By Eric Schweibenz
On August 29, 2012, ALJ Thomas B. Pender issued Order No. 12 in Certain Dimmable Compact Fluorescent Lamps and Products Containing Same (Inv. No. 337-TA-830).

According to the Order, respondent U Lighting America, Inc. (“ULA”) moved for a determination that the information regarding conception and reduction to practice contained in Complainants Neptun Light, Inc. and Andrzej Bobel’s (collectively, “Neptun”) supplemental responses to ULA’s Interrogatory Nos. 13 and 40 did not contain confidential business information as defined in 19 C.F.R. § 201.6(a).  ULA argued that Neptun did not explain why its responses contain confidential business information pursuant to 19 C.F.R. § 201.6(a) or how its competitive position might be substantially harmed as a result of disclosure.  In opposition, Neptune acknowledged that ULA is only trying to declassify the verified information provided in Neptun’s supplemental responses, not the underlying lab notebook of the inventor that formed the basis of those responses, stating that “[t]he information at issue is pertinent to whether the ‘082 reference is, or is not prior art, as well as causes substantial competitive harm to Neptun as explained by Mr. Bobel in his declaration.”  However, Mr. Bobel’s Declaration Justifying the Confidentiality of Complainant’s [sic] Laboratory Notebook and Contents Thereof” merely stated that “[t]he proposed redactions in Exhibit A, [Neptun’s supplemental responses to ULA Interrogatories 13 and 40,] I also consider to contain proprietary information.”  Finding that Neptune failed to clearly set forth the basis for its assertion that the supplemental responses contain confidential business information, ALJ Pender granted ULA’s motion.