On September 23, 2013, ALJ E. James Gildea issued Order No. 34 denying nonparty Kopin Corporation’s (“Kopin”) motion to limit the subpoena served on it by Complainant STMicroelectronics, Inc. (“STM”) in Certain Microelectromechanical Systems (“MEMS Devices”) and Products Containing the Same (Inv. No. 337-TA-876).

According to the Order, Kopin alleged that STM reached a deal with another nonparty regarding the scope of the subpoena and therefore wants similar limitations imposed, and objected to the extent that the subpoena overlaps with documents already produced by Respondent InvenSense, Inc. (“InvenSense”).  STM filed a cross-motion and opposition, seeking enforcement of its subpoena because Kopin only produced “a paltry 6 documents” and four additional documents on the morning that STM’s opposition was due.  STM also argued that the requested discovery is not duplicative because InvenSense has not produced any Kopin documents.

ALJ Gildea denied the motion, finding that Kopin did not demonstrate that the requested discovery is irrelevant, and noting STM’s representation that the subpoena’s scope is limited to accused products that were sold or imported by or on behalf of InvenSense, the use of same, the investigation in general, and the asserted patents.  The ALJ also noted that STM advised Kopin that four of the document requests and three of the deposition topics may be limited to InvenSense sensors, and found that STM is bound by those representations.