On December 1, 2014, ALJ Lord issued Order No. 26: Granting Joint Motion to Stay all procedural deadlines inCertain Navigation Products, Inv. No. 337-TA-900. The parties filed a joint motion to stay because “they have entered into a settlement memorandum of understanding [MOU] and are in the process of finalizing and executing the settlement agreement.” The MOU was not attached to the motion. The parties represented that after finalizing and executing the settlement agreement, they will file a joint motion for termination of the investigation. Staff did not oppose the motion. In granting the motion, ALJ Lord directed the parties to “submit a joint status report on the progress of settlement negotiations” within two weeks. In a separate unrelated enforcement proceeding, Certain Incremental Dental Positioning Adjustment Appliances, Inv. No. 337-TA-562, ALJ Shaw issued Order No. 75 denying Complainant’s joint motion to stay all remaining dates in the Procedural Schedule pending the Federal Circuit’s decision on Appeal Nos. 14-1533 and 14-1577 of related Inv. No. 337-TA-833. In the 833 Investigation, the same Complainant had opposedRespondents’ motion to stay the cease and desist orders issued by the Commission pending the same Federal Circuit appeals, arguing that Respondents could not meet the four prong test applied by the Commission that is used by the courts in determining whether to grant a preliminary injunction. ALJ Shaw noted in Order No. 75, Complainant’s “switch in position regarding a stay.”