ALJ Rogers Denies Motion For Summary Determination In Certain Printing And Imaging Devices (337-TA-690)
On June 24, 2010, ALJ Robert K. Rogers, Jr. issued the public version of Order No. 24 (dated April 21, 2010) in Certain Printing and Imaging Devices and Components Thereof (Inv. No. 337-TA-690) denying Complainants Ricoh Company, Ltd., Ricoh Americas Corporation, and Ricoh Electronics, Inc.’s (collectively, “Ricoh”) motion for summary determination that Ricoh met the economic prong of the domestic industry requirement.
In support of its motion, Ricoh asserted that it satisfied the economic prong of the domestic industry requirement through its significant investments in plant and equipment, significant employment of labor or capital, and substantial investment in the exploitation of the asserted patents. Respondents Oki Data Corporation and Oki Data Americas, Inc.’s (collectively “Oki Data”) opposed the motion arguing that genuine issues of material fact remained in dispute. Specifically, Oki Data argued that the motion improperly relied on declarations provided after the close of fact discovery and that Ricoh failed to provide necessary deductive steps to demonstrate that the claimed investments actually related to the asserted domestic products, and not to other products. Oki Data’s response also included a cross-motion to preclude Ricoh from relying on the late-produced discovery. The Commission Investigative Staff filed a response opposing the motion, arguing that the information Ricoh relied on was previously requested by Oki Data and that Ricoh should not be rewarded for withholding information relating to its alleged domestic activities.
According to the Order, ALJ Rogers held that genuine issues of material facts remained in dispute regarding whether or not Ricoh’s investments meet the standards required and that summary determination is therefore inappropriate. In this regard, ALJ Rogers concluded that that the domestic industry allegations in Ricoh’s motion were not adequately specific to determine whether or not the investments are significant, and that the evidence in support of the motion must have been produced on or before the dates set in the procedural schedule for discovery. ALJ Rogers declined to rule on Oki Data’s cross-motion, and noted that the issue would be more properly considered in a motion in limine and/or high priority objection after the parties have exchanged proposed evidentiary hearing exhibits.
* Bryan Dobbs is a summer associate at Oblon Spivak.
