On December 27, 2012, ALJ David P. Shaw issued the public version of Order No. 45 (dated October 11, 2012) granting-in-part Funai Electric Co., Ltd., Funai Corporation, Inc., P&F USA, Inc., Funai Service Corporation, MediaTek Inc., MediaTek USA Inc., MediaTek Wireless, Inc. (USA), Ralink Technology Corporation, Ralink Technology Corporation (USA), and Realtek Semiconductor Corporation’s (collectively, the “Respondents”) motion to compel in Certain Audiovisual Components and Products Containing the Same (Inv. No. 337-TA-837).
According to the Order, Respondents filed a motion seeking an order compelling Complainants LSI Corporation and Agere Systems LLC (collectively, “Complainants”) to produce information relating to Complainants’ domestic industry allegations. Specifically, Respondents sought (1) the spreadsheet used to derive information contained in Complainants’ amended complaint and (2) all “teardown reports” of Funai products accused of infringing the patents-in-suit.
In opposition, Complainants argued that spreadsheet and teardown reports are protected by the attorney-client privilege and work product doctrine. Further, Complainants asserted that it not necessary for the Complainants to produce the spreadsheet itself because Complainants “have produced or are in the process of producing all the underlying data that is contained in the spreadsheet at issue.” Regarding the teardown reports, Complainants argued that they are relying on the amounts expended to produce the teardown reports, not the information contained in the teardown reports. Therefore, Complainants asserted that Respondents’ requested information is unnecessary because Complainants “are producing spreadsheets that detail their reverse engineering expenses and expenditures.”
ALJ Shaw held that Complainants must produce (1) all data underlying the spreadsheet, and (2) all information related to the reverse engineering expenses related to the teardown reports. Accordingly, ALJ Shaw granted-in-part Respondents’ motion to compel.