May 24, 2012

International Trade Commission Finds No Violation In Inv. 337-TA-692

McDermott Will & Emery
Blair M. Jacobs
Robert J. Walters
Christopher L. May
Christina A. Ondrick
McDermott Will & Emery
Monday, April 25, 2011
Administrative & Regulatory / Intellectual Property
All Federal / All International
Printer-friendly
Email this Article
Download PDF
Reprints & Permissions

On April 22, the Commission issued a final determination of no violation in Inv. No. 337-TA-692, Certain Ceramic Capacitors and Products Containing Same, and terminated the investigation.  The Commission's final determination resulted from a February 23 determination to review ALJ Gildea's December 22, 2009 initial determination finding no violation of Section 337 by Respondents Samsung Electro-Mechanics Co., Ltd. and Samsung Electro-Mechanics, Inc. with respect to U.S. Patent No. 6,266,229.  The Commission did not review the ALJ's determination that there was no violation of the remaining two patents, U.S. Patent Nos. 6,014,309 and 6,243,254.

In its final determination, the Commission reversed the ALJ's finding that the '229 patent was not obvious over the asserted prior art, and found that the applicant admitted prior art did constitute prior art against the '229 patent.  A public version of the Commission's determination will be published shortly.  

© 2012 McDermott Will & Emery

About the Author

Blair M. Jacobs
Partner

Blair M. Jacobs is a partner in the law firm of McDermott Will & Emery LLP and is based in the Firm’s Washington, D.C., office.  He focuses his practice on intellectual property litigation and related antitrust disputes before federal district courts, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit and the U.S. International Trade Commission (ITC).    

bjacobs@mwe.com
202-756-8199
www.mwe.com

About the Author

Robert J. Walters
Partner

Robert J. Walters is a partner in the law firm of McDermott Will & Emery LLP and is based in the Firm’s Washington, D.C. office.    Rob focuses his practice on intellectual property litigation and counseling on intellectual property matters.  He is an experienced trial attorney and has successfully represented both plaintiffs and defendants in numerous state and federal jury trials, in Section 337 actions at the ITC and before appellate courts in intellectual property cases.  Rob has represented clients in a wide...

rwalters@mwe.com
202-756-8138
www.mwe.com

Contributors

Christopher L. May
Associate

Christopher L. May is an associate in the law firm of McDermott Will & Emery LLP and is based in the Firm’s Washington, D.C., office.  He focuses his practice on patent and trademark litigation.  Christopher is also an adjunct professor at Michigan State University where he teaches a course on general intellectual property. 

cmay@mwe.com
202-756-8321
www.mwe.com

About the Author

Christina A. Ondrick
Partner

Christina A. Ondrick is a partner in the law firm of McDermott Will & Emery LLP and is based in the Firm’s Washington, D.C. office.  Christina focuses her practice on litigation and counseling relating to intellectual property, including patent, copyright, trademark, trade secret, unfair competition and antitrust matters.  She has represented major corporations in cases and matters involving optical, electrical, chemical, mechanical and medical-related technologies.  Christina has experience in all phases of litigation and has been involved in multiple jury...

condrick@mwe.com
202-756-8384
www.mwe.com

Boost: AJAX core statistics

Legal Disclaimer

You are responsible for reading, understanding and agreeing to the National Law Review's (NLR’s) and the National Law Forum LLC's  Terms of Use and Privacy Policy before using the National Law Review website. The National Law Review is a free to use, no-log in database of legal and business articles. The content and links on www.NatLawReview.com are intended for general information purposes only. Any legal analysis, legislative updates or other content and links should not be construed as legal or professional advice or a substitute for such advice. No attorney-client or confidential relationship is formed by the transmission of information between you and the National Law Review website or any of the law firms, attorneys or other professionals or organizations who include content on the National Law Review website. If you require legal or professional advice, kindly contact an attorney or other suitable professional advisor.  

Some states have laws and ethical rules regarding solicitation and advertisement practices by attorneys and/or other professionals. NLR does not accept advertising from attorneys or law firms. The National Law Review is not a law firm nor is www.NatLawReview.com  intended to be an advertisement or a referral service for attorneys and/or other professionals. The NLR does not wish, nor does it intend, to solicit the business of anyone or to refer anyone to an attorney or other professional.  NLR does not answer legal questions nor will we refer you to an attorney or other professional if you request such information from us. 

Under certain state laws the following statements may be required on this website and we have included them in order to be in full compliance with these rules. The choice of a lawyer or other professional is an important decision and should not be based solely upon advertisements. Attorney Advertising Notice: Prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome. Statement in compliance with Texas Rules of Professional Conduct. Unless otherwise noted, attorneys are not certified by the Texas Board of Legal Specialization, nor can NLR attest to the accuracy of any notation of Legal Specialization or other Professional Credentials.