By Eric SchweibenzOn March 21, 2013, ALJ David P. Shaw issued Order No. 79 denying Respondents Funai Electric Co., Ltd., Funai Corporation, Inc., P&F USA, Inc., Funai Service Corporation, and Realtek Semiconductor Corporation’s (collectively, “Respondents”) motion to strike certain portions of Complainants LSI Corporation and Agere Systems LLC’s (collectively, “Complainants”) rebuttal expert reports in Certain Audiovisual Components and Products Containing the Same (Inv. No. 337-TA-837).
According to the Order, Respondents argued that Complainants consistently took the position that there were no secondary considerations of nonobviousness with respect to any of the asserted patents. However, after the filing of Respondents’ initial expert reports, Complainants’ experts took a diametrically opposite position, offering opinions and evidence concerning secondary considerations of nonobviousness in their rebuttal expert reports, and directly contradicting the testimony of Complainants’ corporate witness on this subject.
ALJ Shaw determined that an order granting the relief requested by Respondents was not warranted. Specifically, ALJ Shaw noted that “[t]he fact that the opinions proffered by Complainants’ experts regarding secondary considerations of nonobviousness may be contradicted by the testimony of Complainants’ corporate witness is not a reason to strike the opinions, but is rather an indication of the persuasive value of the opinions.” Accordingly, ALJ Shaw denied Respondents’ motion.