- ALJ Pender Denies HTC Motion To Stay In Certain Electronic Devices, Including Mobile Phones And Tablet Computers (337-TA-847)
- September 30, 2013 | Author: Eric W. Schweibenz
- Law Firm: Oblon, Spivak, McClelland, Maier & Neustadt, L.L.P. - Alexandria Office
On September 20, 2013, ALJ Thomas B. Pender issued Order No. 36 in Certain Electronic Devices, Including Mobile Phones and Tablet Computers, and Components Thereof (Inv. No. 337-TA-847).
By way of background, the investigation is based on a complaint filed by Nokia Corp.; Nokia, Inc.; and Intellisync Corporation (collectively, “Nokia”) alleging violation of Section 337 by HTC Corp.; HTC America, Inc.; and Exedea, Inc. in the importation into the U.S. and sale of certain electronic devices that infringe one or more claims of certain patents. On August 7, 2012, Google, Inc. was granted status as an Intervenor, but denied status as a respondent. On September 23, 2013, ALJ Pender issued a notice of the Initial Determination finding, among other things, that a violation of Section 337 has occurred by Respondents.
According to the Order, Respondents HTC Corp. and HTC America, Inc. (collectively, “HTC”) filed a motion to stay this investigation until shortly after the sale of Nokia’s domestic industry business to Microsoft Corp. In the Order, ALJ Pender denied the motion and noted that:
HTC’s allegations and argument in support of its Motion are convoluted. In general, HTC bases its allegations on what might occur and then argues from that to what might occur. For example, HTC speculates that Nokia will somehow argue it has domestic industry based upon its licensing activities (without placing any evidence of them in the record) and in another leap, argues Nokia will have no domestic industry once it is acquired by Microsoft...I note for the record that HTC did not oppose Nokia’s claim of Domestic Industry and in fact stipulated to facts sufficient to establish Domestic Industry. The stipulated facts contain no mention of licensing and Nokia presented no allegations or argument concerning licensing. I also note licensing will not be part of the Initial Determination I will issue on or before September 23, 2013. Therefore, based upon HTC’s own admissions, I cannot find licensing is a matter relevant to the 847 investigation.