May 6, 2013
Previously published on May 3, 2013
On April 12, 2013, ALJ David P. Shaw issued the public versions of Order No. 101 and Order No. 102 (both dated February 4, 2013) in Certain Wireless Devices With 3G Capabilities and Components Thereof (Inv. No. 337-TA-800). According to Order No. 101, Respondents Nokia Corporation and Nokia, Inc. (collectively, “Nokia”) moved to strike supplemental discovery responses by Complainants InterDigital Communications, LLC, InterDigital Technology Corporation, and IPR Licensing, Inc. (collectively, “InterDigital”) and a supporting memorandum, arguing that the discovery responses, which relate to InterDigital’s licenses and Nokia’s FRAND defense, were served well after the close of fact discovery and are therefore untimely. InterDigital responded that it supplemented its responses “promptly after learning that it had inadvertently omitted the production numbers of three license proposals from interrogatories asking InterDigital to identify proposals it contends are FRAND,” and that Nokia made no showing of prejudice, particularly since InterDigital’s prior responses state that all of its license proposals to Nokia are FRAND. ALJ Shaw found InterDigital’s arguments persuasive and denied the motion. According to Order No. 102, Nokia filed a conditional motion for summary determination of non-infringement of the asserted claims of U.S. Patent Nos. 7,536,013 and 7,970,127, arguing that summary determination would be appropriate if InterDigital were restricted to the facts and arguments set forth in its initial infringement contentions. ALJ Shaw observed that Nokia’s motion was premature since a significant amount of discovery had yet to be obtained by the parties (including discovery relevant to InterDigital’s infringement allegations) at the time the motion was filed, and since that time, InterDigital supplemented its infringement contentions. The ALJ found that genuine issues of fact remain to be resolved regarding infringement, and therefore denied the motion.
|