• ALJ Gildea Denies Motion To Preclude Evidence Regarding Domestic Industry In Certain Electronic Devices With Image Processing Systems (337-TA-724)
  • April 5, 2011 | Authors: John F. Presper; Eric W. Schweibenz
  • Law Firm: Oblon, Spivak, McClelland, Maier & Neustadt, L.L.P. - Alexandria Office
  • On March 30, 2011, ALJ E. James Gildea issued the public version of Order No. 30 (dated March 16, 2011) denying Respondent Apple Inc.’s (“Apple”) motion to preclude Complainants S3 Graphics Co., Ltd. and S3 Graphics, Inc. (collectively, “S3G”) from presenting evidence regarding SG3’s domestic industry that was allegedly withheld during fact discovery in Certain Electronic Devices With Image Processing Systems, Components Thereof, and Associated Software (Inv. No. 337-TA-724).

    According to the Order, Apple asserted that (1) S3G provided only vague responses to interrogatories on domestic industry, (2) S3G’s corporate representative was unable to answer certain technical questions regarding S3G’s domestic industry, and (3) S3G is attempting to remedy its deficient discovery responses by providing new facts in an expert report.  Apple thus sought an order precluding S3G from introducing at the hearing any fact about domestic industry activities not provided in response to interrogatories and deposition questions, or any document not identified similarly identified by S3G.  S3G argued in opposition that its interrogatory responses were detailed and identified supporting financial documents, and that while its responses did not specifically identify some technical documents containing evidence about the underlying activities represented in the financial documents, every financial and technical document S3G relies on to prove domestic industry was produced before the close of fact discovery.  S3G also pointed to its two corporate witnesses designated for topics related to domestic industry, who testified about S3G’s investments and licensing activities, as well as one of S3G’s chief engineers, who testified about technical details regarding S3G’s research, development, support, and repair activities.  Finally, S3G argued that the expert report in question was based only on information timely disclosed during discovery.

    In denying the motion, ALJ Gildea noted that many of Apple’s arguments were previously rejected in connection with S3G’s motion for summary determination regarding the economic prong of domestic industry, thus rendering the instant motion largely moot.  The ALJ also found that S3G’s interrogatory responses contain sufficient detail to apprise Apple of S3G’s positions on domestic industry, and that timely discovery from S3G gives adequate notice of the details in its expert report.