By Eric Schweibenz
On December 3, 2013, ALJ David P. Shaw issued Order No. 30 in Certain Digital Media Devices, Including Televisions, Blu-Ray Disc Players, Home Theater Systems, Tablets and Mobile Phones, Components Thereof and Associated Software (Inv. No. 337-TA-882).

According to the Order, Non-party Amazon Digital Services, Inc. (“Amazon”) filed a motion to quash the subpoena duces tecum and ad testificandum issued by Complainant Black Hills Media, LLC (“BHM”).  In addition to opposing the motion, BHM filed a cross-motion for a recommendation that the ALJ certify a request to the Commission for enforcement of the subpoena.  In support of its Motion to Quash, Amazon asserted that the identified Amazon Cloud Player software does not include the functionality required by the asserted patents.  In opposition, BHM argued that Amazon’s substantive argument is not relevant to the discovery dispute and is “simply wrong.”

ALJ Shaw determined that Amazon’s argument that its products do not practice the asserted claims of the patents-at-issue does not insulate it from discovery.  ALJ Shaw noted that subsequent updates to Amazon’s Motion to Quash have indicated that Amazon has agreed to produce certain documents.  ALJ Shaw held that the parties remaining discovery dispute regarding “usage data” was not briefed in the pending motions and, if it remains a live dispute, the parties should raise the issue in separate motions.  Accordingly, ALJ Shaw denied Amazon’s Motion to Quash and BHM’s Cross-motion.