`
`Washington, D.C.
`
`
`
`In the Matter of
`
`CERTAIN LOCATION-SHARING
`SYSTEMS, RELATED SOFTWARE,
`COMPONENTS THEREOF, AND
`PRODUCTS CONTAINING SAME
`
`
`ORDER NO. 21:
`
`
`Inv. No. 337-TA-1347
`
`
`GRANTING COMMISSION INVESTIGATIVE STAFF’S MOTION
`FOR LEAVE TO ADMIT MARKMAN EXHIBIT
`
`(June 5, 2023)
`
`
`
`
`
`On May 23, 2023, the Commission Investigative Staff (“Staff”) moved (1347-008) for
`
`leave to admit Exhibit 1 to their motion into the record for the Markman hearing. Staff certified
`
`that Respondents did not oppose the motion. Mot. at 2. Complainants AGIS Software
`
`Development LLC and Advanced Ground Information Systems, Inc. (“AGIS”) informed Staff that
`
`“Complainants do not oppose to the extent the Motion to Admit is granted and the hearing
`
`transcript that relates to JMX-0016 is admitted, then good cause exists to admit any evidence
`
`Complainants cite in support of their May 23 briefing.” Id. No party filed any opposition or
`
`response to Staff’s motion.
`
`Exhibit 1 to Staff’s motion is a transcript from a hearing in the Eastern District of Texas
`
`construing the disputed term “group.” Mot. Ex. 1. This hearing relates to the Eastern District of
`
`Texas’s order construing the claim, JXM-0016, which is already in the Markman record. Staff
`
`argues that this transcript only became relevant when a dispute arose on the eve of the May 16,
`
`2023, Markman hearing. Mot. at 1. Staff argues that there is no prejudice to AGIS because it is a
`
`transcript from a district court hearing where the same counsel representing AGIS argued for the
`
`construction of “group,” and thus AGIS had knowledge of and access to the exhibit and could have
`
`
`
`relied upon the exhibit in support of its proposed construction. Staff also provided the exhibit
`
`before AGIS and Respondents’ time to file supplemental briefing regarding the term “group.”
`
`I grant Staff’s motion. Because the relevant dispute only became apparent on the eve of the
`
`Markman hearing, Staff’s disclosure of this exhibit is not untimely. No party filed any opposition,
`
`and the parties were not prejudiced because they had an opportunity to address and respond to
`
`Staff’s new exhibit in their supplemental briefing on the term “group.”
`
`
`
`SO ORDERED.
`
`
`
`
`
`- 2 -
`
`
`
`
`
`