On February 24, 2016, ALJ David P. Shaw issued Order No. 13 in Certain Windscreen Wipers and Components Thereof (Inv. No. 337-TA-964). Please note that Oblon represents the Respondents in this matter.
By way of background, this investigation is based on a July 20, 2015 complaint filed by Trico Products Corp. (“Trico”) alleging violation of Section 337 in the importation into the U.S. and sale of certain windscreen wipers and components thereof that infringe one or more claims of U.S. Patent Nos. 6,836,925 (“the ‘925 patent”) and 6,799,348 (“the ‘348 patent”). See our July 20, 2015 and August 19, 2015 posts for more details on the complaint and Notice of Investigation, respectively.
According to the Order, non-parties Crowne Group Holdings, LLC and KTRI Holdings, Inc. (collectively, “Crowne/KTRI”) moved to quash a subpoena duces tecum issued upon application by Respondents Valeo North America, Inc. and Delmex de Juarez S. de R.L. de C.V. (collectively, “Valeo”). Trico also filed a motion seeking to quash the subpoenas to Crowne/KTRI. In support of their motions, Crowne/KTRI and Trico argued that the subpoenas should be quashed because such subpoenas (1) were untimely; (2) sought documents outside the scope of discovery as agreed to between Trico and Valeo; and (3) contain requests that are “clearly overbroad and unduly burdensome.”
ALJ Shaw rejected all of the arguments made by Crowne/KTRI and Trico and denied the motions to quash. Specifically, ALJ Shaw determined that Crowne/KTRI and Trico “have not shown that quashing the subpoena is an appropriate remedy under the circumstances of this investigation.”
ALJ Shaw further determined:
The subpoena[s were] issued before the close of fact discovery and seek[ ] information relevant to the issue of Trico’s standing to assert its patents in this investigation. Moreover, even if the subpoena[s] did contain document requests that are overbroad and unduly burdensome (as movants allege), movants did not request a modification of the subpoena[s] to limit [their] scope.