Earlier in July, Administrative Law Judge Clark S. Cheney (ALJ) recommended that the Commission issue a general exclusion order and various cease-and-desist orders following Brother’s complaint to the USITC.
Aster responded to the initial determination (ID) of Administrative Law Judge Clark S. Cheney, requesting that its newly designed cartridges specifically get excluded from any of the GEOs, LEOs or CDOs issued by the USITC.
Aster said in its statement: “Were the ID to be adopted without making clear that Aster’s Newly Designed Products are outside the scope of any remedial orders, the parties’ agreement regarding the new designs would be nullified against their wishes and the exclusion of Aster’s Newly Designed Products would adversely affect competitive conditions in the United States economy by depriving United States consumers of non-infringing toner cartridge product choices.”
Aster states that “there is nothing in the ID reflecting or appreciating the significance of the Joint Stipulation or the Agreement Aster executed with Brother with regard to Aster’s new designs.”
Within days of Aster issuing the statement to the USITC, Brother responded with a motion to strike Aster Graphics, Inc.’s statement. Brother requests that “the Commission strike Respondent Aster Graphic’s Statement on the Public Interest (“Aster’s PI Statement”) (EDIS Doc ID 717995) for failure to comply with Commission Rule 210.50.”
Brother states: “Aster’s PI Statement, which alleges that the ALJ made an “error” and seeks a carve-out for certain of its products from the recommended General Exclusion Order (“GEO”), is an impermissible petition for review of the ID/RD, rather than a true public interest statement under Commission Rule 210.50(a)(4)(i).”
Brother also corrected in its motion that it has not stipulated that Aster’s new designs do not infringe, but that “the Newly Designed Products “will not be covered by any
remedial order that issues in this Investigation” and that Brother “will not argue or otherwise contend” that the Newly Designed Products infringe the Asserted Patent Claims in this Investigation—a stipulation Brother made solely “to avoid litigating certain issues relating to certain products in this Investigation and to streamline this Investigation.”
