a Jury of NON experts from N. California.
The Federal Appellate court assigns cases based upon content, and there are EXPERT Justices that mainly hear patent cases.
Apple may still prevail on a few utility patents, but there is little chance that the design patents will hold up in front of the Appellate court.
What is at stake is a BAN on current Samsung products!!!
I think there is a high probability that the current Judge will issue a ban.
1)The question is whether the Appellate court will issue cancel the ban pending the outcome of the appeal?
2) If the Appellate court does allow Samsung to continue to sell, HOW large a bond will Samsung be forced post?
|
|
|
Post by forkodak on Dec 15, 2012 14:44:40 GMT -5
What I find interesting and hopeful is that according to Pro's post the court will rehear the case and make a determination based on its own knowledge and expertise... Not on Pender's Luckner's or others rulings…
|
|
|
Post by plees on Dec 15, 2012 14:50:04 GMT -5
We see no evidence of this yet do we? For Kodak vs ITC re 218
|
|
|
Post by forkodak on Dec 15, 2012 15:29:38 GMT -5
I assumed Kodak was just appealing the ruling that 218 was ruled invalid but perhaps the court will also look at what products infringe on 218 if they find it to be a valid patent. The big money would happen if they issued a DOE I think is the term, doctrine of equivalence… Cut to the chase and say any of these devices with a camera weather a tablet or phone infringe; maybe they would do this since both Apple and RIM seem to be trying to release new products in attempt to drag the legal case out and avoid possible infringement…
Does anyone have documents on what the court is considering in regard to 377-TA-703 --- 218 is also filed as one of 5 patents in 377-TA-831...
|
|
|
Post by newyorkled2008 on Dec 15, 2012 15:41:18 GMT -5
<< STATEMENT OF THE ISSUE Whether the Commission erred in finding no violation of 19 U.S.C. § 1337 on the sole basis that the asserted patent claim would have been obvious and is therefore invalid under 35 U.S.C. § 103. >>>
|
|
|
Post by forkodak on Dec 15, 2012 15:46:28 GMT -5
I have to read and re-read lawyer speak to get a grasp; but I still don't know the scope of the appeal and its possible outcomes.
|
|
|
Post by newyorkled2008 on Dec 15, 2012 15:51:19 GMT -5
Just shot you a PM fork.
|
|