`
`Washington, D.C.
`
`In the Matter of
`
`CERTAIN DIGITAL VIDEO RECEIVERS
`AND RELATED HARDWARE AND
`SOFTWARE COMPONENTS
`
`II1v-Ni» 337-TA-1103
`1
`
`ORDER NO. 48:
`
`DENYING ROVI’S_MOTION FOR LEAVE FOR THE
`PARTIES TO FILE UPDATED PRE-HEARING
`SUBMISSIONS AND FOR EXPEDITED BRIEFING
`[MOTION DOCKET NO. 1103-043]
`
`(June 3, 2019)
`
`On September 14, 2018, Complainants Rovi Corporation, Rovi Guides, Inc., Rovi
`
`Technologies Corporation, and Veveo, Inc. (“Rovi”) filed a Motion for Leave for the Parties to
`
`File Updated Pre-Hearing Submissions and for Expedited Briefing (“Motion”). (Mot. Docket
`
`No. 1103-043 (Sept. 14, 2019); Mot. at 1.). Rovi ostensibly wanted to “include the most fulsome
`
`treatment of the remaining patents and prior art that both parties would have included had the
`
`scope of the investigation been what it is now” because “the Investigation has changed ’
`
`significantly since the parties filed their respective pre-hearing submissions.” (Id. at 2.).
`
`Respondent Comcast Corporation, Comcast Cable Communications, LLC, Comcast
`
`Cable Commimications Management, LLC, Comcast Business Communications, LLC, Comcast
`
`Holdings Corporation, and Comcast Shared Services, LLC (collectively, “Comcast” and with
`
`Rovi, “the Private Parties”) opposed the Motion. (Comcast’s Opp’n to Rovi's Mot. for Leave for
`
`the Parties to File Updated Pre-Hearing Submissions (“Opposition”) at 1 (Doc. ID No. 656918
`
`(Sept. 26, 2019)).). Comcast rejected any “supplemental pre-hearing briefing that expands or
`
`Page l of 2
`
`
`
`elaborates on the existing briefing” and submitted that “that a new round of supplemental
`
`briefing only invites additional secondary motions practice.” (Id. at 1, 3.).
`
`Commission Investigative Staff (“Staff,” and with Rovi and Comcast, “the Parties”) took
`
`no position on the Motion. (Mot. at 1.).
`
`Rovi’s Motion is denied as moot. No party filed updated or revised pre-hearing
`
`submissions"as proposed by Rovi. Moreover, as a matter of general practice, absent a showing
`
`of good cause, parties are not permitted to make substantive revisions to hearing-related
`
`submissions due to last-minute trimming of claims or defenses. Instead, pursuant to Ground
`
`Rule 2.10, “[t]he parties should file a notice on EDIS within seven (7) business days when any
`
`issue, such as an invalidity argument, a substantive contention, or any other allegation or defense
`
`becomes moot, or is being dropped.” Such notice can accompany redacted versions of hearing
`
`related submissions, which clearly indicate material removed from consideration and which do
`
`not change pagination or substance of original versions of the submissions.
`
`SO ORDERED.
`
`Maryloan ficN2mara_ /
`Administrative Law Judge
`
`"
`
`Page 2 of 2
`
`
`
`CERTAIN DIGITAL VIDEO RECEIVERS AND RELATED
`HARDWARE AND SOFTWARE COMPONENTS
`
`Inv. No. 337-TA-1103
`‘
`
`A
`
`‘
`
`PUBLIC CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
`
`I, Lisa R. Barton, hereby certify that the attached ORDER has been sewed by hand upon
`the Commission Investigative Attorney, John Shin, Esq. and the following parties as indicated,
`on June 3, 2019.
`
`Lisa R. Barton, Secretary
`U.S. International Trade Commission
`500 E Street, SW, Room 112
`Washington, DC 20436
`
`On Behalf of Complainants Rovi Corporation. Rovi Guides,
`lnc., and Veveo, Inc.:
`
`Douglas A. Cawley, Esq.
`MCKOOL SMITH P.C.
`CI'€SC€I1ICOUTI, Sl.1lt€
`'
`Dallas, TX 75201
`
`[II Via Hand Delivery
`Xvia ExprassDelivery
`First Class
`D other
`
`*
`
`U
`
`On Behalf of Respondents Comcast Corporation. Comeast
`Cable Communications, LLC. Comcast Cable
`Communications Management, LLC. Comcast Business
`Communications. LLC. Comcast Holdings Corporation, and
`Comcast Shared Services. LLC:
`
`Bert C. Reiser, Esq.
`LATHAM & WATKINS, LLP
`555 Eleventh Street, NW, Suite 100
`Washington, DC 20004
`
`B Via Hand Delivery
`/5~Via Express Delivery
`D Via First Class Mail
`U other
`
`/
`
`r
`
`
Accessing this document will incur an additional charge of $.
After purchase, you can access this document again without charge.
Accept $ Charge
Still Working On It
This document is taking longer than usual to download. This can happen if we need to contact the court directly to obtain the document and their servers are running slowly.
Give it another minute or two to complete, and then try the refresh button.
A few More Minutes ... Still Working
It can take up to 5 minutes for us to download a document if the court servers are running slowly.
Thank you for your continued patience.
This document could not be displayed.
We could not find this document within its docket. Please go back to the docket page and check the link. If that does not work, go back to the docket and refresh it to pull the newest information.
Your account does not support viewing this document.
You need a Paid Account to view this document. Click here to change your account type.
Your account does not support viewing this document.
Set your membership
status to view this document.
With a Docket Alarm membership, you'll
get a whole lot more, including:
- Up-to-date information for this case.
- Email alerts whenever there is an update.
- Full text search for other cases.
- Get email alerts whenever a new case matches your search.
One Moment Please
The filing “” is large (MB) and is being downloaded.
Please refresh this page in a few minutes to see if the filing has been downloaded. The filing will also be emailed to you when the download completes.
Your document is on its way!
If you do not receive the document in five minutes, contact support at support@docketalarm.com.
Sealed Document
We are unable to display this document, it may be under a court ordered seal.
If you have proper credentials to access the file, you may proceed directly to the court's system using your government issued username and password.
Access Government Site
