- ALJ Shaw Rules on Discovery Motions in Certain Wireless Devices with 3G Capabilities (337-TA-800)
- April 3, 2013 | Authors: Christopher Ricciuti; Eric W. Schweibenz
- Law Firm: Oblon, Spivak, McClelland, Maier & Neustadt, L.L.P. - Alexandria Office
On March 21, 2013, ALJ David P. Shaw issued the public versions of Order Nos. 96 and 98 in Certain Wireless Devices with 3G Capabilities and Components Thereof (Inv. No. 337-TA-800).
By way of background, this investigation is based on a July 26, 2011 complaint filed on behalf of InterDigital Communications, LLC, InterDigital Technology Corporation, and IPR Licensing (collectively, “InterDigital”) alleging violation of Section 337 by Respondents Huawei Technologies Co., Ltd., FutureWei Technologies, Inc. d/b/a Huawei Technologies (USA), ZTE Corp., ZTE (USA) Inc., and Nokia (collectively, the “Respondents”) in the importation into the U.S. and sale of certain wireless devices with 3G capabilities and components thereof that infringe one or more claims of U.S. Patent Nos. 7,349,540; 7,502,406; 7,536,013; 7,616,970 (the ‘970 patent); 7,706,332; 7,706,830; and 7,970,127. See our August 29, 2011 post for more details on this investigation.
Order No. 96
According to Order No. 96, Complainant InterDigital filed a motion to strike non-party Apple Inc.’s (“Apple”) witness statement. InterDigital argued that, although Respondents identified a “representative of Apple” as a potential witness, the identity of Apple’s witness was not disclosed until its witness statement was submitted, thereby preventing InterDigital from deposing the declarant. ALJ Shaw denied InterDigital’s motion to strike; however, the ALJ granted InterDigital an opportunity to depose Apple’s witness even though the applicable discovery period had ended.
Order No. 98
According to Order No. 98, InterDigital filed a motion seeking an order precluding Respondent Nokia from offering testimony that certain of its accused devices do not implement the “session maintenance” elements of claims 1 and 10 of the ‘970 patent. InterDigital argued that exclusion is warranted because Nokia failed to produce a witness adequately prepared on the issue, in violation of Order No. 69. Nokia’s response was redacted from the public version of the Order. Ultimately, the ALJ determined to deny InterDigital’s requested relief.