By Eric Schweibenz
On September 5, 2012, ALJ Thomas B. Pender issued Order No. 21 in Certain Electronic Devices with Communication Capabilities, Components Thereof, and Related Software (Inv. No. 337-TA-808).  In the Order, ALJ Pender granted Complainant HTC Corp.’s (“HTC”) motion to strike portions of Respondent Apple Inc.’s (“Apple”) pre-hearing brief.

In support of its motion, HTC sought an order striking exhibits 1-8 of Apple’s pre-hearing brief in light of Ground Rule 9.2 which (i) requires pre-hearing briefs to be “a complete, stand-alone document,” and (ii) warns against using attachments to the pre-hearing brief “to bypass the page limit of the pre-hearing brief.”  HTC (supported by the Commission Investigative Attorney) argued that Apple relegated many of its obviousness contentions solely to its attachments.

According to the Order, ALJ Pender determined that despite Apple’s arguments to the contrary, “[t]he claim charts attached to Apple’s pre-hearing brief do not summarize [ ] information; rather they provide the substance of Apple’s contentions.”  Accordingly, ALJ Pender granted HTC’s motion finding that exhibits 1-8 of Apple’s pre-hearing brief improperly bypass the page limit of Apple’s pre-hearing brief.