`
`UNITED STATES INTERNATIONAL TRADE COMMISSION
`
`Washington, D.C.
`
`In the Matter of
`
`CERTAIN MOBILE DEVICES WITH
`MULTIFUNCTION EMULATORS
`
`
`Inv. No. 337-TA-1170
`
`
`
`ORDER NO. 21: NOTICE AND ORDER REGARDING ALTERNATE HEARING
`PROCEDURES
`
`
`
`(June 29, 2020)
`
`On June 22, 2020, complainant Dynamics, Inc. (“Dynamics”) submitted its proposal for
`
`alternate hearing procedures, and on June 23, 2020, respondents Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. and
`
`Samsung Electronics America, Inc. (“Samsung”) submitted their proposal for alternate hearing
`
`procedures. The parties’ patience, flexibility, and efforts at compromise are commendable and
`
`appreciated.
`
`Although Commission investigations must be conducted expeditiously, as Dynamics
`
`observes, the Commission presently lacks the ability to safely hold evidentiary hearings, either in
`
`person or by videoconference. The Commission is working on developing the ability to conduct
`
`evidentiary hearings by videoconference, but it is impossible to say when or if that will occur. The
`
`evidentiary hearing date will therefore remain undetermined until further notice.
`
`Nonetheless, certain of the parties’ proposals can be implemented now, and are adopted as
`
`modified below. Specifically, witness statements and written objections are acceptable, as is the
`
`limitation of 16 hours per side. However, although there is some judicial efficiency in filing motions
`
`in limine after the exchange of witness statements, any objection to witness statements may be
`
`presented via the written objections. Also, because there is currently no hearing date, and the parties
`
`may have difficulty obtaining evidence and testimony from foreign sources, the extended schedule
`
`1
`
`
`
`
`
`
`proposed by Samsung is generally preferable. Therefore, therefore, the parties shall submit their
`
`documents according to the following timeline:
`
`1. Direct witness statements and associated demonstratives shall be exchanged and filed on
`
`EDIS by Friday, July 24.
`
`2. Rebuttal witness statements and associated demonstratives shall be exchanged and filed
`
`on EDIS by Friday, August 14.
`
`3. Objections of any nature shall be exchanged and filed on EDIS by Friday, August 21.
`
`The objections shall be presented as a table, identifying the portion of the exhibit or
`
`witness statement objected to, and describing the basis of the objection in no more than
`
`10 words.
`
`The table of objections may also include a column identifying those objections considered
`
`high priority. The method of resolving objections will be determined later; they may be resolved by,
`
`for example, oral argument at the pretrial conference, or by telephone or video conference preceding
`
`the pretrial conference. If there is an extended delay in commencing the evidentiary hearing, I may
`
`entertain requests to supplement or amend the filings discussed above.
`
`
`
`The parties are encouraged to continue to work toward agreement on any other prehearing
`
`procedures and scheduling. For instance, Dynamics may be correct that there is no absolute right to
`
`cross-examination in Section 337 proceedings, but it is very helpful to me in ascertaining the facts,
`
`and I am reluctant to forgo cross-examination entirely. Nonetheless, deposition testimony may
`
`substitute for live testimony under certain circumstances, including when a witness cannot travel to
`
`the U.S., when the parties agree to use of deposition testimony, or when “exceptional circumstances”
`
`exist. 19 C.F.R. § 210.28(h)(3). Samsung is apparently agreeable to presenting non-party witness
`
`testimony via written deposition designation, although Dynamics’ position on this is unclear. I
`
`encourage the parties to agree to written deposition designations for as many witnesses as possible.
`
`2
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Videotaped deposition testimony would seem to be superior to written deposition designations, and
`
`“exceptional circumstances” may exist, so videotaped deposition testimony in lieu of live or real time
`
`video testimony may be admissible under 19 C.F.R. § 210.28(h)(3). Nonetheless, I am presently
`
`reluctant to order it in view of Samsung’s objection. Lastly, I propose a compromise on one issue:
`
`to keep the parties’ hearing presentations balanced, the parties are encouraged to agree to limit
`
`witness statements based on a word-per-hour conversion (that is, Dynamics’ proposal), but excluding
`
`deposition designations (that is, Samsung’s proposal), because deposition designations historically
`
`have not counted toward a party’s hearing presentation time.
`
`SO ORDERED.
`
`
`
`
`_____________________________
`Cameron Elliot
`Administrative Law Judge
`
`3
`
`
`
`
`CERTAIN MOBILE DEVICES WITH MULTIFUNCTION
`EMULATORS
`
`Inv. No. 337-TA-1170
`
`PUBLIC CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
`
`I, Lisa R. Barton, hereby certify that the attached ORDER has been served upon
`the following parties as indicated, on 6/29/2020.
`
`Lisa R. Barton, Secretary
`U.S. International Trade Commission
`500 E Street, SW, Room 112
`Washington, DC 20436
`
`On Behalf of Complainant Dynamics Inc.:
`
`Deanna Tanner Okun, Esq.
`ADDUCI, MASTRIANI &SCHAUMBERG, LLP
`1133 Connecticut Avenue, NW, 12th Floor
`Washington, DC 20036
`Email: okun@adduci.com
`
`On Behalf of Respondents Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. and
`Samsung Electronics America, Inc.:
`
`Paul F. Brinkman, Esq.
`KIRKLAND & ELLIS LLP
`1301 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W.
`Washington, D.C. 20004
`Email: paul.brinkman@kirkland.com
`
`☐ Via Hand Delivery
`☐ Via Express Delivery
`☐ Via First Class Mail
`☒ Other: Email Notification
`of Availability to Download
`
`☐ Via Hand Delivery
`☐ Via Express Delivery
`☐ Via First Class Mail
`☒ Other: Email Notification
`of Availability to Download
`
`
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
