On July 31, 2013, ALJ E. James Gildea issued the public version of Order No. 11 (dated July 19, 2013) in Certain Microelectromechanical Systems (“MEMS Devices”) and Products Containing the Same (Inv. No. 337-TA-876).
According to the Order, Complainant STMicroelectronics, Inc.’s (“STM”) filed a motion to compel Respondent InvenSense, Inc. (“InvenSense”) to produce supplemental interrogatory responses and to supplement its response to the Complaint. Specifically, STM argued that InvenSense has failed to produce any discovery for products not named in the Complaint. Furthermore, STM asserted that InvenSense has failed to produce documents responsive to interrogatories and, likewise, failed to produce importation data. In opposition, InvenSense argued that it has already produced responsive discovery.
As an initial matter, ALJ Gildea noted that the Complaint does not limit the scope of the investigation; instead, the Notice of the Investigation (“NOI”) defines the scope of the investigation. Accordingly, the broad language of the NOI did not limit the scope of the investigation to only those products listed in the Complaint.
ALJ Gildea denied as moot STM’s motion as it related to InvenSense’s response to the Complaint because STM did not contest InvenSense’s representation that it has supplied all responsive information in its possession, custody, or control. ALJ Gildea held that Interrogatory No. 17 was likewise moot because it requested the same information as STM sought in InvenSense’s responses to the Complaint. ALJ Gildea also denied STM’s motion as it related to Interrogatory No. 1 because STM did not explain how conception and first sale information of the accused products was relevant to infringement or other claims or defenses. As to the remaining interrogatories, ALJ Gildea granted STM’s motion and ordered InvenSense to supplement its responses as soon as practicable. Accordingly, ALJ Gildea granted-in-part STM’s Motion to Compel.