By Eric Schweibenz
On August 27, 2013 ALJ David P. Shaw issued Order No. 61 in Certain Electronic Devices, Including Wireless Communication Devices, Tablet Computers, Media Players, And Televisions, And Components Thereof (Inv. No. 337-TA-862).

According to the Order, Respondents Samsung Electronics America, Inc.; Samsung Telecommunications America LLC; and Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. (collectively, “Samsung”) filed a motion to strike portions of the initial expert report of Dr. Vijay Madisetti submitted by Complainants Ericsson, Inc. and Telefonaktiebolaget LM Ericsson (collectively, “Ericsson”).  Specifically, Samsung argued that the Dr. Madisetti’s initial expert report expanded the technology at issue to include WiFi technology.  Furthermore, Samsung asserted that Ericsson was attempting to add new accused products and infringement theories for existing accused products.

In opposition, Ericsson argued that Samsung’s motion was moot because they have already supplemented their interrogatory responses.  Furthermore, Ericsson asserted that Samsung has not been prejudiced because their rebuttal expert report fully addressed Dr. Madisetti’s report.

ALJ Shaw determined that Samsung did not show that Ericsson failed to provide contention interrogatory responses in a timely manner.  Additionally, any prejudice suffered by Samsung was cured by Samsung’s rebuttal expert reports addressing the alleged new accused products and infringement.  Accordingly, ALJ Shaw denied Samsung’s Motion to Strike.