• ALJ Gildea Denies Motion To Terminate Investigation As To Nanya Respondents In Certain Dynamic Random Access Memory And NAND Flash Memory Devices (337-TA-803)
  • March 28, 2012 | Author: Eric W. Schweibenz
  • Law Firm: Oblon, Spivak, McClelland, Maier & Neustadt, L.L.P. - Alexandria Office
  • On March 23, 2012, ALJ Gildea issued the public version of Order No. 25 (dated February 23, 2012) in Certain Dynamic Random Access Memory and NAND Flash Memory Devices and Products Containing Same (Inv. No. 337-TA-803).  In the Order, ALJ Gildea denied Respondents Nanya Technology Corporation and Nanya Technology Corporation, USA (collectively, “Nanya”) and Complainants Intellectual Ventures Management, LLC, Invention Investment Fund I, L.P., Invention Investment Fund II, LLC, Intellectual Ventures I LLC, and Intellectual Ventures II LLC’s (collectively, “Complainants”) motion to terminate Nanya from the investigation on the basis of a settlement agreement.

    In support of the motion, Nanya and Complainants argued that termination would serve the public interest because Nanya will continue to manufacture, import, and sell for imporation the devices that have been accused in this investigation.  ALJ Gildea determined, however, that “[w]hile termination of litigation under these circumstances as an alternative method of dispute resolution is generally in the public interest and will conserve public and private resources, the Administrative Law Judge finds that such is not entirely the case here.”  Specifically, ALJ Gildea noted that in Order No. 18, Complainants had structured a “complex and atypical” settlement with the Pantech Respondents that was ultimately approved and found to be not contrary to the public interest.  According to the Order, the provisions from the Pantech settlement structure - that confirmed Complainants were not seeking to bypass some domestic burdens, namely the payment fo U.S. taxes on any settlement monies - were not present in the agreements involving Nanya.  Accordingly, ALJ Gildea questioned “the bona fides of such an attenuated settlement arrangement, and finds that there are sufficient concerns regarding the public interest here because it appears that the agreements may have been structured to bypass U.S. income tax laws.”  ALJ Gildea further noted that “movants make no explanation as to why there deal is structured differently from that approved in Order No. 18 or why such a structure is necessary here.”  ALJ Gildea also noted that “although movants claim their deal favors the public interest, they do not explain how the additional layer of a Netherlands entity to an already unusual series of licensees and sublicensees would impact the public interest.”

    Accordingly, ALJ Gildea denied the motion without prejudice and noted that “Complainants are free to sign termination or settlement agreements directly with the Nanya Respondents or to style their arrangement in the manner approved in Order No. 18.”