On April 23, 2013, ALJ E. James Gildea issued the public versions of Order No. 23 (dated April 4, 2013), Order No. 24 (dated April 8, 2013) and Order No. 27 (dated April 11, 2013) in Certain Wireless Consumer Electronics Devices and Components Thereof (Inv. No. 337-TA-853). In the Orders, ALJ Gildea ruled on motions to compel relating to Complainants Technology Properties Limited LLC, Phoenix Digital Solutions LLC, and Patriot Scientific Corporation’s (collectively, “Complainants”) responses to certain interrogatories, Respondents Acer Inc. and Acer America Corp.’s (collectively, “Acer”) production of certain technical documents, and Complainants’ domestic industry allegations.
According to Order No. 23, Respondents ZTE Corporation and ZTE (USA) Inc. (collectively, “ZTE”) moved to compel Complainants to provide substantive responses to ZTE’s Interrogatory Nos. 53 and 55-62. ZTE asserted that Complainants’ responses to these interrogatories contained the same two boilerplate sentences pointing to the complaint and Complainants’ response to ZTE’s infringement contention Interrogatory No. 11, and that the nondisclosure of additional responsive information would irretrievably harm ZTE. Complainants opposed the motion. The Commission Investigative Staff (“OUII”) also opposed the motion. After considering the arguments, ALJ Gildea granted the motion in part as to Interrogatory Nos. 53, 55, 57-59 and 61-62, but denied it with respect to Interrogatory Nos. 56 and 60.
According to Order No. 24, Complainants moved to compel Acer to produce certain technical documents related to Acer’s products accused of infringement in the investigation. Specifically, Complainants sought production of schematics for daughter boards used in Acer’s accused products. Acer opposed the motion, arguing that it did not have control over the requested schematics and that it had made a good faith effort to obtain the schematics from its Original Design Manufacturers (ODMs). OUII supported the motion. After considering the arguments, ALJ Gildea granted the motion in part. In particular, the ALJ ordered that Acer complete the production of any daughter board schematics that it has obtained from third parties, promptly produce any schematics that it receives in the future, and continue to apply its best efforts to obtain any remaining schematics from third parties who have not yet provided them.
According to Order No. 27, Respondents Garmin Ltd., Garmin International, Inc., Garmin U.S.A., Inc., and ZTE moved to compel Complainants to produce information related to Complainants’ domestic industry assertions. Complainants opposed the motion, arguing that they had already produced voluminous documentation and deposition testimony regarding their domestic industry allegations. After considering the arguments, ALJ Gildea granted the motion in part with respect to certain financial statements, a chart of accounts, information related to litigation involving one of the named inventors, and domestic industry documents from prior investigations. The ALJ denied the motion with respect to certain invoices and payments, cash flow forecast reports, an agreement between Alliacense and Phoenix Digital Solutions, documents related to a particular employee, receipts for product purchases, and trip reports of licensing executives. Lastly, ALJ Gildea requested further briefing on the issue of whether Complainants had waived the right to rely on legal fees and/or litigation expenses to prove domestic industry.