By Eric Schweibenz
On April 17, 2014, ALJ E. James Gildea issued the public version of Order No. 33 (dated April 11, 2014) denying Complainant’s Motion to Compel Expert Deposition in Certain Silicon Microphone Packages and Products Containing Same (Inv. No. 337-TA-888).

By way of background, the Commission instituted this investigation on July 23, 2013 based on a complaint filed by Knowles Electronics, LLC (“Knowles”) alleging a violation of Section 337 by Respondents GoerTek, Inc. and GoerTek Electronics, Inc. (collectively, “GoerTek”) in the importation into the U.S. and sale of certain silicon microphone packages and products containing the same that infringe, or that are made by a process that infringes, one or more claims of U.S. Patent Nos. 7,439,616, 8,018,049, and 8,121,331.  See our June 25, 2013 and July 24, 2013 posts for more details on the complaint and notice of investigation, respectively.

According to the Order, Knowles filed a motion to compel GoerTek to produce its expert, Dr. Pecht, for deposition.  Knowles argued that, under a discovery stipulation that the parties had entered into, GoerTek should be required to produce Dr. Pecht for deposition because he did not submit an expert report and another GoerTek expert, Dr. Lall, submitted an expert report relying on a declaration by Dr. Pecht which Knowles stated included extensive analysis regarding issues central to the case.  In response, GoerTek argued that Dr. Lall did not rely on the opinions of Dr. Pecht and simply included Dr. Pecht’s declaration in Dr. Lall’s “List of Materials Considered.”  GoerTek further noted that Dr. Lall testified at his deposition that he did not rely on Dr. Pecht’s opinions.

ALJ Gildea found that Knowles had not shown that Dr. Lall relied on Dr. Pecht’s opinions.  Specifically, ALJ Gildea noted that at Dr. Lall’s deposition, he specifically stated that he considered Dr. Pecht’s declaration but did not rely on it in forming his own opinions.  Additionally, ALJ Gildea noted that Dr. Lall’s expert report did not cite to Dr. Pecht’s declaration and only included the declaration in the “List of Materials Considered.”  Further, ALJ Gildea found that Knowles’ side-by-side comparison of the statements made by Drs. Lall and Pecht did not lead to the conclusion that Dr. Lall copied Dr. Pecht’s opinions.  Accordingly, ALJ Gildea denied the motion.