On March 7, 2012, ALJ E. James Gildea issued Order No. 34 denying Complainant MOSAID Technologies Inc.’s (“MOSAID”) motion to strike Respondents’ exhibit objections, and ordered MOSAID to show cause as to why it should not be sanctioned for filing its motion in Certain Equipment for Communications Networks, Including Switches, Routers, Gateways, Bridges, Wireless Access Points, Cable Modems, IP Phones, and Products Containing Same (Inv. No. 337-TA-778).

By way of background, this investigation was instituted by the Commission on June 16, 2011 after MOSAID filed a complaint naming as Respondents Cisco Systems, Inc., Cisco Consumer Products LLC, Cisco Systems International B.V., and Scientific Atlanta LLC (collectively, “Cisco”) alleging violation of Section 337 in the importation and sale of certain equipment for communications networks that infringe one or more U.S. Patents.  See our May 20, 2011 post for more details about the complaint.

According to the Order, MOSAID moved to strike Cisco’s exhibit objections “in their entirety, bar Respondents from interposing any objections to them,” and deem certain exhibits admissible because “Respondents objected to nearly all of [MOSAID’s] proposed exhibits.”  In opposition, Cisco argued that its objections were proper, that MOSAID did not meet and confer before submitting its motion, in contravention of the ALJ’s Ground Rules, and that MOSAID’s requested relief is not supported by any rule.

ALJ Gildea began by noting that correspondence between the parties showed that MOSAID had “initially requested that Cisco withdrawal its objections, serve revised objections, and agree for an extension of time for MOSAID to file responses,” and that, had MOSAID requested such relief from the Agency, its motion would have merited an evaluation.  However, because MOSAID’s motion instead asked for “outlandish forms of relief that are highly disproportionate to the alleged infraction [by Cisco] and unsupported by law,” the ALJ determined to deny MOSAID’s motion in its entirety.  Moreover, because ALJ Gildea questioned whether MOSAID’s motion was filed for an improper purpose, he ordered MOSAID to “show cause, by way of a written response, why it and/or its attorneys should not be sanctioned with the reasonable attorney’s fees and costs that Cisco incurred in responding to said motion.”