Their lead counsel is on vacation, but IDCC's counsel should stop doing what they are doing. What a crock from those alledged infringers. If the Nokia lead counsel died would they file a motion to start the whole trial over after they get a new lead counsel?
THE UNITED STATES INTERNATIONAL TRADE COMMISSION
Washington, DC
Before The Honorable David P. Shaw
Administrative Law Judge
In the Matter of
CERTAIN WIRELESS DEVICES Investigation N0. 337-TA-800
WITH 3G CAPABILITIES AND
COMPONENTS THEREOF
RESPONDENTS NOKIA CORPORATION AND NOKIA INC.’S
MOTION TO RESCHEDULE PREHEARING CONFERENCE
AN!) FOR SHORTENED RESPONSE TIME
Pursuant to Commission Rule 210.15(a)(l), Respondents Nokia Corporation and
Nokia Inc. (collectively, “Nokia”) move for an order rescheduling the prehearing
conference currently set for August 14, 2012. As explained more fully in the attached
supporting memorandum, Nokia requests that the prehearing conference be moved to any
date in the few days following August 14th, so that Nokia’s lead trial counsel may
participate in the proceedings. All parties are available on either August 15th or August
16th, the dates proposed by Nokia, except for Complainants, which indicated they had a
conflict. Yet Complainants refused to provide any alternative dates. Nokia therefore
asks that the hearing be rescheduled to any date following August 14th that is convenient
for the Administrative Law Judge (“ALJ”) and remains willing to accommodate any valid
conflicts Complainants may have. Because the August 14th hearing was only recently
ordered and is fast-approaching, Nokia also requests that any responses to this motion be
submitted by llam Eastern on August 10, 2012.
Pursuant to Ground Rule 5(e), Nokia certifies that it has made reasonable, good
faith efforts to contact and resolve this matter with the other parties_ The Huawei and
ZTE Respondents do not oppose this motion and do not oppose the request for a
shortened response time. The Commission Investigative Staff takes no position on the
motion and has not provided a position on the shortened response time. Complainants
oppose the motion and have not provided a position on the shortened response time.
Given the time-sensitive and non-substantive nature of this request, Nokia asks that the
ALJ waive the two-day notification requirement of Ground Rule S(e).
Dated: August 9, 2012 Respectfully submitted,
/s/ Jamie D. Underwood
Jamie D. Underwood
Scott J. Pivnick
ALSTON& BIRD LLP
950 F Street, NW
Washington, DC 20004
Telephone: (202)756-3300
Facsimile: (202)756-3333
Patrick J. Flinn
Randall L. Allen
Mark A. McCarty
John D. Haynes
Matthew D. Richardson
ALSTON &' BIRD LLP
1201 West Peachtree Street
Atlanta, GA 30309
Telelephone: (404) 881-7000
Facsimile: (404) 881-7777
2
S. Benjamin Pleune
Ross R. Barton
ALSTON & BIRD LLP
101 South Tryon Street
Suite 4000
Charlotte, NC 25980
Telephone: (704) 444-1000
Facsimile: (704) 444-1111
Counselfor Respondents
Nokia Corporation and Nokia Inc
3
THE UNITED STATES INTERNATIONAL TRADE COMMISSION
Washington, DC
Before The Honorable David P. Shaw
Administrative Law Judge
In the Matter of
CERTAIN WIRELESS DEVICES Investigation No. 337-TA-8110
WITH 3G CAPABILITIES AND
COMPONENTS THEREOF
MEMORANDUMIN SUPPORT or RESPONDENTS NOKIA CORPORATION
ANDNOKIA mcxs MOTION T0 RESCHEDULE PREHEARING CONFERENCE
AND FOR SHORTENED RESPONSE TIME
Nokia Corporation and Nokia Inc. (collectively, “Nokia”) seek an order rescheduling the
prehearing conference currently set for August 14, 2012, so that Nokia’s lead trial counsel may
participate in the proceedings. Nokia proposes the alternative dates of August 15th or August
16th, or any date following August 14th that is convenient to the Administrative Law Judge
(“ALI”) and the parties. Because the August 14th hearing was only recently ordered and is fast
approaching, Nokia also requests that any responses to this motion be submitted by llam
Eastern on August 10, 2012.
I. GOOD CAUSE EXISTS TO GRANT NOKIA’S MOTION
On August 6, 2012, the ALJ issued an order scheduling a prehearing conference for
August 14, 2012. (Order N0. 40 at I.) As set forth in the order, the conference is intended to
cover discovery and scheduling disputes, including issues raised in Complainants’ Emergency
Request for a Live Status Conference Concerning Certain Discovery and Scheduling Matters
(Mot. No. 800-132). (ld.) In Motion No. 800-132, Complainants request that the ALJ impose
various discovery sanctions against Respondents.
At the time the ALJ issued Order No. 40, Nokia’s lead trial counsel, Pat Fllllfl, was
already outside of the continental United States on a long-planned trip. He is still out of town
and will be in flight on his way home during the time the prehearing conference is currently
scheduled. Because this hearing was unanticipated, was set after Mr. Flinn was already out of
town, and provided only a few days’ notice, Nokia respectfully requests that the ALJ move the
hearing date by no more than a few days to allow Mr. Flinn the ability to participate in the
proceedings.
Mr. Flinn’s participation would aid both Nokia and the ALJ. Nokia would be placed at a
major disadvantage without the benefit of having its lead trial counsel present at the hearing.
The sanctions that Complainants seek are serious and extraordinary in nature, making it vital for
Mr. Flinn to be at the hearing to represent Nokia’s interests. Moreover, Mr. Plinn’s
participation will aid the ALJ in gathering key facts to resolve the outstanding issues between the
parties. While there are, of course, other attomeys representing Nokia, Mr. Flinn, as lead trial
counsel, will have the best and most comprehensive knowledge of the investigation and Nokia’s
positions, which will facilitate the goals of the hearing. Given that the August 14th hearing was
not on the investigati0n’s procedural schedule or otherwise foreseeable, the unavailability of
Nokia’s lead counsel on this one date was unavoidable, but Nokia is extremely flexible regarding
any other date after August 14th that is acceptable to the ALJ and the other parties.
II. NO PREJUDICE TO COMPLAINANTS WOULD
RESULT FROM GRANTING NOKIA’S MOTION
Complainants are the only parties to oppose Nokia’s request. During the meet and
confer efforts on this motion, Complainants provided three reasons for their opposition.
First, they indicated that Maximilian Grant is not available on August 15th or August
16th, the alternative dates proposed by Nokia. See Ex. 1 (containing August 8, 2012, email
2
from M. Grant, counsel for Complainants, to J. Underwood, counsel for Nokia, time stamped
10:20am EST). Nokia, however, is willing to enteitain any date after August 14th when Mr.
Flimi returns and conveyed that to Complainants. See id. (containing August 8, 2012, emails
from J. Underwood, counsel for Nokia, to M. Grant, counsel for Complainants, time stamped at
10:06am EST, 10:29am EST, 1:02pm EST, and 2:06pm EST). Complainants, however, refused
Nokia’s request to provide a single altemative date for the ALJ or the parties to consider. See
generally id. .
Second, Complainants stated that Nol
| 