Search Results for keywords:"complaint amendment"

Found 4 results
Skip to main content

Search Results: keywords:"complaint amendment"

  • Type:Notice
    Citation:90 FR 12174
    Reading Time:about 3 minutes

    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.

    Simple Explanation

    The U.S. International Trade Commission decided not to make a big fuss over a judge letting a company named Maxell add more complaints about another company, Samsung, that they say copied some of their ideas. The judge said adding these wasn’t a big deal since Samsung already knew about them, and nobody asked to change the judge’s mind, so everything stays as is.

  • Type:Notice
    Citation:89 FR 97068
    Reading Time:about 4 minutes

    The U.S. International Trade Commission decided not to review an initial ruling that allows JBS Hair, Inc. to amend its complaint to include JMS Trading Corp. as a new respondent. This investigation involves allegations of patent infringement related to certain pre-stretched synthetic braiding hair. The original complaint, filed by JBS Hair, claims violations of the Tariff Act due to the importation and sale of these products. Despite requests from some respondents to extend deadlines, the judge found no prejudice in adding JMS Trading and upheld the decision without changes to the schedule.

    Simple Explanation

    The government is letting a hair company add another company to their complaint about a problem with fake hair, and the judges are okay with this because they think it won't mess up the schedule.

  • Type:Notice
    Citation:86 FR 9535
    Reading Time:about 2 minutes

    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.

    Simple Explanation

    There was a mix-up with names, so a complaint about fake eyelash products was updated to use the correct company names. Now, the investigation to see if those companies copied someone's idea can continue!

  • Type:Notice
    Citation:90 FR 8717
    Reading Time:about 3 minutes

    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.

    Simple Explanation

    Imagine a big group of grown-ups called the U.S. International Trade Commission decided not to change their mind about a rule made by a judge, which lets a company add new complaints about some other companies' gadgets that might have copied their ideas. This helps everyone save time and effort by sorting out all the problems at once.