• ALJ Bullock Denies Request For Oral Argument Regarding Spansion’s Motion For Sanctions In Certain Flash Memory Chips (337-TA-893)
  • February 18, 2015 | Author: Eric W. Schweibenz
  • Law Firm: Oblon, McClelland, Maier & Neustadt, L.L.P. - Alexandria Office
  • On January 5, 2015, Chief ALJ Charles E. Bullock issued Order No. 74 in Certain Flash Memory Chips and Products Containing Same (Inv. No. 337-TA-893).

    By way of background, the investigation is based on a complaint filed by Spansion LLC ("Spansion") alleging violation of Section 337 by Macronix International Co., Ltd.; Macronix America, Inc.; Macronix Asia Ltd.; Macronix (Hong Kong) Co., Ltd.; Acer Inc.; Acer America Corporation; ASUSTek Computer Inc.; Asus Computer International (America); Belkin International, Inc.; D-Link Corporation; D-Link System, Inc.; Netgear Inc.; Nintendo Co., Ltd.; and Nintendo of America, Inc. in the importation into the U.S. and sale of certain flash memory chips and downstream products containing the same that infringe one or more claims of U.S. Patent Nos. 6,369,416; 6,900,124; 7,018,922; 6,459,625; 7,151,027; and 6,731,536. See our August 5, 2013 and September 9, 2013 posts for more details on the complaint and Notice of Investigation, respectively.

    According to the Order, ALJ Bullock denied Respondents Macronix International Co., Ltd.; Macronix America, Inc.; Macronix Asia Limited; Macronix (Hong Kong) Co., Ltd.'s request for oral argument in connection with a motion for sanctions filed by Spansion. See our December 17, 2014 post for more information on Order No. 63 in this investigation. Specifically, Macronix opposed Spansion's motion for sanctions and requested oral argument noting that "[t]he plethora of Spansion's issues and arguments - many of which Macronix contends are inaccurately presented - necessitates an opportunity for Macronix to fully defend itself if the court has any inclination to issue any sanctions." In the Order, ALJ Bullock denied the request for oral argument and determined that Macronix "has not articulated good cause for oral argument" and the "motion appears to have been fully briefed by all sides and scheduling argument will create further delays in this Investigation."