By Eric Schweibenz
On April 2, 2009, ALJ Theodore R. Essex issued a Notice regarding the public version of his initial determination in Certain Computer Products, Computer Components and Products Containing Same (337-TA-628).  In the notice, ALJ Essex rejected the private parties’ redactions as being “inappropriate” and inconsistent with the definition of “Confidential Business Information” (“CBI”) as set forth in 19 C.F.R. § 201.6 (a)(1).

By way of example, ALJ Essex focused on two proposed redactions in particular.  First, complainant IBM sought to redact one of its legal arguments relating to claim construction, which the ALJ noted was not redacted in IBM’s public version of its initial post hearing brief.  Second, IBM sought to redact the ALJ’s claim construction ruling in the initial determination.  ALJ Essex determined that both of the redactions requested were inappropriate because neither of the items to be redacted disclosed any CBI.

ALJ Essex ordered the private parties to resubmit their proposed redactions prior to his issuance of a public version of the initial determination.  While ALJ Essex referenced the two aforementioned proposed redactions because they clearly did not qualify as CBI, he required the private parties to thoroughly reevaluate their proposed redactions and further stated that “ALL proposed redactions should be accompanied by a detailed explanation as to why the proposed redaction fits within the above definition of confidential business information defined in 19 C.F.R. § 201.6(a)(1) and Order No. 1.  Any redactions that are not found to fit within the definition of CBI will be released to the public.” (Emphasis in original).