According to the Order, ALJ Essex granted a joint motion filed by Complainant Microsoft Corporation (“Microsoft”) and Respondents Barnes & Noble, Inc. and barnesandnobile.com (collectively, “B&N”) to terminate the investigation based on a settlement agreement.  After reviewing the confidential and non-confidential versions of the agreement, ALJ Essex granted the motion filed by Microsoft and B&N.

In the Order, ALJ Bullock determined that the evidentiary hearing will commence on October 29, 2012.  The Initial Determination is due on March 8, 2013 and the target date for completing the investigation is July 8, 2013 (which is approximately fifteen months after institution of the investigation).

According to the Order, ALJ Essex granted a motion filed by Complainant Microsoft Corporation (“Microsoft”) to terminate the investigation based on Microsoft’s withdrawal of allegations in its amended complaint against Inventec Corporation (“Inventec”).  More specifically, Microsoft argued that in light of its settlement with Respondents Barnes & Noble, Inc. and barnesandnobile.com, Microsoft’s claims against Inventec are moot.  The Commission Investigative Staff filed a response in support of Microsoft’s motion.  Accordingly, ALJ Essex granted Microsoft’s motion.

According to the Order, on April 17, 2012, Samsung filed a motion for leave to serve a second supplemental expert report regarding infringement and domestic industry relating to U.S. Patent No. 7,486,644.  The next day, Apple filed a motion to strike the report in its entirety.  Both Samsung and Apple opposed the respective motions.

After considering the arguments, ALJ Gildea determined to deny both motions finding the competing filings to be a “waste of public and private resources and time.”  In particular, the ALJ stated that if Apple “failed to timely disclose the contentions underlying [its expert’s] rebuttal opinions, then the appropriate response here would be a motion to strike the offensive portions of the report in issue rather than engage in a Ping-Pong exchange of amended expert opinions on the eve of the evidentiary hearings.”

Accordingly, ALJ Gildea indicated that he will consider such a motion if promptly filed by Samsung.

According to the Order, Vizio argued that Curtis should be found in default because Curtis had failed to comply with a previous order in which ALJ Bullock had granted a motion to compel responses to Vizio’s requests for admission and to compel production of a Curtis witness for deposition.  See our April 2, 2012 post for more details.  Vizio further argued that a finding of default was appropriate because Curtis had completely failed to participate in the investigation since the time that its counsel withdrew on January 30, 2012.

Curtis opposed Vizio’s motion.  Curtis contended that, contrary to Vizio’s representations, Curtis has participated and is participating in the investigation.  According to Curtis, “after conducting a search for counsel, Curtis is again represented by counsel in this Investigation and can participate in a conventional manner.”  Curtis also argued that Vizio should not be permitted to benefit from “its silence and lack of communication” while Curtis was conducting its search for counsel.  Finally, Curtis argued that it should not be found in default because it is now amenable to scheduling a corporate deposition and responding to Vizio’s requests for admission.

The Commission Investigative Staff (“OUII”) also opposed Vizio’s motion.  OUII argued that “the extreme sanction of default judgment against Curtis is not appropriate at this time” but that “alternative sanctions exist that are sufficient to remedy Curtis’ failure to comply with its discovery obligations.”  OUII therefore argued that ALJ Bullock should impose non-monetary sanctions for Curtis’ failure to cooperate in discovery and to participate in the investigation.

After considering the arguments, ALJ Bullock determined to deny Vizio’s motion but to impose certain non-monetary sanctions against Curtis.  ALJ Bullock found that “it appears that Curtis intends to resume participating in this Investigation” and that default judgment was not appropriate under the circumstances.  However, the ALJ also determined that “Curtis’ selective participation and blatant disregard for its discovery obligations will not be condoned.”  Accordingly, ALJ Bullock ordered that Curtis shall:  (1) not be permitted to introduce into evidence or otherwise rely upon testimony by any Curtis witnesses in support of its position in the investigation; (2) not be heard to object to introduction and use of secondary evidence to show what the withheld admission, testimony, documents, or other evidence would have shown; and (3) be precluded from submitting any expert reports.

According to the Order, ALJ Shaw set August 19, 2013 as the target date (which is approximately 16 months after institution of the investigation).  ALJ Shaw further indicated that the initial determination on alleged violation shall be due on April 19, 2013.

In Order No. 15, ALJ Gildea granted a joint motion filed by Complainant Walker Digital, LLC (“Walker Digital”) and Respondent Philips Electronics North America Corp. (“Philips”) to terminate the investigation based on a settlement agreement.  After reviewing the confidential and non-confidential versions of the agreement, ALJ Gildea granted the motion filed by Walker Digital and Philips.

In Order No. 16, ALJ Gildea granted a joint motion filed by Walker Digital and Respondent Orion America, Inc. (“Orion”) to terminate the investigation based on a settlement agreement.  After reviewing the confidential and non-confidential versions of the agreement, ALJ Gildea granted the motion filed by Walker Digital and Orion.

The Investigation remains pending against several other Respondents.

In the Order, ALJ Rogers granted a motion filed by Respondent Digital Spectrum Solutions, Inc. (“DSI”) to terminate the investigation based on the entry of a consent order.  DSI represented that it contacted all of the remaining parties in this investigation and that no party opposed its motion.  Accordingly, ALJ Rogers granted the motion. 

The Investigation remains pending against other respondents.

By way of background, the Complainant in this matter is Kaneka Corporation of Japan and the Respondents are SKC Kolon PI, Inc. of South Korea and SKC Inc. of Covington, Georgia (collectively, “SKC”).

According to the notice, ALJ Rogers determined that there is no violation of Section 337 by SKC in this investigation with respect to U.S. Patent Nos. 6,264,866, 6,746,639, 7,018,704, and 7,691,961. 

The notice issued by ALJ Rogers released only the conclusions of law in the ID.  We will provide additional information after the public version of the ID issues in its entirety.

In the Order, ALJ Pender denied Respondents Mazda, Hyundai, and Kia’s motion to recover costs for a cancelled deposition, denied Respondents’ motion requesting that the ALJ issue a show cause order directed to Complainant Beacon Navigation GmbH (“Beacon”), and granted an unopposed motion to withdrawal.

According to the Order, Respondents Mazda, Hyundai, and Kia moved to recover travel expenses and attorney costs associated with preparing a witness to testify after Beacon, the noticing party, canceled a deposition two days before it was set to occur.  Because Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 30(g), on which Respondents relied, only provides for recovery “if the noticing party failed to: (1) attend and proceed with the deposition; or (2) serve a subpoena on a nonparty deponent, which consequently did not attend,” the ALJ denied Respondents’ motion to recover costs. 

With respect to Respondents’ motion for a show cause order, on April 20, 2012, Respondents requested that ALJ Pender issue an order “pursuant to Commission Rule 210.4(d)(1)(ii) directing Beacon and its counsel to: (1) identify all licenses that Beacon and its counsel are currently aware of and knew of at the time the complaint was filed; (2) provide details of Beacon’s pre-filing investigation; and (3) to show cause why Beacon did not violate Commission Rule 210.4(c) by only identifying MiTAC as a licensed entity.”  The ALJ determined that an order to show cause was rendered moot by Beacon’s motion to terminate the investigation (see our May 8, 2012 post for more details regarding Beacon’s motion to terminate) and, accordingly, denied the motion.

Lastly, ALJ Pender granted counsel for Saab’s unopposed motion to withdrawal.