09
Dec
By Eric Schweibenz
On December 8, 2009, ALJ Carl C. Charneski issued the public version of Order No. 16 (dated November 19, 2009) granting in part a motion to compel filed by Respondents Vizio, Inc. and AmTran Technology (collectively, “Respondents”) in Certain Digital Televisions and Certain Products Containing Same and Methods of Using Same (Inv. No. 337-TA-617).

In support of their motion to compel, Respondents argued that Complainants Funai Electric Co. and Funai Corporation, Inc. (collectively, “Funai”) failed to provide substantive responses to certain interrogatories propounded by Respondents in the instant enforcement proceeding.  According to the Order, the subject interrogatories fell into four categories, and Funai provided insufficient responses relating to two of these categories: (i) interrogatories seeking the basis for Funai’s allegations made in its enforcement complaint that Respondents knowingly submitted false and incomplete information to persuade U.S. Customs to rule that the redesigned products, which are the subject of the enforcement proceeding, are outside the scope of the exclusion order issued by the ITC in the underlying investigation; and (ii) interrogatories seeking the basis for Funai’s allegations in its enforcement complaint that U.S. Customs ignored Commission findings and disregarded the record in making its ruling with respect to the redesigned products.

Regarding the first category of interrogatories, ALJ Charneski determined that Funai’s original responses were insufficient and that in its amended responses “Funai need not provide a detailed infringement analysis of the Redesigned Products, which would have to be based on information that is only now coming to light through discovery,” but rather, Funai “need only set forth the non-privileged information they had, at the time that the Enforcement Complaint was filed, for the allegations made in the complaint.”

With respect to the second category of interrogatories, ALJ Charneski determined that Funai’s original responses were insufficient and that in its amended responses “Funai need only provide the non-privileged information that it had to support the statements made in its Enforcement Complaint.”

In the Order, ALJ Charneski determined that Funai’s amended responses to these two categories of interrogatories were due on November 25, 2009.
Share