UNITED STATES INTERNATIONAL TRADE COMMISSION
`
`Washington, D.C.
`
`
`
`
`
`In the Matter of
`
`CERTAIN ACTIVE MATRIX
`ORGANIC LIGHT-EMITTING DIODE
`DISPLAY PANELS AND MODULES
`FOR MOBILE DEVICES, AND
`COMPONENTS THEREOF
`
`
`
`ORDER NO. 38:
`
`
`Inv. No. 337-TA-1351
`
`
`DENYING COMPLAINANT’S MOTION TO AMEND ORDER NO.
`35
`
`
`
`(December 7, 2023)
`
`On October 20, 2023, Complainant Samsung Display Co., Ltd. (“Complainant”) moved to
`
`strike portions of the invalidity expert reports of Dr. Daniel Foty and Dr. P. Morgan Pattison. I
`
`granted-in-part the motion. Order No. 35 (Nov. 16, 2023). On November 20, 2023, Complainant
`
`moved (1351-016) to amend Order No. 35. Respondent Mianyang BOE Optoelectronics Co., Ltd
`
`(“Mianyang BOE”) opposed the motion. See EDIS Doc. ID 809576 (“Opp.”). The Commission
`
`Investigative Staff (“Staff”) also opposed the motion. EDIS Doc. ID 809574 (“Staff Resp.”).
`
`On December 4, 2023, Complainant moved (1351-019) for leave to file a reply to their
`
`motion. EDIS Doc. ID 809697. On December 5, 2023, Mianyang BOE opposed the motion. EDIS
`
`Doc. ID 809803. Complainant’s motion (1351-019) is hereby DENIED.
`
`Complainant seeks to amend Section III of Order No. 35 to additionally strike paragraphs
`
`669-688 of the invalidity expert report of Dr. Foty. Mot. at 1. According to Complainant, the
`
`motion “is necessitated by a typographical error in Complainant’s Motion to Strike Portions of
`
`Respondents’ Invalidity Expert Reports . . . that formed the basis of Order No. 35.” Id.
`
`Complainant explains that it did not identify paragraphs 669-688 in its motion, but that these
`
`
`
`1
`
`PUBLIC VERSION
`
`

`

`
`
`paragraphs contain Dr. Foty’s opinions concerning objective indicia of nonobviousness, which I
`
`agreed should be struck. Id.; see also Order No. 35 at 9 (explaining that Dr. Foty’s opinions with
`
`respect to secondary considerations were not disclosed during discovery). Complainant argues that
`
`the order should be amended to strike these additional paragraphs. Id. at 2.
`
`Mianyang BOE disagrees that Complainant’s motion contained a typographical error. Opp.
`
`at 1. Mianyang BOE notes that Complainant limited its challenge to paragraphs 662-668 during
`
`its meet and confers and never sought to strike paragraphs 669-688. Id. at 1-2. Mianyang BOE
`
`further asserts that it “is prejudiced by the timing of Complainant’s motion,” as it has already
`
`“prepared and served witness statements that relied upon those previously unchallenged
`
`paragraphs.” Id. at 2.
`
`Staff likewise opposes Complainant’s motion. Staff Resp. at 1. Staff explains that
`
`Complainant “is not seeking reconsideration of Order No. 35 and has not identified any basis that
`
`would justify reconsideration of Order No. 35.” Id. at 2. Instead, Staff notes that Complainant “is
`
`seeking to amend a motion after the motion has been ruled on.” Id. Staff is unaware of any
`
`Commission rule or legal authority that would allow Complainant to do so. Id.
`
`Ground Rule 5.1 requires that parties meet and confer regarding the relief sought in a
`
`motion. There it not evidence in the record to establish that Complainant met this requirement with
`
`respect to paragraphs 669-688. Complainant does not identify any exchange with Respondents
`
`with respect to these paragraphs. See generally Mot. Indeed, the record suggests that Complainant
`
`did not inform Respondents that it sought to strike these paragraphs. In its initial exchange
`
`regarding the expert reports, Complainant identified only paragraphs 662-668 as paragraphs it
`
`would seek to strike. See Mot. Ex. 22 to Complainant’s Motion to Strike (EDIS Doc. No. 808945)
`
`at 4. According to Mianyang BOE, Complainant likewise failed to identify these paragraphs during
`
`
`
`2
`
`PUBLIC VERSION
`
`

`

`
`
`the meet and confer process. Opp. at 1-2. Complainant has therefore not established that Mianyang
`
`BOE had an opportunity to address whether these particular paragraphs should be struck.
`
`Accordingly, I decline to strike paragraphs 669-688 of the invalidity expert report of Dr. Foty.
`
`Within seven days of the date of this document, the parties shall submit to the Office of the
`
`Administrative Law Judges a joint statement as to whether they seek to have any portion of this
`
`document deleted from the public version. If the parties do seek to have portions of this document
`
`deleted from the public version, they must submit to this office a copy of this document with red
`
`brackets indicating the portion or portions asserted to contain confidential business information.
`
`The submission should be emailed by the aforementioned date and need not be filed with the
`
`Commission Secretary.
`
`
`
`SO ORDERED.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`3
`
`PUBLIC VERSION
`
`