The following pertains to a Joint Scheduling proposal for the case to proceed.
I was not aware that you folks can't see the ITC filing unless you have access. Anyway the 3 issues still being disputed are:
1-Nokia wants to extend the prior art notice filing to June 13, 2012. Nokia claims that because IDCC added the "636" patent which had not issued when the complaint was originally filed. And they also feel that having to file the notice earlier will also be prdjudicial to LG. Respondents contend that complainant's and staff's proposal would deprieve the new LG respondents of adequate time to conduct their own prior art searching.
Both IDCC and the Staff attorney oppose Nokia on the change in filing date and still want the filing date to remain as March 16, 2012. IDCC also felt the addition of LG to this investigation does not warrant Respondents' requested extended deadline, as LG will likely relyon th epiro art already discovered by Respondents and will not start their own prior art search.
The staff is of the view that the proposed March 16, 2012 deadline for the notice of prior art provides the current Respondents more than 6 months since institution of this investigation to identify prior art they they may rely on, whihc is more than sufficient . To the extent proposed respondent LG needs additional time to comply with this, or any other, procedural deadline, the procedural schedule can be adjusted for LG.
2- Respondents contend that claim construction briefing and a separate Markman hearing is necessary. IDCC and the Staff attorney both disagee citing it to be unnecessary and unduly burdensome.The staff attorney all so felt that a full Markman proceeding is impractial as this point given the number of asserted claims in this investigation.
3- Respondents and Staff request that ALJ to set a date certain by which IDCC must limit the number of asserted claims by volutatirly terminating certain claims prior to the evidentiary hearing. IDCC asserted 140 claims in their amended complaint. IDCC says they will volutarily terminate claims prior to the evidentiary hearing basaed on a full developed discovery record to promote efficient trial and resolution of this dispute.
To there you have it as it stands now on the procedural schedule. What i find interesting is the naming of LG as a proposed respondent and yet speaking of them as having to comply with the established time frames. And I like the fact that the staff attorney is in agreement that the Respondents are trying to drag their feet on the prior art filing time line.
| 
