|June 25, 2012|
Previously published on June 22, 2012
On June 20, 2012, ALJ E. James Gildea issued Order No. 7 in Certain Consumer Electronics, Including Mobile Phones and Tablets (Inv. No. 337-TA-839).
According to the Order, ALJ Gildea denied a joint, unopposed motion filed by Complainant Pragmatus AV, LLC (“Pragmatus”) and Respondents HTC Corporation and HTC America, Inc. (collectively, “HTC”) to hold their first settlement conference by video or teleconferencing. In support of the motion, HTC argued that the travel burden and expense to HTC’s employees in order for them to travel to Washington, D.C. for this settlement conference was “significant.” ALJ Gildea determined that “being located in different parts of the United States or different countries is not enough to meet the requisite good cause because this is the situation in most, if not all, investigations.” ALJ Gildea further noted that he understands that “this imposes an expense on all the parties, but the potential cost savings of an early settlement justifies it.” Lastly, ALJ Gildea provided the following suggestion to the private parties:
The Administrative Law Judge expects that both Complainant and HTC will use their best efforts to determine a reasonable time, date, and location for their first settlement conference. This will mean compromise on the part of both sides, as it is not reasonable for the parties to propose only one location closest to them. For example, one possible solution would be for the parties to meet at a location convenient to HTC (Bellevue) for one conference, convenient to Complainant (DC) for another, and meet halfway for the third. Another possible solution would be to meet halfway each time.