- ALJ Pender Grants Motion To Show Cause In Certain Cases For Portable Electronic Devices (337-TA-861/867)
- February 14, 2014 | Authors: Lisa M. Mandrusiak; John F. Presper
- Law Firm: Oblon, Spivak, McClelland, Maier & Neustadt, L.L.P. - Alexandria Office
On February 10, 2014, ALJ Thomas B. Pender issued Order No. 24 granting Complainant Speculative Product Design, LLC’s (“Speck”) motion for an order to show cause why Respondents Global Digital Star Industry, Ltd. (“Global”) and SW-Box.com (“SW-Box”) should not be found in default in Certain Cases For Portable Electronic Devices (Inv. No. 337-TA-861/867).
By way of background, this investigation was based on a complaint filed by Speck against proposed Respondents Body Glove, Anbess Electronics Co. Ltd., Fellowes, Inc., ROCON Digital Technology Corp., SW-Box, Trait Technology (Shenzhen) Co., Ltd., Hongkong Wexun Ltd., En Jinn Industrial Co. Ltd., Shengda Huanqiu Shijie, Global, JWIN Electronics Corp. d/b/a iLuv, Project Horizon, Inc. d/b/a InMotion Entertainment, Superior Communications, Inc. d/b/a PureGear, and Jie Sheng Technology. Speck asserted U.S. Patent No. 8,204,561 (the ‘561 patent) in the complaint, and alleged that its CandyShell line of phone cases, sold in the U.S., practice one or more claims of the ‘561 patent.
According to the Order, Speck moved for an order directing Global and SW-Box to show cause why each should not be found in default for failure to respond to the Complaint and Notice of Investigation. Similar motions have been filed and withdrawn previously for various reasons. The Office of Investigative Staff filed a response in support of Speck’s motion.
ALJ Pender found that Speck satisfied the conditions of Commission Rule 210.16(a)(1) for both SW-Box and Global. Even though Global refused to accept the shipment containing the Complaint, ALJ Pender held that the “receiver” was aware of the package’s existence, citing Certain Products Advertised as Containing Creatine Ethyl Ester, Inv. No. 337-TA-679, Order No. 5 at 2-3 (Sept. 2, 2009) for the proposition that refusal to accept service indicates that the Respondent received the Complaint and Notice of Investigation, and thus had adequate notice of the investigation. Speck provided proof of service to SW-Box. Since neither SW-Box nor Global has responded to the Complaint and Notice of Investigation, has otherwise appeared, or has demonstrated an intent to participate in the investigation, Speck’s motion was granted. As such, both Global and SW-Box were ordered to show cause why they should not be held in default by February 20, 2014.