Case 1:12-cv-00398-GMS Document 31-1 Filed 04/19/13 Page 1 of 6 PageID #: 405
`
`Case 1:12—cv—00398—GMS Document 31-1 Filed 04/19/13 Page 1 of 6 Page|D #: 405Case 1:12—cv—00398—GMS Document 31-1 Filed 04/19/13 Page 1 of 6 Page|D #: 405
`
`
`
`EXHIBIT AEXHIBIT A
`
`

`
`Case 1:12-cv-00398-GMS Document 31-1 Filed 04/19/13 Page 2 of 6 PageID #: 406
`
`
`UNITED STATES TRADE COMMISSION
`WASHINGTON, D.C.
`
`Before The Honorable David P. Shaw
`Administrative Law Judge
`
`
`
`
`Investigation No. 337-TA-842
`
`
`In the Matter of
`
`CERTAIN CAMERAS AND MOBILE
`DEVICES, RELATED SOFTWARE
`AND FIRMWARE, AND
`COMPONENTS THEREOF AND
`PRODUCTS CONTAINING THE
`SAME
`
`
`
`COMPLAINANT HUMANEYES TECHNOLOGIES, LTD.’S MEMORANDUM
`IN SUPPORT OF MOTION FOR TERMINATION
`
`Complainant HumanEyes Technologies, Ltd. (“HumanEyes”) hereby respectfully
`
`moves to terminate the above-entitled Investigation in its entirety pursuant to 19 C.F.R. §
`
`210.21(a).
`
`FACTUAL BACKGROUND
`
`The Complaint in this Investigation was filed March 29, 2012; the Notice of
`
`Investigation issued April 26, 2012; and the current target date is September 3, 2013.
`
`The fact discovery period will close on September 21, 2012. Through depositions
`
`recently held in Tokyo, Japan, as well as through publicly available information,
`
`HumanEyes has recently learned that Sony intends to remove the accused features from
`
`its product lines at least by the target date in this Investigation. For example, Sony
`
`camera and phone models introduced after the Complaint was filed in this Investigation
`
`no longer identify the “3D Sweep Panorama Mode” and “Sweep Multi Angle Mode”
`
`features accused of infringement as being available in those models. See, e.g., Ex. A
`
`(Sony RX100 camera, released in August 2012).
`
`In light of this development, Complainant HumanEyes seeks to terminate this
`
`investigation and proceed with its claims against infringing Sony products in the pending
`
`1
`
`

`
`Case 1:12-cv-00398-GMS Document 31-1 Filed 04/19/13 Page 3 of 6 PageID #: 407
`
`
`action in the District Court of Delaware, HumanEyes Technologies, Ltd. v. Sony, No. 12-
`
`398-GMS. Under the circumstances, termination is in the public interest. Sony does not
`
`oppose the motion for termination. The Staff has stated that it reserves its position on the
`
`motion until it has reviewed the pleadings.
`
`
`
`LEGAL STANDARD AND APPLICATION
`
`Commission Rule 210.21(a)(1) provides:
`(1) Any party may move at any time prior to the issuance of an initial
`determination on violation of section 337 of the Tariff Act of 1930 to
`terminate an investigation in whole or in part as to any or all respondents,
`on the basis of withdrawal of the complaint or certain allegations
`contained therein, or for good cause other than the grounds listed in
`paragraph (a)(2) of this section. A motion for termination of an
`investigation based on withdrawal of the complaint shall contain a
`statement that there are no agreements, written or oral, express or implied
`between the parties concerning the subject matter of the investigation, or if
`there are any agreements concerning the subject matter of the investigation,
`all such agreements shall be identified, and if written, a copy shall be filed
`with the Commission along with the motion.
`
`HumanEyes seeks to withdraw its complaint and amended complaint in entirety,
`
`thereby terminating this Investigation as to all issues and all respondents.
`
`Absent extraordinary circumstances, motions for termination will be “readily
`
`granted” to a complainant during the prehearing stage of an investigation. Certain Static
`
`Random Access Memories and Products Containing the Same, 337-TA-792, Order No.
`
`26, 2012 WL 395867 (U.S. I.T.C. Feb. 6, 2012) (quoting Certain Ultrafiltration Sys. and
`
`Components Thereof, Including Ultrafiltration Membranes, Inv. No. 337-TA-107,
`
`Comm'n Action and Order at 2 (Mar. 11, 1982)). See also, e.g., In re Certain
`
`Semiconductor Timing Signal Generator Devices, Components Thereof, and Products
`
`Containing Same, Inv. No. 337-TA-465, Order No. 25, 2002 ITC LEXIS 359, at *4 (Jul.
`
`9, 2002); see also Certain Laminated Floor Panels, Inv. No. 337-TA-545, Order No. 30,
`
`2006 ITC LEXIS 179, at *3 (Apr. 3, 2006). No extraordinary circumstances exist in this
`
`2
`
`

`
`Case 1:12-cv-00398-GMS Document 31-1 Filed 04/19/13 Page 4 of 6 PageID #: 408
`
`
`Investigation that warrant denial of this Motion. Indeed, the circumstances, as discussed
`
`above, show that granting this Motion will most efficiently preserve the resources of all
`
`parties.
`
`Pursuant to Commission Rule 210.21(a)(1), there are no agreements, written or
`
`oral, express or implied between the parties concerning the subject matter of the
`
`investigation, other than procedural stipulations on service and discovery.
`
`Furthermore, good cause exists for terminating the investigation.
`
` This
`
`investigation is still in the discovery phase, and withdrawal of the complaint and
`
`amended complaint will avoid pre-trial and trial procedures and preserve the parties’ and
`
`public resources. For this reason, motions for termination based on withdrawal of a
`
`complaint are routinely granted. See, e.g., Certain Vaginal Ring Birth Control Devices,
`
`Inv. No. 337-TA-768, Order No. 30, 2012 WL 193995 (U.S. I.T.C. Jan. 20, 2012)
`
`(granting complainant’s motion to terminate the investigation based on withdrawal of the
`
`complaint); Certain Foldable Stools, 337-TA-693, Order No. 18, 2010 WL 2451676
`
`(U.S. I.T.C. June 8, 2010) (granting Complainant’s motion to terminate during discovery
`
`phase based on withdrawal of complaint).
`
`In light of HumanEyes’ Motion to Terminate, HumanEyes further believes that all
`
`discovery should be stayed. Along with this Motion, HumanEyes has filed a Motion to
`
`Stay the Procedural Schedule.
`
`Accordingly, good cause exists to terminate the 842 Investigation, and
`
`HumanEyes respectfully requests that its Motion be granted.
`
`
`
`Dated: September 20, 2012
`
`
`
`Respectfully submitted,
`
`
`
`/s/ William P. Nelson
`
`
`
`
`Matthew D. Powers
`Steven S. Cherensky
`William P. Nelson
`Stefani C. Smith
`
`3
`
`

`
`Case 1:12-cv-00398-GMS Document 31-1 Filed 04/19/13 Page 5 of 6 PageID #: 409
`
`
`Robert L. Gerrity
`TENSEGRITY LAW GROUP LLP
`555 Twin Dolphin Drive, Suite 360
`Redwood Shores, CA 94065
`Telephone: (650) 802-6000
`Facsimile: (650) 802-6001
`
`Attorneys for Complainant HumanEyes
`Technologies, Ltd.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`4
`
`

`
`Case 1:12-cv-00398-GMS Document 31-1 Filed 04/19/13 Page 6 of 6 PageID #: 410
`
`
`Via E-mail
`
`Via E-mail
`
`/s/ Megan Nelson
`
`Megan Nelson
`Paralegal
`
`
`
`5
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Via EDIS
`
`Via E-mail and Hand Delivery (2 copies)
`
`CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
`
`The undersigned hereby certifies that on September 21, 2012, copies of the
`foregoing COMPLAINANT HUMANEYES TECHNOLOGIES, LTD.’S MOTION
`FOR TERMINATION and MEMORANDUM IN SUPPORT were served upon the
`following parties as indicated below:
`
`The Honorable James R. Holbein
`Secretary
`Lisa R. Barton
`Acting Secretary
`U.S. International Trade Commission
`500 E Street, SW Room 112
`Washington, D.C. 20436
`
`The Honorable David P. Shaw
`Administrative Law Judge
`U.S. International Trade Commission
`500 E Street, SW Room 317-O
`Washington, D.C. 20436
`Patricia.Chow@usitc.gov
`
`Mareesa Frederick
`Office of Unfair Import Investigations
`U.S. International Trade Commission
`500 E Street SW, Room 401-E
`Washington, D.C. 20436
`Tel. (202) 205-2055
`mareesa.frederick@usitc.gov
`
`Wesley Jones
`Kenyon & Kenyon LLP
`1500 K Street, N.W.
`Washington, D.C. 20005
`Tel: (202) 220-4200
`Fax: (202) 220-4201
`Sony-HumanEyes-ITC@kenyon.com
`Counsel for Respondents Sony
`Corporation, Sony Corporation of
`America, Sony Electronics Inc., Sony
`Communications AB, and Sony
`Communications (USA) Inc.