Public Order 42 Requiring update as to the Huawei Respondents’ Motion to Strike (may 9)

April 9 Huawei moved to strike various discovery responses by Complainants as well as related portion of their expert report. (Motion docket 853-032). On April 30 the ALJ granted in part a similar motion to strike (order 35). The parties were asked to reexamine their positions with respect to any pending motions to strike in light of this similar order

Complainants submitted correspondence dated May 1 apprising the ALJ that they would withdraw all allegations of infringement against Huawei with respect to the Huawei Pillar and Verge and all pertinent portion of their expert report. Complainants said in their letter that Huawei “has indicated that it intends to withdraw its motion in reliance on Complainants’ withdrawal of two accused products”, although no such withdrawal has been made.

By no later than 9am on Monday May 13, Huawei (and any other party who so wishes) should file a brief update with respect to Motion docket (853-032). If Huawei does not intend to withdraw the motion, then Huawei must state with specificity what portions, in light of Complainants’ correspondence and the guidance set forth in Order 35, remain ripe for disposition.

Within 7 days of the date of this document, each party shall submit to the ALJ a statement as to whether or not it seeks to have any portion of this document deleted from the public version.

From Huawei response to complaint: FIRST AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE

(Non-infringement of the ’336 Patent)

The M835 and MediaPad products identified in the Complaint do not infringe the

asserted claims of the ’336 patent.

As Oppty pointed out, more products must have been added because they were not named in the original complaint

(note : Pursuant to Order 35 Public Version complainants are precluded from asserting five products against ZTE . They are N9500 (Flash), X501(Groove),N9120 (Avid), N9100, F555/{ } (Aspect).