On May 8, 2012, ALJ Robert K. Rogers, Jr. issued Order No. 30 in Certain Integrated Circuits, Chipsets, and Products Containing Same Including Televisions (Inv. No. 337-TA-786). In the Order, ALJ Rogers denied MediaTek Inc., Zoran Corp., VIZIO, Inc., AmTran Technology Co., Ltd., AmTran Logistics, Inc., Sanyo Electric Co., Ltd., Sanyo North America Corp., Sanyo Manufacturing Corp., TPV International (USA) Inc., Top Victory Electronics (Taiwan) Co., Ltd., Top Victory Electronics (Fujian) Co., Ltd., and Envision Peripherals, Inc.’s (collectively, the “822 Respondents”) motion to permit their counsel to subscribe to the Protective Order in the 786 investigation and attend the evidentiary hearing in the 786 investigation commencing on May 23, 2012. The 822 Respondents are all Respondents in Certain Integrated Circuits, Chipsets, and Products Containing Same Including Televisions (Inv. No. 337-TA-822). See our January 9, 2012 post for more details on the 822 investigation. The Commission Investigative Staff opposed the motion.
According to the Order, the 822 Respondents requested that their counsel be allowed to subscribe to the Protective Order in the 786 investigation in order to be allowed access to certain Confidential Business Information. In particular, the 822 Respondents contended that “[g]ood cause exists to permit the 822 Respondents access to Confidential Business Information because the allegations of infringement against them in the 822 Investigation are essentially identical to allegations of infringement against respondents in this Investigation and because doing so will increase efficiency for the Administrative Law Judge and for the parties.”
The 822 Respondents acknowledged, however, that the parties to the 786 investigation were already producing documents, pleadings, and orders to the 822 Respondents in response to discovery requests in the 822 investigation. According to the Order, the 822 Respondents merely complained of a delay in receiving documents from the 786 investigation. Moreover, the 822 Respondents had apparently not raised the delay issue with ALJ Theodore R. Essex in the 822 investigation. Accordingly, ALJ Rogers found that the matter should have been raised in the 822 investigation, and that it was improper for the 822 Respondents to attempt to insert themselves into the 786 investigation for the purpose of curing any alleged “delay” in the production of documents in the 822 investigation. The ALJ therefore denied the 822 Respondents’ request to subscribe to the 786 Protective Order to permit access to Confidential Business Information.
ALJ Rogers also denied the 822 Respondents’ request for their counsel to attend the evidentiary hearing in the 786 investigation after finding that “[t]here is nothing in the facts before me that would justify allowing the 822 Respondents to appear and participate in the hearing of the 786 investigation.” Accordingly, ALJ Rogers denied the 822 Respondents’ motion in its entirety.