By Eric Schweibenz
On August 29, 2012, ALJ David P. Shaw issued the public version of Order No. 37 (dated July 17, 2012) denying Complainants InterDigital Communications, LLC, InterDigital Technology Corporation, and IPR Licensing’s (collectively, “InterDigital”) motion to compel in Certain Wireless Devices With 3G Capabilities and Components Thereof (Inv. No. 337-TA-800).

According to the Order, InterDigital argued that Respondents Huawei Technologies Co., Ltd. and Futurewei Technologies, Inc. (collectively, “Huawei”) improperly limited the scope of discovery to accused devices planned for importation prior to the evidentiary hearing, and withheld discovery on accused devices planned for importation during the pendency of the investigation but after the hearing.  Hence, InterDigital sought an order compelling Huawei to (1) identify all 3G-capable devices already imported, intended or planned for importation, or likely to be imported during the pendency of the investigation; and (2) produce source code and responsive documents as to each identified device.  Huawei responded that it has already agreed to provide discovery for all products that it is likely to import in the future, and that it is not aware of any products likely to be imported after the evidentiary hearing for which it refused to provide discovery.

ALJ Shaw found that Huawei appeared to be complying with its discovery obligations and therefore denied the motion.