By Eric Schweibenz
On July 8, 2010, Chief ALJ Paul J. Luckern issued the public version of Order No. 26 (dated June 7, 2010) in Certain DC-DC Controllers and Products Containing the Same (Inv. No. 337-TA-698) denying (1) Respondent uPI Semiconductor Corporation’s (“uPI”) motion to compel further testimony of Complainants Richtek Technology Corp. and Richtek USA, Inc.’s (“Richtek”) employee James Liu regarding his conversations with one of Richtek’s anticipated testifying experts, and (2) Richtek’s motion to compel uPI to respond to a certain interrogatory by identifying the start and completion dates for each stage of the product design and development process for each of uPI’s Power Management IC Products.  The Commission Investigative Staff opposed both motions.

Regarding uPI’s motion, ALJ Luckern determined that uPI had the opportunity to depose Liu on his knowledge of Richtek’s trade secrets and measures to protect Richtek’s trade secrets during the four days he testified in April 2010.  ALJ Luckern further determined that uPI was scheduled to depose Richtek’s expert and to the extent that uPI sought testimony regarding any information communicated from Liu to the expert, such expert could be questioned about it at the upcoming deposition.

With respect to Richtek’s motion, ALJ Luckern determined that uPI had provided sufficient responses to Richtek’s interrogatory.  Specifically, ALJ Luckern determined that uPI (i) provided supplemental responses, including a chart that provided information for each of the over eighty subject DC-DC controllers, regulators and converters, (ii) identified for Richtek the documents in which additional date information could be found, and (iii) produced a witness on a deposition topic which mirrors the information sought in the subject interrogatory.

Accordingly, ALJ Luckern denied both of the motions to compel filed by Richtek and uPI.