On May 29, 2013, ALJ Thomas B. Pender issued Order No. 18 (dated May 28, 2013) in Certain Electronic Devices, Including Mobile Phones and Tablet Computers, and Components Thereof (Inv. No. 337-TA-847).

According to the Order, Respondents HTC America, Inc. and HTC Corporation (collectively, “HTC”) filed a motion to preclude Complainants Nokia Corporation; Nokia, Inc.; and Intellisync Corporation (collectively, “Nokia”) from relying on certain evidence related to its domestic industry contentions.  HTC alleged the following:  (1) Nokia should be precluded from relying on any evidence produced after the Ground Rule 7.3 deadline; (2) Nokia improperly amended its domestic industry contentions in violation of Ground Rule 7.3 and 7.6 and, therefore, should be precluded from relying on evidence based on the amended contentions; (3) Nokia improperly amended Dr. Prowse’s expert report and, therefore, should be precluded from relying on data added to the report; (4) Nokia should be precluded from relying on unreliable and inappropriate data produced in Dr. Prowse’s expert report; (5) Nokia should be precluded from relying on unreliable “source documents” used to provide financial data for the domestic industry contentions; and (6) Nokia should be precluded from using alleged investments in four products that were not released until after the Nokia’s complaint was filed.

ALJ Pender rejected all of HTC’s arguments.  Specifically, ALJ Pender held that Ground Rule 7.3 does not require that all documents be produced, simply that “sufficient” evidence of the investments on which it relies be produced prior to the deadline.  Next, ALJ Pender rejected HTC’s arguments regarding Nokia’s amended contentions because Ground Rule 7.6 does not apply to domestic industry contentions.  ALJ Pender determined that Nokia did violate Ground Rule 10 by supplementing their expert report but held that, in his discretion, he would not exclude the expert reports since the supplemental information simple updated financial figures.  As to HTC’s arguments regarding Nokia’s evidence, ALJ Pender held that HTC’s arguments go to the weight of such evidence, not its admissibility.  Lastly, ALJ Pender rejected HTC’s arguments regarding the four products released after Nokia’s complaint was filed because any activities or investments made prior to the filing of the complaint are relevant, regardless of whether the products have been sold publicly.  Accordingly, ALJ Pender denied HTC’s motion.