28
Aug
By Eric Schweibenz
On August 28, 2009, the International Trade Commission issued a notice denying an application filed by Finnegan, Henderson, Farabow, Garrett & Dunner LLP (“Finnegan”) for review of an August 6 order issued by ALJ E. James Gildea denying Finnegan’s motion to intervene for the purpose of enforcing the terms of a retainer agreement in Certain Cold Cathode Fluorescent Lamp (“CCFL”) Inverter Circuits and Products Containing the Same (Inv. No. 337-TA-666).

As we explained in our August 7 post, the retainer agreement at issue is between Finnegan and Melvin Ray Mercer and was entered into on behalf of Finnegan’s clients in a prior litigation, Sony Corporation, Sony EMCS Corporation, and Sony Electronic Inc. (collectively, “Sony”).
Finnegan represents respondents Monolithic Power Systems, Inc., ASUSTeK Computer Inc., and ASUS Computer International America (collectively, “MPS and ASUS”) in the investigation.  Finnegan argued that Mercer has a conflict of interest that prevents him from serving as a technical consultant to Complainants 02 Micro International Ltd. and 02 Micro Inc. (collectively, “O2 Micro”).  Mercer was retained by Finnegan to assist the firm in defending Sony in a patent infringement lawsuit in the Eastern District of Texas regarding three patents that, although different than the patent asserted in the investigation, share the same specification with the asserted patent.  Finnegan argued that Mercer was privy to Finnegan’s work product that is potentially applicable to defenses that MPS and ASUS may assert in this investigation, and that O2 Micro was seeking to gain an unfair advantage by gaining access to that work product.

After ALJ Gildea denied Finnegan’s motion to intervene, Finnegan filed an application for Commission review on July 24.  On July 31, O2 Micro and the Commission Investigative Staff filed oppositions to Finnegan’s application for review.

According to the August 28 notice, the “Commission has determined to deny Finnegan’s application for Commission review of Order No. 15, finding no error by the ALJ.”