RESPONDENT ZTE’S URGENT MOTION FOR TELEPHONIC SETTLEMENT MEETING AND A SHORTENED RESPONSE TIME

ZTE Corporation and ZTE (USA), Inc. (collectively, “ZTE”) request that the court allow

the second settlement conference to be conducted by telephone or, in the alternative, that

Complainants be required to visit ZTE at its U.S. headquarters in Richardson, Texas for the

second settlement conference. ZTE traveled to Washington, D.C. at Complainants’ request for

the first settlement conference, but TPL is now refusing to reciprocate this common courtesy.

This Motion requires immediate resolution under G.R. 1.10 because the deadline for

Complainants and ZTE to meet for the second settlement conference is Monday, January 28,

2013—three business days away. Due to the urgent nature of this request, ZTE served this

motion on Tuesday, January 22nd and respectfully requests that the ALJ order Complainants to

respond to this Motion on shortened time by Thursday, January 24th, pursuant to G.R. 2.6.

As guided by the court’s ground rules, ZTE’s senior officer, Mr. James Ray Wood,

Senior Licensing Director for ZTE (USA), with settlement authority, attended the first settlement

conference. ZTE also accommodated Complainants’ chosen venue and Mr. Wood traveled over

1,300 miles from Richardson, Texas to Washington, D.C. in anticipation of a good-faith

exploration of settlement. Complainants made a presentation to ZTE, but the discussions that took place at the first settlement conference did not resolve differences. Wood Decl. Ex. A, at ¶

3.

It is common protocol in licensing and settlement discussions for the parties to rotate

venues so the travel burden does not unevenly weigh on a single party. On January 7, 2013, Ms.

Janis Ng, Senior Licensing Coordinator for Alliacense, contacted ZTE to schedule a meeting

with Complainants for the second settlement conference. Ex. A, at ¶ 4. Ms. Ng offered to meet

ZTE in Washington, DC between January 22 and 24 or, alternatively, offered that ZTE should

fly out to their offices in Cupertino, California. Id. Although ZTE initially expressed a

preference through counsel for Washington, DC over Cupertino, California if those were the

only choices, ZTE never consented to the meeting locations unilaterally chosen by

Complainants. Id. As ZTE complied with Complainants’ request to travel to Washington D.C.

for the first meeting, ZTE reasonably expected Complainants would come to their place of

business in Richardson, Texas for the second meeting. Yet in email correspondence on January

9, 2013, Complainants refused, indicating it was too late to travel to locations other than

Washington, D.C. or Cupertino, California. Id.

The cost and inconvenience for ZTE’s senior officers is easily as great as the alleged

inconvenience to Complainants’ representatives. ZTE’s senior officers overseeing this

Investigation have responsibilities in the companies’ day-to-day operations, which are affected

by their absence. Ex. A, at ¶ 5. Moreover, during the week of January 21-25, these senior

officers have additional, court ordered settlement and mediation obligations in other litigations in

addition to their day-to-day responsibilities to ZTE. Id. Such meetings take significant

preparation and adding the further requirement of traveling is impractical in this case. Id.

3

Accordingly, ZTE requests that the court allow the parties to meet for their second

settlement conference by telephone. Under these circumstances, ZTE submits that a telephonic

conference at this stage would be as productive as an in-person meeting. Should the court deem

an in-person meeting necessary, ZTE requests the court require Complainants to extend the same

courtesies that ZTE previously provided for the first conference, and meet ZTE at its place of

business in Richardson, Texas. Alternatively, ZTE requests that the conference date be extended

and at a minimum, that Complainants be required to reimburse ZTE for its travel expenses if

ZTE is compelled to attend the second settlement conference at a location remote from its

headquarters.

GROUND RULE 2.2 CERTIFICATION

Pursuant to Ground Rule 2.2, ZTE certifies that at least two days prior to filing the instant

motion, ZTE made reasonable, good faith efforts to resolve the matter with the other parties. On

January 17, 2013, ZTE provided notice to Complainants, the Commission Investigative Staff and

all other parties that ZTE intended to file this motion and made a good faith effort to resolve the

matter. Complainants oppose this motion. The Commission Investigative Staff indicated that it

would not oppose if the Complainants were amenable to the telephonic conference. No other

party has indicated a position on this Motion.

Dated: January 22, 2013 Respectfully submitted,

/s/ Michelle A. Miller . Jay H. Reiziss Michelle A. Miller BRINKS HOFER GILSON & LIONE Suite 900 1775 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW Washington, DC 20006 (202) 296-6941 (phone) (202) 296-8701 (fax)