20
May
By Eric Schweibenz
On May 18, 2011, Chief ALJ Paul J. Luckern issued Order No. 13 in Certain Wireless Communication Devices, Portable Music And Data Processing Devices, Computers and Components Thereof (Inv. No. 337-TA-745).

According to the Order, ALJ Luckern granted non-party Siemens Corporation’s (“Siemens Corp.”) motion to quash a subpoena duces tecum and ad testificandum issued by ALJ Luckern at the request of Respondent Apple Inc. (“Apple”).

In support of its motion, Siemens Corp. argued that it “neither participated in the relevant standard setting organizations nor engaged in any licensing activities relevant to the patents that are the subject of this investigation, which were the only grounds stated in Apple’s application for the subpoena at issue.”  Apple opposed Siemens Corp’s motion and argued that “while Siemens [Corp.] claims the         [s]ubpoena is overbroad and it will be unduly burdened if forced to comply, it did not submit any declaration asserting facts to support its claim.”  In further support of its motion, Siemens Corp. moved for leave to file a reply brief.  ALJ Luckern granted Siemens Corp.’s motion for leave.  Siemens Corp.’s reply brief included a declaration from Frank J. Nuzzi, Senior IP Counsel, IP Litigation for Siemens.  Mr. Nuzzi’s declaration stated, among other things, that (i) Siemens Corp.’s business does not include the development of standard setting technology for the mobile telecommunications described in Apple’s subpoena; (ii) Siemens Corp. is not a participant in setting technical standards for the wireless telecommunications technology described in Apple’s subpoena; (iii) Siemens Corp. does not have access to, possession of, or custody or control over the types of documents sought by Apple’s subpoena that may be in the possession of Siemens AG; and (iv) Siemens AG will not voluntarily provide Siemens Corp. with Siemens AG documents in response to Apple’s subpoena since Siemens AG and Siemens Corp. are separate entities.

Accordingly, ALJ Luckern granted Siemens Corp.’s motion to quash.
Share