On May 8, 2012, ALJ Thomas B. Pender issued Order No. 8 in Certain Automotive GPS Navigation Systems, Components Thereof, and Products Containing Same (Inv. No. 337-TA-814).

In the Order, ALJ Pender denied Respondents Mazda, Hyundai, and Kia’s motion to recover costs for a cancelled deposition, denied Respondents’ motion requesting that the ALJ issue a show cause order directed to Complainant Beacon Navigation GmbH (“Beacon”), and granted an unopposed motion to withdrawal.

According to the Order, Respondents Mazda, Hyundai, and Kia moved to recover travel expenses and attorney costs associated with preparing a witness to testify after Beacon, the noticing party, canceled a deposition two days before it was set to occur.  Because Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 30(g), on which Respondents relied, only provides for recovery “if the noticing party failed to: (1) attend and proceed with the deposition; or (2) serve a subpoena on a nonparty deponent, which consequently did not attend,” the ALJ denied Respondents’ motion to recover costs. 

With respect to Respondents’ motion for a show cause order, on April 20, 2012, Respondents requested that ALJ Pender issue an order “pursuant to Commission Rule 210.4(d)(1)(ii) directing Beacon and its counsel to: (1) identify all licenses that Beacon and its counsel are currently aware of and knew of at the time the complaint was filed; (2) provide details of Beacon’s pre-filing investigation; and (3) to show cause why Beacon did not violate Commission Rule 210.4(c) by only identifying MiTAC as a licensed entity.”  The ALJ determined that an order to show cause was rendered moot by Beacon’s motion to terminate the investigation (see our May 8, 2012 post for more details regarding Beacon’s motion to terminate) and, accordingly, denied the motion.

Lastly, ALJ Pender granted counsel for Saab’s unopposed motion to withdrawal.