By Eric Schweibenz
On January 20, 2012 ALJ Thomas B. Pender issued Order No. 21 in Certain Wireless Communication Devices and Systems, Components Thereof, and Products Containing Same (337-TA-775) denying Respondents Apple Inc., Hewlett-Packard Company, Aruba Networks, Inc., Meru Networks, and Ruckus Wireless’s (collectively, “Respondents”) motion to compel the production of documents and testimony from Complainant Linex Technologies, Inc. (“Linex”).

By way of background, the investigation is based on a May 6, 2011 complaint filed by Linex alleging violation of Section 337 in the importation into the U.S. and sale of certain products and components that infringe U.S. Patent Nos. 6,757,322 and RE42,219.  See our May 10, 2011 post for more details.

According to the Order, Respondents sought documents and testimony from Linex sufficient to establish the figures and factors used to calculate the licensing-based expenses on which Linex intends to rely to establish a domestic industry or, alternatively, to preclude Linex from presenting evidence of any licensing-based expenses for which it has not provided a basis for its calculation.  Respondents also sought to preclude Linex from relying on any expenses that were disclosed after the November 2, 2011 contention interrogatory response deadline.  The Commission Investigative Staff supported the motion to the extent that supplemental information Linex indicated it intended to provide did not render the motion moot.

ALJ Pender denied the motion, noting that Respondents failed to identify the pertinent document requests or deposition topics in contravention of Ground Rule 3.5.  The ALJ also found that while Respondents attached a notice of deposition to their motion, they failed to identify the deposition topics for which the witness was designated.  Further, while Respondents’ motion stated that their contention interrogatories on the issue of domestic industry include Apple Inc.’s Interrogatory Nos. 46, 47, 61, 72-75 and 77-78, Respondents failed to attach Linex’s responses to these interrogatories except for Interrogatory No. 46, which ALJ Pender pointed out is not a contention interrogatory.  Thus, Respondents provided no basis to preclude Linex from relying on expenses disclosed after the contention interrogatory response deadline.