• ALJ Shaw Grants Motion To Compel Litigation Invoices In Certain Audiovisual Components (337-TA-837)
  • March 7, 2013
  • Law Firm: Oblon Spivak McClelland Maier Neustadt L.L.P. - Alexandria Office
  • On February 19, 2013, ALJ David P. Shaw issued the public version of Order No. 62 (dated February 5, 2013) granting Respondents Funai Electric Co., Ltd.; Funai Corporation, Inc.; P&F USA, Inc.; Funai Service Corporation; MediaTek Inc.; MediaTek USA Inc.; MediaTek Wireless, Inc.; Ralink Technology Corporation; and Ralink Technology Corporation USA’s (collectively, the “Respondents”) motion to compel in Certain Audiovisual Components and Products Containing the Same (Inv. No. 337-TA-837).

    According to the Order, Respondents filed a motion seeking an order compelling Complainants LSI Corporation and Agere Systems LLC (collectively, “Complainants”) to produce unredacted versions of litigation invoices or, in the alternative, to preclude Complainants from relying on these invoices at the evidentiary hearing.  Respondents argued that the redacted litigation invoices, which Complainants used to support its domestic industry allegations, are so heavily redacted that it is impossible to determine whether the costs are associated with licensing activities.

    In opposition, Complainants asserted that they were willing to re-produce “substantially unredacted” versions of the litigation invoices if producing such redacted versions did not constitute a wavier of privilege.  In support of this argument, Complainants provided ALJ Shaw with example of a “substantially unredacted” version of a litigation invoice.

    ALJ Shaw determined that the originally produced litigation invoices were so heavily redacted that it is impossible to determine whether the listed items are associated with licensing activities.  Additionally, ALJ Shaw held that the “substantially unredacted” litigation invoice provided by Complainants would not constitute a waiver of the attorney-client privilege or the work product doctrine.  However, ALJ Shaw declined to provide a blanket determination that all similarly redacted invoices would not result in a waiver of privilege.  Accordingly, ALJ Shaw granted Respondents’ motion, and ordered Complainants to re-produce “substantially unredacted” versions of the litigation invoices they plan to use to establish the existence of a domestic industry.