PUBLIC VERSION
`
`UNITED STATES INTERNATIONAL TRADE COMMISSION
`Washington, D.C.
`
`In the Matter of
`
`CERTAIN DC-DC CONTROLLERS AND
`PRODUCTS CONTAINING THE SAME
`
`Inv. No. 337-TA-698
`
`Order No. 12: Denying uPI's Motion No. 698-17 For Protective Order And
`Denying uPI's Motion No. 698-18 To Compel
`
`On March 19,2010, respondent uPI Semiconductor Corp. (uPI) moved for a protective
`
`order with respect to the discovery requests of complainants Richtek Technology Corp. and
`
`Richtek USA, Inc.' s (Richtek) relating to Richtek's trade secret claims directed to uPI, until at
`
`least 10 business days after Richtek fully identifies its alleged trade secrets and further requested
`
`that a protective order be entered to the effect that uPI need not supplement its responses to
`
`Interrogatory Nos. 84, 93-98, 102 and 105-112, Requests for Production Nos. 73, 75-82, and not
`
`make a witness available for deposition topics 9 and 17-23 of Richtek's Second Notice of
`
`Corporate Deposition to respondent uPI and deposition topics 2-7 of Richtek' s Fourth Notice of
`
`Corporate Deposition to respondent uPI until 10 business days after Richtek supplements its
`
`responses to "6-8, 11,13, 15-18,22-24,61 and 66-69." (Motion Docket No. 698-17).
`
`On March 19,2010 respondent uPI also moved to compel complainants to respond to
`
`uPI's Interrogatory Nos. 6-8, 11,13, 15-18,22-24,61, and 66-69, seeking identification with
`
`particularity of the basis for the trade-secret claims in this investigation. (Motion Docket No.
`
`
`
`UNITED STATES INTERNATIONAL TRADE COMMISSION
`Washington, D.C.
`
`In the Matter of
`
`CERTAIN DC-DC CONTROLLERS AND
`PRODUCTS CONTAINING THE SAME
`
`Inv. No. 337-TA-698
`
`Order No. 12: Denying uPI's Motion No. 698-17 For Protective Order And
`Denying uPI's Motion No. 698-18 To Compel
`
`On March 19,2010, respondent uPI Semiconductor Corp. (uPI) moved for a protective
`
`order with respect to the discovery requests of complainants Richtek Technology Corp. and
`
`Richtek USA, Inc.' s (Richtek) relating to Richtek's trade secret claims directed to uPI, until at
`
`least 10 business days after Richtek fully identifies its alleged trade secrets and further requested
`
`that a protective order be entered to the effect that uPI need not supplement its responses to
`
`Interrogatory Nos. 84, 93-98, 102 and 105-112, Requests for Production Nos. 73, 75-82, and not
`
`make a witness available for deposition topics 9 and 17-23 of Richtek's Second Notice of
`
`Corporate Deposition to respondent uPI and deposition topics 2-7 of Richtek' s Fourth Notice of
`
`Corporate Deposition to respondent uPI until 10 business days after Richtek supplements its
`
`responses to "6-8, 11,13, 15-18,22-24,61 and 66-69." (Motion Docket No. 698-17).
`
`On March 19,2010 respondent uPI also moved to compel complainants to respond to
`
`uPI's Interrogatory Nos. 6-8, 11,13, 15-18,22-24,61, and 66-69, seeking identification with
`
`particularity of the basis for the trade-secret claims in this investigation. (Motion Docket No.
`
`
`
`698-18.)1
`
`Complainants, in responses to Motion Nos. 698-17 and 698-18 dated March 24, opposed
`
`each of the motions in issue.
`
`Order No. 10, which issued on March 29, 2010, referred to the second complete
`
`paragraph on page 10 of complainants' response dated March 24,2010 to Motion No. 698-18
`
`wherein complainants "committed to further supplement [their] responses to the interrogatories
`
`related to Richtek's trade secrets for both uPI and AMD by Friday, March 26,2010 ... " Based on
`
`this information, uPI and any other interested respondent as well as the staff were ordered to
`
`respond to said supplemental interrogatory responses and any such supplement response to
`
`complainants Motion No. 698-18 no later than the close of business on Tuesday March 30, and in
`
`particular should explain in detail why Motion No. 698-18 as well as Motion No. 698-17, which
`
`relates to uPI's motion for a protective order relating to complainants' trade secret claims, have
`
`not been mooted.
`
`In a filing dated March 29,2010, complainants moved for leave to supplement its
`
`oppositions to Motion Nos. 698-17 and 698-18. (Motion Docket No. 698- 23.) Said motion is
`
`granted. On March 30, 2010 uPI filed a memorandum in further support of its Motion Nos. 698-
`
`17 and 698-18, pursuant to Order No. 10, which memorandum respondent Advanced Micro
`
`Devices, Inc. joined in a filing dated March 30.
`
`The staff, in responses dated March 30, 2010, opposed the pending motions.
`
`Referring to the interrogatories that are the subject of uPI's Motion No. 698-18 to compel,
`
`1 Respondent Advanced Micro Devices, Inc. (AMD) filed a notice of joinder of uPI' s
`Motion No. 698-18 on March 19,2010.
`
`2
`
`
`
`numbers 6-8, 13, 11, 15-18, and 22-24 were included in uPI's first set of discovery requests,
`
`served on February 1,2010. (uPI Memo, Ex. A.) Richtek provided its initial responses to these
`
`questions on February 11,2010. (Id., Ex. B.) Interrogatory Nos. 61 and 66-68, part ofuPI's
`
`second set of discovery requests, were served on February 12,2010, and Richtek responded on
`
`February 22,2010. (Id., Exs. D, F.) Interrogatory No. 69, part ofuPI's third set of discovery
`
`requests, was served on February 18,2010, and Richtek responded on March 1,2010. (Id., Exs.
`
`E, G.) Richtek supplemented its responses to these interrogatories on March 5, 2010. (Id., Ex.
`
`c.) It supplemented its responses for a second time on March 26, 2010, describing its alleged
`
`trade secrets in still more detail.
`
`The administrative law judge agrees with the staff that with complainants' supplemental
`
`responses, complainants' allegations contain enough specificity for respondent uPI to understand
`
`complainants' accusations, to prepare a defense and to prepare responses to complainants'
`
`Interrogatory Nos. 84,93-98, 102 and 105-112 and Requests for Production Nos. 73 and 75-82
`
`and also has enough information needed to identify and prepare a suitable witness in response to
`
`the deposition topics identified in Motion No. 698-17. Therefore responses to said discovery
`
`requests should be received by complainants no later than ten business days from the date this
`
`order has issued. 2
`
`Motion Nos. 698-17 and 698-18 are denied.
`
`2 Some of the complainants' interrogatories are contention interrogatories. See
`complainants' interrogatory No. 97. Hence, for contention interrogatories, uPI has until April 30,
`2010 to respond.
`
`3
`
`
`
`On April 1, 2010 each of the parties received a copy of this order.
`
`This order will be made public unless a bracketed confidential version is received no later
`
`than the close of business on April 9, 2010.
`
`Issued: April 1, 2010
`
`Chief Administrative Law Judge
`
`4
`
`
`
`CERTAIN DC-DC CONTROLLERS AND
`PRODUCTS CONTAINING THE SAME
`
`337-TA-698
`
`PUBLIC CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
`
`I, Marilyn R. Abbott, hereby certify that the attached Public Version Order has been
`served by hand upon the Commission Investigative Attorney, Lisa A. Murray, Esq., and
`the following parties as indicated, on
`April 28, 2010.
`
`~~ U.S. International Trade Commission
`
`500 E Street, SW
`Washington, DC 20436
`
`Complainants Richtek Technology Corp., & Richtek
`USA, Inc.:
`Paul F. Brinkman, Esq.
`ALSTON & BIRD LLP
`The Atlantic Building
`950 F Street, NW
`Washington, DC 20004-1404
`P-202-756-3404
`F-202-654-4984
`
`Respondents uPI Semiconductor Corp.; Sapphire
`Technology Limited:
`Alexander D. Chinoy, Esq.
`COVINGTON & BURLING LLP
`1201 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
`Washington, DC 20004-2401
`P-202-662-6000
`F-202-662-6291
`
`Respondents Advanced Micro Devices, Inc.; Diamond
`Multimedia, Inc.; Eastcom, Inc. d/b/a XFX Technology,
`USA:
`Ryan K. Yagura, Esq.
`O'MELVENY & MYERS LLP
`400 South Hope Street
`Los Angeles, CA 90071-2899
`P-213-430-6000
`F-213-430-6407
`
`(,*V· Hand Delivery
`() ia Overnight Mail
`( Via First Class Mail
`( ) Other: ___ _
`
`(,*Vi Hand Delivery
`() ia Overnight Mail
`( Via First Class Mail
`( ) Other
`
`(Vvf:V' Hand Delivery
`() ia Overnight Mail
`( Via First Class Mail
`( ) Other: ___ _
`
`
`
`Respondents Micro-Star International Co. Ltd.; MSI
`Computer Corp.:
`Barbara A. Murphy, Esq.
`MILLER & CHEVALIER CHARTERED
`655 Fifteenth Street, NW, Suite 900
`Washington, DC 20005-5701
`P-202-626-5800
`F-202-626-5801
`
`RESPONDENTS:
`VisionTek Products LLC
`1610 Colonial Parkway
`Inverness, IL 60067
`
`( ) Via Hand Delivery
`( )fiia Overnight Mail
`(4 Via First Class Mail
`( ) Other: ___ _
`
`(~a Hand Delivery
`(
`ia Overnight Mail
`( Via First Class Mail
`( ) Other: ___ _
`
`
`
`PUBLIC MAILING LIST
`
`Heather Hall
`LEXIS-NEXIS
`9443 Springboro Pike
`Miamisburg, OH 45342
`
`Kenneth Clair
`Thomson West
`1100 Thirteen Street, NW, Suite 200
`Washington, DC 20005
`
`( ) Via Hand Delivery
`( ) Yia Overnight Mail
`( {Via First Class Mail
`( ) Other: ___ _
`
`(*V" Hand Delivery
`
`() ia Overnight Mail
`( Via First Class Mail
`( ) Other: ___ _
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
