Home > Legal Library > Article




Join Matindale-Hubbell Connected


ALJ Shaw Denies Motion To Compel In Certain Point-To-Point Network Communication Devices (337-TA-892)




by:
Alexander B. Englehart
Eric W. Schweibenz
Oblon, Spivak, McClelland, Maier & Neustadt, L.L.P. - Alexandria Office

 
March 28, 2014

Previously published on March 26, 2014

On March 24, 2014, ALJ David P. Shaw issued Order No. 25 in Certain Point-to-Point Network Communication Devices and Products Containing the Same (Inv. No. 337-TA-892). In the Order, ALJ Shaw denied Complainant Straight Path IP Group, Inc.’s (“Straight Path”) motion to compel certain discovery from Respondents Sony Corp., Sony Corp. of America, Sony Electronics Inc., Sony Mobile Communications AB, Sony Mobile Communications (USA) Inc., Sony Computer Entertainment, Inc., and Sony Computer Entertainment America LLC (collectively, “Sony”).

According to the Order, Straight Path sought to compel production of discovery “relating to the video, voice, and text chat functionality on the accused Sony PlayStation products at issue in this Investigation.” Straight Path argued that this subject matter was within the scope of the investigation and that Sony had impermissibly refused to produce discovery on it.

Sony opposed the motion, arguing that Straight Path had failed to diligently pursue the requested discovery during the fact discovery period as set forth in the procedural schedule. Sony further argued that the parties had previously agreed to “focus on streaming video functionalities like the Netflix and YouTube applications that Straight Path had cited in its complaint and infringement contentions.”

After considering the arguments, ALJ Shaw determined to deny Straight Path’s motion. In particular, the ALJ found that the requested order compelling discovery was “not warranted under the circumstances of this investigation.”



 

The views expressed in this document are solely the views of the author and not Martindale-Hubbell. This document is intended for informational purposes only and is not legal advice or a substitute for consultation with a licensed legal professional in a particular case or circumstance.
 

View More Library Documents By...

 
Author
 
Alexander B. Englehart
Eric W. Schweibenz
 
Oblon, Spivak, McClelland, Maier & Neustadt, L.L.P. Overview