On September 12 and 13, 2012, ALJ David P. Shaw issued the public versions of Order Nos. 41, 42, and 43 (all dated August 7, 2012) 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 alleging violation of Section 337 by named Respondents Huawei Technologies Co., Ltd., FutureWei Technologies, Inc. d/b/a Huawei Technologies (USA), ZTE Corp., ZTE (USA) Inc., and Nokia (collectively, “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 July 28, 2011 post for more details.
Order No. 41
According to Order No. 41, InterDigital filed a motion to strike as untimely the invalidity contentions of Respondents, arguing that Respondents’ contentions should have been filed on the due date for prior art notices, but were not served until over a month later. In opposition, Respondents’ argued that no such bright-line rule exists regarding service of invalidity contentions. ALJ Shaw agreed with Respondents, declining to adopt a bright-line rule regarding the timeliness of invalidity contentions based on the timeline for filing the notice of prior art. The ALJ noted that “[i]n this instance, the notice of prior art was due relatively early … [and] the contentions at issue were served well before the hearing dates.
Order No. 42
According to Order No. 42, InterDigital filed a motion to compel respondents Nokia, ZTE, and Huawei to supplement their interrogatory responses to provide invalidity contentions. Nokia, ZTE, and Huawei argued in opposition that they timely produced preliminary invalidity charts, which may be supplemented at any time before the deadline for providing final responses. The ALJ determined that the issues raised in InterDigital’s motion were rendered moot following Respondents’ service of supplemental invalidity charts.
Order No. 43
According to Order No. 43, InterDigital filed a motion to compel respondent Nokia to provide supplemental interrogatory responses concerning its Finnish affiliate, NSA. InterDigital also sought the requested discovery directly from NSA through the Hague Convention. Because NSA voluntarily produced documents in response to InterDigital’s request, and confirmed its intent to continue doing so, ALJ Shaw denied InterDigital’s motion.