Elan Microelectronics Corporation v. Apple, Inc.

Filing 79

Declaration of Sean P. DeBruine in Support of Motion to Stay Pending Final Determination by the ITC of Investigation No 337-TA-714 re 78 filed byElan Microelectronics Corporation. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A, # 2 Exhibit B, # 3 Exhibit C, # 4 Exhibit D, # 5 Exhibit E) (DeBruine, Sean) (Filed on 4/27/2010) Modified on 4/28/2010 (bw, COURT STAFF).

Download PDF
Exhibit A UNITED STATES INTERNATIONAL TRADE COMMISSION Washington, D.C. 20436 In the Matter of CERTAIN ELECTRONIC DEVICES WITH MULTI-TOUCH ENABLED TOUCHPADS AND TOUCHSCREENS Inv. No. 337-TA-714 NOTICE OF INVESTIGATION AGENCY: U.S. International Trade Commission ACTION: Institution of investigation pursuant to 19 U.S.C. 1337 SUMMARY: Notice is hereby given that a complaint was filed with the U.S. International Trade Commission on March 29, 2010, under section 337 of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended, 19 U.S.C. 1337, on behalf of Elan Microelectronics Corporation of Taiwan. A letter supplementing the complaint was filed on April 16, 2010. The complaint alleges violations of section 337 based upon the importation into the United States, the sale for importation, and the sale within the United States after importation of certain electronic devices with multi-touch enabled touchpads and touchscreens by reason of infringement of certain claims of U.S. Patent No 5,825,352. The complaint further alleges that an industry in the United States exists as required by subsection (a)(2) of section 337. The complainant requests that the Commission institute an investigation and, after the investigation, issue an exclusion order and a cease and desist order. ADDRESSES: The complaint, except for any confidential information contained therein, is available for inspection during official business hours (8:45 a.m. to 5:15 p.m.) in the Office of the Secretary, U.S. International Trade Commission, 500 E Street, S.W., Room 112, Washington, D.C. 20436, telephone 202-205-2000. Hearing impaired individuals are advised that information on this matter can be obtained by contacting the Commission's TDD terminal on 202-205-1810. Persons with mobility impairments who will need special assistance in gaining access to the Commission should contact the Office of the Secretary at 202-205-2000. General information concerning the Commission may also be obtained by accessing its internet server at http://www.usitc.gov. The public record for this investigation may be viewed on the Commission's electronic docket (EDIS) at http://edis.usitc.gov. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Aarti Shah, Esq., Office of Unfair Import Investigations, U.S. International Trade Commission, telephone (202) 205-2657. AUTHORITY: The authority for institution of this investigation is contained in section 337 of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended, and in section 210.10 of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure, 19 C.F.R. 210.10 (2010). SCOPE OF INVESTIGATION: Having considered the complaint, the U.S. International Trade Commission, on April 23, 2010, ORDERED THAT (1) Pursuant to subsection (b) of section 337 of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended, an investigation be instituted to determine whether there is a violation of subsection (a)(1)(B) of section 337 in the importation into the United States, the sale for importation, or the sale within the United States after importation of certain electronic devices with multi-touch enabled touchpads or touchscreens that infringe one or more of claims 1, 2, 4, 7, 10, 12, 14, 16, 18, 19, 21, 24, 26, and 30 of U.S. Patent No. 5,825,352, and whether an industry in the United States exists as required by subsection (a)(2) of section 337; (2) For the purpose of the investigation so instituted, the following are hereby named as parties upon which this notice of investigation shall be served: (a) The complainant is: Elan Microelectronics Corporation No. 12, Innovation 1st Road Science Based Industrial Park Hsinchu Taiwan 308 Taiwan (b) The respondent is the following entity alleged to be in violation of section 337, and is the party upon which the complaint is to be served: Apple Inc. 1 Infinite Loop Cupertino, California 95014 (c) The Commission investigative attorney, party to this investigation, is Aarti Shah, Esq., Office of Unfair Import Investigations, U.S. International Trade Commission, 500 E Street, S.W., Suite 401, Washington, D.C. 20436; and (3) For the investigation so instituted, the Honorable Paul J. Luckern, Chief Administrative Law Judge, U.S. International Trade Commission, shall designate the presiding Administrative Law Judge. 2 Responses to the complaint and the notice of investigation must be submitted by the named respondent in accordance with section 210.13 of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure, 19 C.F.R. 210.13. Pursuant to 19 C.F.R. 201.16(d)-(e) and 210.13(a), such responses will be considered by the Commission if received not later than 20 days after the date of service by the Commission of the complaint and the notice of investigation. Extensions of time for submitting responses to the complaint and the notice of investigation will not be granted unless good cause therefor is shown. Failure of the respondent to file a timely response to each allegation in the complaint and in this notice may be deemed to constitute a waiver of the right to appear and contest the allegations of the complaint and this notice, and to authorize the administrative law judge and the Commission, without further notice to the respondent, to find the facts to be as alleged in the complaint and this notice and to enter an initial determination and a final determination containing such findings, and may result in the issuance of an exclusion order or a cease and desist order or both directed against the respondent. By order of the Commission. /s/ Marilyn R. Abbott Secretary to the Commission Issued: April 23, 2010 3

Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.


Why Is My Information Online?