By Eric Schweibenz
On January 22, 2014, ALJ Theodore R. Essex issued the public versions of Order Nos. 88 and 89 (dated January 10, 2014 and January 15, 2014, respectively) in Certain Wireless Devices with 3G and/or 4G Capabilities and Components Thereof (Inv. No. 337-TA-868).

According to Order No. 88, Respondents Samsung Electronics Co. Ltd. and Samsung Telecommunications America, LLC (collectively, “Samsung”) filed a motion to strike various portions of Complainants InterDigital Communications, Inc.; InterDigital Technology Corporation; IPR Licensing, Inc.; and InterDigital Holdings, Inc.’s (collectively, “InterDigital”) expert reports and preclude testimony on the stricken portions.  Specifically at issue were portions of four reports: (1) the Jackson Report, (2) the Haas rebuttal Report, (3) the Brogioli Supplemental Report, and (4) the Prucnal Supplemental Report.  Regarding the Jackson Report, ALJ Essex held that InterDigital adequately disclosed its infringement theory under Samsung’s construction of the phrase “[re]-synchronize[d/ing] to the the/a pilot signal.”  However, ALJ Essex determined that InterDigital’s production of certain documents was untimely and, therefore, granted Samsung’s Motion to Strike the portions of the Jackson Report that relied on those documents.  As to the Haas Rebuttal Report, ALJ Essex granted Samsung’s Motion to Strike only those portions that discussed the “Quick reference” because InterDigital never conducted an element-by-element analysis of the Quick reference.  ALJ Essex granted Samsung’s Motion to Strike the requested portions of the Brogioli Supplemental Report, finding unpersuasive InterDigital’s arguments as to why Dr. Brogioli failed to include the disputed opinions and arguments in his initial expert report.  Lastly, ALJ Essex granted Samsung’s Motion to Strike the requested portions of the Prucnal Supplemental Report because the information cited in the supplemental report was not included in Dr. Prucnal’s initial expert report.  Accordingly, ALJ Essex granted-in-part and denied-in-part Samsung’s Motion to Strike.

According to Order No. 89, Samsung moved for summary determination of no violation based on the Commission’s finding in Inv. No. 337-TA-800 that all of the claims of U.S. Patent No. 7,616,970 (the ‘970 patent) are invalid.  ALJ Essex held that “issue preclusion bars InterDigital from re-litigating the issue of the validity of claims 1-18 of the ‘970 Patent, and the ALJ finds that claims 1-18 of the ‘970 Patent are invalid.”  Accordingly, ALJ Essex granted Samsung’s Motion, finding that there has been no violation of Section 337 with respect to claims 1–18 of the ‘970 patent.