On September 23, 2014, ALJ Dee Lord issued Order Nos. 30 and 31 (dated August 25, 2014 and August 28, 2014, respectively) in Certain Television Sets, Television Receivers, Television Tuners, and Components Thereof (Inv. No. 337-TA-910).

By way of background, this investigation is based on a January 28, 2014 complaint filed by Cresta Technology Corp. alleging violation of Section 337 in the importation into the U.S. and sale of certain television sets, television receivers, television tuners, and components thereof that infringe one or more claims of U.S. Patent Nos. 7,075,585, 7,265,792, and 7,251,466.  See our January 30, 2014 and March 24, 2014 posts for more details on the complaint and Notice of Investigation, respectively. 

According to Order No. 30, Respondent Silicon Laboratories, Inc. ("Silicon Labs") filed a motion seeking to renew its request to compel Complainant Cresta Technology Corporation ("Cresta") to provide discovery concerning financial interests in Cresta or the Investigation.  Specifically, Silicon Labs sought to compel Cresta to provide complete responses to Respondents' Joint Interrogatory Nos. 19–21, to produce responsive documents to the corresponding Requests for Production Nos. 15–17, and to provide a corporate representative to testify on behalf of Cresta in response to Deposition Topic Nos. 75–77.  Silicon Labs argued that the information is relevant to witness credibility, domestic industry, public interest, and standing.  In opposition, Cresta asserted that it has already produced documents responsive to the requests for production at issue.  Cresta further argued that Silicon Labs failed to demonstrate how any of the other discovery requests are relevant to issues in the investigation.

ALJ Lord held that Silicon Labs demonstrated the relevance of Requests for Production Nos. 15–17 and, to the extent that relevant information has not been produced, must be produced by Cresta. As to Respondents' Joint Interrogatory Nos. 19–21, ALJ Lord held that Cresta provided a clear and complete response to Interrogatory No. 19 only.  ALJ Lord determined that Cresta must provide supplemental responses to Interrogatory Nos. 20–21 because of the narrow scope of information sought and its potential relevance to the question of domestic industry.  Regarding Deposition Topic Nos. 75–77, ALJ Lord noted that the topics are nearly identical to Interrogatory Nos. 19–21, respectively.  Accordingly, ALJ Lord denied Silicon Labs' motion with respect to Deposition Topic No. 75 for the same reasons as Interrogatory No. 19 and left it to the parties to determine if Deposition Topic Nos. 76–77 are necessary after the supplemental responses to Interrogatory Nos. 20–21 are provided.

According to Order No. 31, Cresta filed a motion to compel Silicon Labs to produce Messrs. Poorfard and Trager for deposition and for leave to take their depositions after the close of fact discovery.  Cresta argued that it did not learn of Mr. Poorfard's and Mr. Trager's roles in the relevant areas until one week prior to the close of fact discovery.  Cresta further asserted that the testimony of both witnesses were relevant to issues of infringement and secondary considerations of nonobviousness.  In opposition, Silicon Labs argued that Cresta was aware of Messrs. Poorfard and Trager since at least June 23, 2014.  Silicon Labs asserted that Cresta's Motion to Compel should be denied because it failed to comply with Ground Rule 4.4.1's ten-day notice requirement. Silicon further argued that it already provided Cresta with the requested information in an interrogatory response.

ALJ Lord held that Cresta's deposition notices were untimely served because they failed to comply with Ground Rule 4.4.1's ten-day notice requirement.  Accordingly, ALJ Lord denied Cresta's Motion to Compel. ALJ Lord determined the witnesses may have information relevant to at least secondary considerations of nonobviousness and that Cresta did not learn of the relevant witness until it was too late to timely serve notices of deposition.  Accordingly, ALJ Lord held that Cresta demonstrated good cause to the take the depositions of the two witnesses out of time and granted Cresta's Motion for Leave.