By Eric Schweibenz
On October 27, 2010, ALJ Robert K. Rogers, Jr. issued the public version of Order No. 25 (dated September 29, 2010) in Certain Notebook Computer Products and Components Thereof (Inv. No. 337-TA-705), granting-in-part Complainant Toshiba Corporation’s (“Toshiba”) motion for summary determination regarding importation.

According to the Order, Toshiba argued in its motion that Respondents Wistron Corporation, Wistron InfoComm (Texas) Corporation, and Wistron InfoComm Technology (America) Corporation’s (collectively, “Wistron”) imports accused notebook computers, and that by selling certain computers outside the United States, such sales constituted  a “sale for importation,” when the computer purchasers imported those computers to the United States.  Wistron responded that solely the Acer Aspire 4810T identified by Toshiba in its Complaint was properly part of this investigation, and that as an original equipment manufacturer in China, it has no involvement in the importation and/or sale for importation of the accused products into the United States.  The Commission Investigative Staff (“OUII”) supported Toshiba’s motion, noting that statements in Wistron’s verified response to the Complaint, as well as statements in the Joint Stipulation of Contested Issues support a finding that the importation requirement is met.

After considering the parties’ arguments, ALJ Rogers granted Toshiba’s motion as to Wistron’s HP G60 product, whose importation Wistron did not contest.  ALJ Rogers further rejected Wistron’s argument that because the HP G60 product was not identified in Toshiba’s complaint, it was not properly part of this investigation.  ALJ Rogers determined it was part of the investigation because the HP G60 is within the scope of the Notice of Investigation, and Toshiba had provided timely notice through discovery that it accused the HP G60 of infringement.  As to other accused products, ALJ Rogers determined there was a genuine issue of material fact whether Wistron’s sales of accused products outside the U.S. constitute a “sale for importation,” in view of evidence from Wistron claiming it has no knowledge regarding the ultimate destination of such products.