15
Feb
By Eric Schweibenz
On February 14, 2013, ALJ David P. Shaw issued Order Nos. 22–25 in Certain Products Containing Interactive Program Guide And Parental Control Technology (Inv. No. 337-TA-845).

In Order No. 22, ALJ Shaw denied non-party Apple Inc.’s (“Apple”) motion to quash the subpoena duces tecum and the subpoena ad testificandum (“subpoenas”) issued at the request of complainants Rovi Corporation, Rovi Guides, Inc., Rovi Technologies Corporation, Starsight Telecast, Inc., United Video Properties, Inc., and Index Systems, Inc. (collectively, “Rovi”).  Apple argued that the subpoenas were “unduly burdensome and vastly overbroad.”  In opposition, Rovi asserted that the information sought in the subpoenas was highly relevant and narrowly tailored to minimize the burden on non-party Apple.  ALJ Shaw held that Apple failed to prove that the potential hardship of the subpoenas outweighed the relevance and need of the discovery sought.  Accordingly, ALJ Shaw denied Apple’s motion.

In Order No. 23, ALJ Shaw granted-in-part non-party Sony Corporation of America’s (“Sony”) motion to quash the subpoenas issued at the request of Respondent Netflix, Inc. (“Netflix”).  Sony argued that the subpoenas were unduly burdensome, vastly overbroad, sought information of little relevance, and were improperly directed at non-party Sony when Rovi should have the same information.  In opposition, Netflix averred that the discovery Netflix sought was highly relevant and necessary for its patent misuse defense.  ALJ Shaw determined that Sony failed to prove that the potential hardship of the subpoenas outweighed the relevance and need of the discovery sought.  However, ALJ Shaw determined that Rovi was in a better position to produce some of the documents sought in Netflix’s discovery request.  Therefore, ALJ Shaw granted-in-part Sony’s motion.

In Order No. 24, ALJ Shaw denied non-party Amazon.com’s (“Amazon”) motion to quash the subpoenas issued at the request of Rovi.  Amazon argued that the subpoenas should be quashed in their entirety or, alternatively, should be limited to providing Rovi with source code to certain devices.  In opposition, Rovi asserted that the information sought in the subpoenas was highly relevant and narrowly tailored to minimize the burden on non-party Amazon.  ALJ Shaw held that Amazon failed to prove that the potential hardship of the subpoenas outweighed the relevance and need of the discovery sought.  Accordingly, ALJ Shaw denied Amazon’s motion.

In Order No. 25, ALJ Shaw denied non-party Google Inc.’s (“Google”) motion to quash the subpoenas issued at the request of Rovi.  Google argued that the subpoenas “can only be understood as an eleventh hour fishing expedition that should be quashed in toto.”  Specifically, Google asserted that the subpoenas are irrelevant, duplicative, overly broad, and unreasonably burdensome.  In opposition, Rovi averred that they have significantly narrowed the scope of the discovery request.  Further, Rovi argued that the information sought in the subpoenas relates to Google’s Google TV application, which is directly relevant to the investigation.  ALJ Shaw held that Google failed to prove that the potential hardship of the subpoenas outweighed the relevance and need of the discovery sought.  Accordingly, ALJ Shaw denied Google’s motion.
Share