In this ITC proceeding, the Respondents filed a motion for leave to file motions for summary determination after the deadline for filing motions for summary determination set by the procedural schedule. Respondents asserted that good cause existed for granting the motion because it would efficiently resolve all of the issues in the Investigation and that Complainants infringement contentions indicated they would be relying on expert testimony to prove their infringement claims.
Respondents asserted that the expert report only provided conclusory assertions regarding infringement under the Respondents’ and Staff’s proposed construction of the claim terms. Respondents asserted that good cause existed to grant the motion based on their reliance and Complainants’ expert’s failure to address Respondents’ and Staff’s proposed constructions.
Complainants opposed the motions, asserting that Respondents had not shown good cause for granting these motions. Complainants asserted that the potential merits of the underlying motions for summary determination bear no relation to their timing. In addition, Complainants asserted that the Respondents actually proposed having the deadline for filing motions for summary determination before expert discovery, and thus, Respondents’ timing problem is of their own making.
The Administrative Law Judge determined that the motion should be granted. The Administrative Law Judge found that “based on the situation presented here, exceptional circumstances and good cause exist such that Respondents’ motion for summary determination should be allowed. Respondents assert, and Staff agrees, that Complainants indicated in their contention interrogatory responses that additional charts and evidence would be provided in Complainants’ expert’s report on infringement. Complainants do not dispute that these representations were made, and the Administrative Law Judge finds that Respondents justifiably relied on Complainant’ representations and had reason to anticipate that a material issue of fact would be raised by Complainants’ expert based on evidence that was properly disclosed during fact discovery.”
Based on these findings, the Administrative Law Judge finds that the motions for leave should be granted.
In the Matter of Certain Wireless Consumer Electronics Devices and Components Thereof, Inv. No. 337-TA-853 (Administrative Law Judge E. James Gildea April 19, 2013)
The authors of www.PatentLawyerBlog.com are patent trial lawyers at Jeffer Mangels Butler & Mitchell LLP. We represent inventors, patent owners and technology companies in patent licensing and litigation. Whether pursuing patent violations or defending infringement claims, we are aggressive and effective advocates for our