ALJ Charneski Denies Motion To Preclude Expert Testimony In Certain Digital Televisions (337-TA-617)
On May 24, 2010, ALJ Carl C. Charneski issued the public version of Order No. 21 (dated January 21, 2010) in connection with the enforcement proceeding in Certain Digital Televisions and Certain Products Containing Same and Methods of Using Same (Inv. No. 337-TA-617). The Order denied Complainants Funai Electric Co., Ltd. and Funai Corporation, Inc.’s (collectively, “Funai”) motion to preclude Respondents Suzhou Raken Technology Ltd. (“Raken”) and Top Victory Investments, Ltd. (“TVI”) from offering expert testimony regarding the validity of the patent-in-suit.
In support of its motion, Funai argued that Raken and TVI should be precluded under the law of the case doctrine and the doctrine of claim preclusion from offering expert testimony. In that regard, Funai asserted that the issue of validity of the patent-in-suit “was already definitively litigated in the original investigation and the Commission confirmed the validity of the [patent-in-suit].” In opposition to the motion, Raken asserted that it was not a party to the underlying infringement proceeding and thus, had a right to challenge the validity of the patent-in-suit. The Commission Investigative Staff filed an opposition to the motion. TVI did not file a response.
In the Order, ALJ Charneski found that Raken was not party to the underlying investigation because (i) the majority of Raken’s interest was owned by a non-party to the underlying investigation and (ii) Raken was formed after completion of the hearing in underlying investigation. ALJ Charneski further found that Funai failed to demonstrate that allowing Raken to put on an invalidity case would result in undue prejudice to Funai. Accordingly, ALJ Charneski denied Funai’s motion.
