By John Presper
On May 7, 2013, ALJ David P. Shaw issued the public versions of Order No. 67 (dated February 27,2013) and Order No. 71 (dated March 5, 2013) in Certain Audiovisual Components and Products Containing the Same (Inv. No. 337-TA-837).

According to Order No. 67, Respondents Funai Corporation, Inc., Funai Electric Co., Ltd., P&F USA, Inc., Funai Service Corporation (collectively, "Funai") moved for summary determination that certain accused products do not infringe the patents asserted by Complainants LSI Corporation and Agere Systems LLC's (collectively, "Complainants") on the grounds that none of Complainants' experts alleges that those products infringe.  Specifically, Funai argued that it identified over 200 products as "accused products" in its interrogatory responses, but that Complainants' experts provide the bases of Complainants' infringement contentions for only 39 of these products.  Complainants did not dispute this, but countered that Funai's motion is a "premature and improper attempt to prevent Complainants from obtaining and utilizing evidence procured from third parties."  As an initial matter, ALJ Shaw found that the majority of the Funai products listed in its motion are not identified in the parties' joint statement of accused products (a joint filing required by the procedural schedule that indicates the final extent of Complainants' accusations in the investigation), and thus have not been accused of infringement.  Of the products listed in Funai's motion that do appear in the parties' joint filing, Funai argued that Complainants' experts provided no infringement opinions for ten of them.  The ALJ agreed, and also rejected Complainants' argument that sufficient time remains in the procedural schedule to receive additional evidence from third parties.  Accordingly, the motion was granted-in-part.

According to the Order No. 71, Complainants moved for summary determination that over 200 Funai "downstream" products and seven accused "upstream" products of Respondent Realtek Semiconductor Corporation ("Realtek") satisfied the importation requirements of Section 337(a)(1)(B).  Because none of the Funai products listed in Complainants' statement of facts supporting the motion were identified in the parties' joint statement of accused products, ALJ Shaw denied the motion for summary determination as to these products.  Regarding the seven Realtek products at issue in the motion, the ALJ found that only five were identified in the parties' joint statement of accused products, and denied the motion as to the other two products.  Of those five products, Realtek did not oppose a finding that some of them have been imported into the U.S., but for at least one of those products argued that Complainants did not cite any evidence that it has in fact been imported.  ALJ Shaw agreed with Realtek as to that product.  Accordingly, Complainants' motion was granted-in-part.