By Eric SchweibenzOn February 13 and February 15, 2013, ALJ David P. Shaw issued Order No. 104 and the public version of Order No. 70 (dated September 19, 2012), respectively, in Certain Wireless Devices with 3G Capabilities and Components Thereof (Inv. No. 337-TA-800).
According to Order No. 70, Respondents Nokia Corp. and Nokia Inc. (collectively, “Nokia”) filed a motion for an order compelling complainants InterDigital Communications, LLC, InterDigital Technology Corporation, and IPR Licensing’s (collectively, “InterDigital”) to answer interrogatories and produce documents relating to: 1) InterDigital’s licensing negotiations and 2) products embodying any claims of the patents-in-suit. Additionally, InterDigital filed a cross-motion to compel the production of information relating to Nokia’s licensing activities and FRAND defenses. Both parties asserted that they have agreed to provide the requested information.
ALJ Shaw held that the parties should immediately produce the requested information because it was unclear whether the parties have complied with their assurances. As to Nokia’s request for answers to interrogatories and documents relating to products embodying any claims of the patents-in-suit, ALJ Shaw denied Nokia’s motion because the actual products were not relevant to InterDigital’s assertion of a license-based domestic industry. Accordingly, ALJ Shaw granted-in part Nokia’s motion and granted InterDigital’s cross-motion.
According to Order No. 104, non-parties Qualcomm Inc., Iain Finlay, James Hutchinson, Yan Liu, and Ming-Chieh Kuo (collectively, “Movants”) filed a motion to quash InterDigital’s subpoenas ad testificandum or, in the alternative, permit the Movants to testify by video. Movants asserted that the subpoenas place an undue burden on them because they were not served until shortly before the hearing commenced. ALJ Shaw granted Movants’ motion by permitting Movants to testify by video.