On June 12, 2012, Chief ALJ Charles E. Bullock issued the public version of Order No. 9 (dated June 1, 2012) denying Respondent Vizio, Inc’s (“Vizio”) motion to strike-in-part Complainant Renesas Electronics Corporation and 511 Technologies, Inc.’s (collectively, “Renesas”) expert report in Certain Digital Televisions Containing Integrated Circuit Devices and Components Thereof (Inv. No. 337-TA-806).
According to the Order, Vizio moved to strike any reference to exhibits D-H from the expert report of Dr. Vivek Subramanian because the exhibits contained factual reports (the “TechInsights reports”) that, Vizio argued, should have been disclosed prior to the close of fact discovery. Vizio also argued that as a result of Renesas’ untimely production, Vizio was not afforded the opportunity to seek discovery on “the instruction and bases for generation of the TechInsights reports.”
In opposition, Renesas argued, inter alia, that Vizio can depose Dr. Subramanian on the reports and that Vizio’s expert, Dr. Fair, already addressed the TechInsights reports in his rebuttal report, thereby alleviating Vizio’s claims of prejudice.
Having considered the parties’ arguments and motion papers, ALJ Bullock denied Vizio’s motion to strike. The ALJ determined that Vizio will suffer no prejudice if Dr. Subramanian is allowed to rely on the TechInsights reports because the reports were created at the expert’s direction, Vizio will have the opportunity to depose Dr. Subramanian regarding the reports, and Dr. Fair, Vizio’s expert, already had the opportunity to address the TechInsights reports in his rebuttal expert report.
