20
Apr
By Barry Herman
On April 16, 2009, ALJ Robert K. Rogers, Jr. issued Order No. 7 denying a motion filed by respondents Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd., Samsung Electronics America, Inc., and Samsung Telecommunications America, LLP (“Samsung”) to amend the Notice of Investigation (“Notice”) and limit the scope of the investigation to Certain Camcorders and Wireless Telephones with Keypads.  Complainant Saxon Innovations, LLC and the Commission Investigative Staff opposed the motion.

According to the order, Samsung argued that the current Notice makes broad infringement claims against an unidentified range of Samsung’s “electronic devices” but that Saxon’s complaint only provided specific infringement allegations for two Samsung products -- a wireless telephone with a keypad and a camcorder.  Samsung argued that Saxon’s complaint only alleged a nexus between the asserted patents and two categories of Samsung products, and thus the scope of the investigation should be limited to those products.  Samsung argued that Saxon’s complaint failed to comply with Commission Rule 210.12.

Saxon argued that Samsung was inappropriately attempting to limit discovery in the investigation and that it had complied with the Commission’s pleading requirements.  The Staff agreed with Saxon that the complaint met the requirements of Commission Rule 210.12 and that there were alternative procedural protections available to Samsung if it believed Saxon’s discovery requests were overly burdensome.

In denying the motion, ALJ Rogers found that Samsung had not demonstrated good cause needed to amend the Notice.  He found that Saxon was not required to include its full, detailed infringement allegations in the complaint and that “Samsung provides no support for the proposition that the complaint must lay out infringement contentions for every product that Saxon accuses of infringement.”  ALJ Rogers also found that Saxon’s complaint complied with Commission Rule 210.12.

ALJ Rogers noted that his denial of the motion should not be interpreted as permission for Saxon to refuse to disclose its detailed infringement allegations during discovery, and that Saxon “will need to identify the full range of Samsung products that it believes infringe the asserted patents and the specific claims it believes are infringed by those products.”
Share



Copyright © 2019 Oblon, McClelland, Maier & Neustadt, L.L.P.