- ITC Grants Motion For Leave To File Petition For Reconsideration In Certain Mobile Telephones And Wireless Communication Devices Featuring Digital Cameras (337-TA-703)
- August 4, 2011 | Authors: Alexander B. Englehart; Eric W. Schweibenz
- Law Firm: Oblon, Spivak, McClelland, Maier & Neustadt, L.L.P. - Alexandria Office
On July 29, 2011, the International Trade Commission (the “Commission”) issued a notice determining to grant Respondents Research in Motion, Ltd. and Research in Motion Corp.’s (collectively, “RIM”) motion for leave to file a petition for reconsideration out of time in Certain Mobile Telephones and Wireless Communication Devices Featuring Digital Cameras, and Components Thereof (Inv. No. 337-TA-703).
By way of background, the Complainant in this investigation is Eastman Kodak Company and the Respondents are RIM and Apple Inc. On January 24, 2011, Chief ALJ Paul J. Luckern issued an initial determination (“ID”) finding that there was no violation of Section 337. On June 30, 2011, the Commission issued a notice determining to affirm-in-part, reverse-in-part, and remand-in-part the findings in the ID. The June 30 notice explained that the “Commission’s determination and reasons therefore will be further detailed in the Commission’s forthcoming opinion.” On July 8, 2011, the Commission issued its opinion which “set[ ] out the reasons for the Commission’s action” in the notice.
According to the July 29 notice, RIM filed a petition for reconsideration of certain issues on July 25, 2011 — which was within fourteen days of service of the Commission opinion, but not within fourteen days of service of the Commission notice. On July 26, 2011, RIM filed a motion for leave to file its petition for reconsideration out of time. The motion explained that good cause existed in light of the fact that the Commission opinion issued one week after the Commission notice, and the grounds for RIM’s petition were set forth substantially in the opinion rather than the notice.
Under 19 C.F.R. § 210.47, a petition for reconsideration must be filed “[w]ithin 14 days after service of a Commission determination.” In the July 29 notice, the Commission determined that while “[t]he Commission determination was the Commission notice” — and thus RIM’s petition was not timely under the rule — RIM had nevertheless established good cause for filing its petition within fourteen days of the Commission opinion in this instance. Accordingly, the Commission granted RIM’s motion for leave to file the petition and ordered that any responses to RIM’s petition be filed by August 5, 2011.