By Eric Schweibenz
On March 3, 2010, ALJ E. James Gildea issued Order No. 11 in Certain Ceramic Capacitors and Products Containing Same (Inv. No. 337-TA-692) denying Respondents Samsung Electro-Mechanics Co., Ltd. and Samsung Electro-Mechanics America, Inc.’s (collectively “Samsung”) motion for leave to supplement their notice of prior art.

According to the Order, Samsung’s motion sought to add 57 additional prior art references that “it was unable to timely identify…because they were in obscure journals that took additional time to locate.”  Complainants Murata Manufacturing Co., Ltd. and Murata Electronics North America, Inc. (collectively “Murata”) opposed Samsung’s motion on the grounds that Samsung failed to explain why it could not have located the additional references prior to the February 4, 2010 deadline.  The Commission Investigative Staff did not oppose Samsung’s motion for leave.

In the Order, ALJ Gildea determined that even though Murata did not argue that it would be significantly prejudiced by the supplementation, “the motion turns on Samsung’s reasons for supplementation.”  Specifically, ALJ Gildea found that Samsung here “does not show the requisite good cause.”  The Order noted that Samsung’s one page motion attached “no affidavits or other evidence to show that it searched with diligence, or to support its conclusory statement that the additional references were obscure,” and “[u]nsworn attorney argument is not evidence.”