Search Results for keywords:"administrative law judge"

The Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) issued an order to revoke Maria Dewitt's registration to handle controlled substances because she lacks the necessary authorization in Texas. Dewitt did not have a required prescriptive authority delegation agreement with a physician, which is essential for an advanced practice registered nurse in Texas to manage controlled substances. The administrative law judge upheld this decision, noting that without state authorization, Dewitt could not maintain her DEA registration. Consequently, her registration was revoked, and any further applications for registration in Texas were denied.

The U.S. International Trade Commission decided not to review an initial decision made by an administrative law judge. This decision allowed Skyworks Solutions to amend a complaint by adding additional patent claims in an ongoing investigation into certain wireless devices suspected of infringing several U.S. patents. The investigation initially began on August 22, 2024, and involves several companies, including Kangxi Communication Technologies and D-Link Corporation. The Commission agreed that addressing these additional claims would conserve resources and serve the public interest.

The U.S. International Trade Commission (ITC) decided not to review an initial determination by an administrative law judge that allowed Cree Lighting to amend its complaint in an ongoing investigation. The complaint concerns alleged patent infringement by RAB Lighting related to light-emitting diode products. As part of the amendment, Cree added one claim to their complaint and withdrew three others. The Commission believes handling all relevant claims in a single investigation is in the public interest.

The U.S. International Trade Commission has decided not to review a ruling by the administrative law judge allowing changes to a complaint in an investigation concerning artificial eyelash extension systems. The original complaint by Lashify, Inc. claimed that certain products were imported or sold in the U.S., infringing on some of their patents. The investigation originally named CVS Health Corporation and Ulta Beauty, Inc. as respondents, but the ruling allows substituting them with CVS Pharmacy, Inc. and Ulta Salon, Cosmetics & Fragrance, Inc. This decision means the investigation will proceed with these updated parties, and authority for this determination comes from the Tariff Act of 1930.

The U.S. International Trade Commission decided not to review a decision made by an administrative law judge, which allowed Maxell, Ltd. to change their complaint in an investigation to include additional patent infringement claims against Samsung Electronics. Maxell argued that a previous oversight meant these claims were not initially included, and the judge agreed, noting that Samsung would not be significantly harmed because they were already aware of the claims. Samsung opposed the change, saying Maxell did not follow the correct procedure initially. No petitions to review the judge's decision were filed, and the Commission voted on March 10, 2025, to accept it without further review.

The U.S. International Trade Commission reviewed a decision by an administrative law judge that found no violation of section 337 by several electronic device companies accused of patent infringement by Ericsson. After investigating, the Commission agreed with the judge's decision that there was no violation, mainly because the patent claims were either invalid or withdrawn. This means the investigation is now closed, and there was no wrongdoing found by the companies involved. The decision was finalized on January 16, 2025.

The U.S. International Trade Commission reviewed an investigation regarding the importation and sale of certain photovoltaic connectors, which allegedly infringed on specific patent claims. Initially, there was a finding of a violation of section 337 of the Tariff Act concerning the '153 patent. However, upon review, the Commission reversed this finding, determining that there was no violation due to the accused products not satisfying the necessary patent claims. The investigation has been concluded with no violation found.

The U.S. International Trade Commission decided not to review an initial decision by an administrative law judge to terminate an investigation regarding certain hydrodermabrasion systems. This decision came after HydraFacial LLC requested to withdraw its complaint, which accused several companies of patent infringement. The involved companies did not oppose this withdrawal. The authority for this decision is section 337 of the Tariff Act of 1930.

The U.S. International Trade Commission has decided not to review an initial decision to terminate an investigation into certain surface cleaning devices after a settlement was reached between the parties involved, which include SharkNinja Operating LLC and Dyson, Inc. This decision is based on the fact that the settlement aligns with public interest by saving resources and not adversely affecting the public. The investigation, initially launched in June 2024 over patent infringement allegations, is thus terminated following this settlement agreement, with no requests for review submitted. This resolution relies on the authority given under section 337 of the Tariff Act of 1930 and the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure.

The Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) has revoked the DEA Certificate of Registration for Dr. Shiva Akula after finding that he is not authorized to handle controlled substances in Louisiana, as his medical license is suspended and his controlled substances license is lapsed. The decision follows a Motion for Summary Disposition by the DEA, which Dr. Akula did not respond to, and a recommendation from the Administrative Law Judge supporting the revocation. Consequently, Dr. Akula is also denied any pending applications to renew or modify the registration. This decision was signed by DEA Administrator Anne Milgram and will take effect on January 29, 2025.