By Eric Schweibenz
On August 29, 2012, ALJ David P. Shaw issued the public version of Order No. 15 (dated August 22, 2012) denying complainants LSI Corporation and Agere Systems Inc.’s (collectively, “LSI”) motion to compel respondents Funai Electric Company, Ltd., Funai Corporation, Inc., P&F USA, Inc., and Funai Service Corporation (collectively, “Funai”) to supplement certain interrogatory responses and other discovery requests in Certain Audiovisual Components and Products Containing the Same (Inv. No. 337-TA-837).

According to the Order, LSI argued that Funai improperly withheld discovery on accused products other than those incorporating components purchased from MediaTek Inc., MediaTek USA Inc., MediaTek Wireless, Inc. (USA), Ralink Technology Corporation, Ralink Technology Corporation (USA), or Ralink Semiconductor Corporation (collectively, “co-respondents”), and that discovery should not be so limited.  Funai responded that LSI’s discovery requests are improper because the seek information beyond the scope of the investigation as defined by the notice of investigation and the amended complaint, the latter of which limits accused products to those that incorporate co-respondents’ components.

ALJ Shaw agreed with Funai that LSI limited the scope of accused products when it identified the co-respondents as Funai’s “component suppliers” in the amended complaint, and further noted that no other component supplier was cited in the amended complaint.  Thus, the motion was denied.