By Eric Schweibenz
On April 22, 2011, Chief ALJ Paul J. Luckern issued the public version of Order No. 14 (dated April 5, 2011) denying Complainant AGNC Corporation’s (“AGNC”) motion for sanctions in Certain Components For Installation Of Marine Autopilots With GPS Or IMU (Inv. No. 337-TA-738).

By way of background, ALJ Luckern had granted AGNC’s motion to compel Respondents Navico Holding AS, Navico UK, Ltd. and Navico Inc. (collectively, “Navico”) to provide responses to certain interrogatories and to produce files relating to and including source code for the accused autopilot products in Order No. 12 (see our March 7, 2011 post for more details).

AGNC sought sanctions against Navico for allegedly failing to supplement its interrogatory responses as required by Order No. 12.  Specifically, AGNC argued that Navico’s production of over 275,000 pages of source code and a letter identifying certain ranges that pertained to certain accused products and other ranges that pertained to earlier versions of source code did not comply with Order No. 12 because the letter (1) “is not verified and not useable in deposition or at the hearing;” (2) does not “identify or describe the software modules, routines, algorithms, functions, or other source code or software used in guiding a boat to a waypoint;” and (3) contains no description of “steering information” or “information received from the navigator,” and does not describe how the source code uses “inputs from compasses and rate gyros.”  Navico responded that it had in fact complied with the order, pointing out that AGNC did not object to the production until approximately one month later, that Navico promptly provided a verified version of the letter when AGNC requested it, and that AGNC obtained detailed deposition testimony from two corporate witnesses on the software Navico produced.  The Commission Investigative Staff opposed the motion, arguing that AGNC suffered no prejudice that would justify sanctions, and that AGNC’s motion “appeared to be an attempt by complainant to obtain an additional deposition to discover differences between Navico’s current products and prior art products in relation to a summary determination motion.”

After reviewing Navico’s letter, Navico’s verified supplemental interrogatory responses, and the deposition testimony provided by the parties, ALJ Luckern denied the motion.