On March 10, 2014, ALJ E. James Gildea issued the public version of Order No. 56 (dated February 21, 2014) in Certain Integrated Circuit Devices and Products Containing the Same (Inv. No. 337-TA-873). In the Order, ALJ Gildea granted-in-part Complainant Tela Innovations, Inc.’s (“Tela”) motion for clarification of Order Nos. 14, 44, and 46 and/or reconsideration of Order No. 14. See our July 9, 2013 post for more details on Order No. 14 and our March 14, 2014 post for more details on Order No. 44.
According to Order No. 56, Tela argued that Order Nos. 44 and 46 should be clarified because they appeared to modify the scope of Order No. 14. In particular, Tela argued that Order Nos. 44 and 46 appeared to impose additional evidentiary sanctions related to certain claim terms that had not been originally contemplated in Order No. 14. Tela further requested that Order Nos. 44 and 46 be reconsidered to the extent that they are deemed to be consistent with Order No. 14.
Respondents opposed the motion, arguing that Order No. 14 is clear on its face and not in need of clarification. They further argued that Order Nos. 44 and 46 are fully consistent with the original scope of Order No. 14, and that there is no basis for Tela to seek reconsideration.
After considering the arguments, ALJ Gildea determined to grant Tela’s motion in part by providing some additional clarification to Order Nos. 14, 44, and 46. However, ALJ Gildea denied Tela’s request for reconsideration. As to Order No. 44, the ALJ found no clear error of law or manifest injustice resulting from the Order. The ALJ explained that Order No. 44 provided further clarity to the restrictions set forth in Order No. 14 and was based on Tela’s disregard for the procedural schedule and the ensuing prejudice to the other parties in the investigation. Regarding Order No. 46, ALJ Gildea found that Tela’s request for reconsideration was moot based on the clarifications provided in Order No. 56. Lastly, with respect to Order No. 14, the ALJ found no manifest injustice stemming from that order as clarified in Order Nos. 44, 46, and 56, and that reconsideration was therefore not appropriate.