By Eric Schweibenz
On April 15, 2014, ALJ David P. Shaw issued Order No. 29 in Certain Point-to-Point Network Communication Devices and Products Containing the Same (Inv. No. 337-TA-892).  In the Order, ALJ Shaw granted-in-part and denied-in-part Respondents AmTRAN Logistics, Inc., AmTRAN Technology Co., Ltd., LG Electronics Inc., LG Electronics U.S.A., Inc., LG Electronics MobileComm U.S.A., Inc., Panasonic Corp., Panasonic Corp. of North America, Sony Corp., Sony Corp. of America, Sony Electronics Inc., Sony Mobile Communications AB, Sony Mobile Communications (USA) Inc., Sony Computer Entertainment, Inc., Sony Computer Entertainment America LLC, Toshiba Corp., Toshiba America Inc., Toshiba America Information Systems, Inc., and Vizio, Inc.’s (collectively, “Respondents”) motion to strike portions of Complainant Straight Path IP Group, Inc.’s (“Straight Path”) domestic industry contentions, as well as portions of the expert report of Straight Path’s expert Dr. Stuart Stubblebine.

According to the Order, Respondents sought to strike four categories of information:  (1) analysis and opinions relating to the VoiceLine terminal adapter product; (2) analysis regarding alleged infringement of the “caller process,” “callee process,” “associating,” and “querying” limitations under the doctrine of equivalents; (3) allegedly new infringement theories in Dr. Stubblebine’s report relating to Netflix and YouTube applications; and (4) citations to previously undisclosed Netflix deposition testimony.  Straight Path opposed Respondents’ motion.  The Commission Investigative Staff did not file a response to the motion.

After considering the arguments, ALJ Shaw determined to grant the motion as to the first two categories of information but deny it as to the last two.  With respect to category (1), ALJ Shaw found that it was appropriate to strike information concerning the VoiceLine terminal adapter product because Straight Path had failed to identify that product on its list of domestic industry products pursuant to the procedural schedule in the investigation.  With respect to category (2), ALJ Shaw found that it was appropriate to strike the cited doctrine of equivalents analysis because Straight Path’s infringement contentions had not specifically set forth infringement allegations for the four limitations at issue.  With respect to category (3), ALJ Shaw denied the motion to strike after finding that the portions of Dr. Stubblebine’s report at issue had merely provided additional factual support for previously disclosed theories.  Lastly, with respect to category (4), ALJ Shaw denied the motion because he had previously granted leave for the parties to take the Netflix deposition after the close of fact discovery, and Respondents had been on notice that Dr. Stubblebine would likely rely on testimony from that deposition.