UNITED STATES INTERNATIONAL TRADE COMMISSION
`Washington, D.C.
`
`Before The Honorable David P. Shaw
`Administrative Law Judge
`
`In the Matter of
`
`CERTAIN DIGITAL MEDIA DEVICES,
`INCLUDING TELEVISIONS, BLU-RAY
`DISC PLAYERS, HOME THEATER
`SYSTEMS, TABLETS AND MOBILE
`PHONES, COMPONENTS THEREOF
`AND ASSOCIATED SOFTWARE
`
`Investigation No. 337-TA-882
`
`MOTION TO INTERVENE IN INVESTIGATION
`AND SUPPORTING MEMORANDUM OF GOOGLE INC.
`
`MOTION
`
`Pursuant to Commission Rule 210.19, Google Inc. (“Google”) moves to intervene
`
`in this investigation. Google seeks to intervene to protect its significant interests and to
`
`defend the Google and YouTube, LLC (“YouTube”) proprietary products and services
`
`that are identified in the Complaint and the accompanying claim charts or that are
`
`otherwise within the scope of this investigation. YouTube is a wholly-owned subsidiary
`
`of Google. As set forth in more detail in the following memorandum, Google respect-
`
`fully requests that its motion to intervene (“Motion”) be granted.1
`
`1 Google presently seeks to intervene only as an intervenor and not as a respondent.
`Should its motion be granted, however, Google reserves the right to file a motion to
`change its status to that of a respondent
`if additional facts come to light
`in the
`investigation that would support such a request.
`
`- 1 -
`
`BHM Ex. 2003
`
`
`Washington, D.C.
`
`Before The Honorable David P. Shaw
`Administrative Law Judge
`
`In the Matter of
`
`CERTAIN DIGITAL MEDIA DEVICES,
`INCLUDING TELEVISIONS, BLU-RAY
`DISC PLAYERS, HOME THEATER
`SYSTEMS, TABLETS AND MOBILE
`PHONES, COMPONENTS THEREOF
`AND ASSOCIATED SOFTWARE
`
`Investigation No. 337-TA-882
`
`MOTION TO INTERVENE IN INVESTIGATION
`AND SUPPORTING MEMORANDUM OF GOOGLE INC.
`
`MOTION
`
`Pursuant to Commission Rule 210.19, Google Inc. (“Google”) moves to intervene
`
`in this investigation. Google seeks to intervene to protect its significant interests and to
`
`defend the Google and YouTube, LLC (“YouTube”) proprietary products and services
`
`that are identified in the Complaint and the accompanying claim charts or that are
`
`otherwise within the scope of this investigation. YouTube is a wholly-owned subsidiary
`
`of Google. As set forth in more detail in the following memorandum, Google respect-
`
`fully requests that its motion to intervene (“Motion”) be granted.1
`
`1 Google presently seeks to intervene only as an intervenor and not as a respondent.
`Should its motion be granted, however, Google reserves the right to file a motion to
`change its status to that of a respondent
`if additional facts come to light
`in the
`investigation that would support such a request.
`
`- 1 -
`
`BHM Ex. 2003
`
`
`
`As required by Ground Rule 5(e), Google has made a reasonable and good-faith
`
`effort to contact and seek to resolve the subject matter of this Motion two days prior to
`
`filing this Motion. Respondents Samsung Electronics Co., Inc., Samsung Electronics
`
`America, Inc., Samsung Telecommunications America, L.L.C., LG Electronics, Inc.,
`
`LG Electronics, Inc., LG Electronics, U.S.A., Inc., LG Electronics MobileComm U.S.A.,
`
`Inc., Panasonic Corporation, Panasonic Corporation of America, Toshiba Corporation,
`
`Toshiba Corporation America Information Systems, Inc., Sharp Corporation, and Sharp
`
`Electronics Corporation (“Respondents”) indicated they do not oppose the Motion.
`
`Complainant Black Hills Media, LLC (“Black Hills” or “Complainant”) indicated that it
`
`will oppose the Motion. The Commission Investigative Staff has indicated that it will
`
`take a position after it reviews the Motion.
`
`MEMORANDUM
`
`I.
`
`STATEMENT OF FACTS
`
`This investigation was instituted on June 18, 2013, as a result of a Complaint that
`
`was filed by Black Hills on May 13, 2013, alleging infringement of six patents by one or
`
`more of twelve Respondents, including OEMS for Android devices, Samsung Electronics
`
`Co., Inc., Samsung Electronics America, Inc., Samsung Telecommunications America,
`
`L.L.C., LG Electronics, Inc., LG Electronics,
`
`Inc., LG Electronics, U.S.A., Inc.,
`
`LG Electronics MobileComm U.S.A.,
`
`Inc., Panasonic Corporation, Panasonic
`
`Corporation of America, Toshiba Corporation, Toshiba Corporation America Information
`
`Systems, Inc., Sharp Corporation, and Sharp Electronics Corporation.
`
`The claim charts that accompanied the Complaint specifically identify certain
`
`proprietary Google and YouTube products and services operating on Android devices
`
`- 2 -
`
`BHM Ex. 2003
`
`
`
`manufactured by each of the Respondents as allegedly infringing or allegedly providing a
`
`portion of the infringing functionality of various patent claims. Specifically, Google
`
`Maps and Google Latitude were identified in the claim charts for U.S. Patent 6,618,593.
`
`Google Play Music was expressly identified in the claim charts for U.S. Patent
`
`Nos. 8,045,952 and 8,050,652. YouTube was expressly identified in claim charts for U.S.
`
`Patent Nos. 8,028,323, 8,214,873, and 8,230,099.
`
`In addition, Black Hills has served subpoenas on both Google and its wholly-
`
`owned subsidiary YouTube, copies of which are attached as Exhibits 1 and 2. The
`
`subpoena to Google defines “Google Device Locator Applications” as “software applica-
`
`tions that enable device users to identify and locate on a map, via global positioning
`
`system data, other wireless communication devices. Device Locator Applications include,
`
`without limitation, Google Latitude, AT&T Family Map, and all other reasonably similar
`
`applications.” Ex. 1 at 4. The subpoena defines “Google Media Sharing Applications”
`
`as “YouTube and applications for managing and sharing digital media and other network
`
`connected devices including music sharing applications, such as Google Play Music and
`
`reasonably similar applications, as well as, second screen and DIAL video sharing
`
`applications, and other reasonably similar applications.” Id. The subpoena to YouTube,
`
`Google’s wholly owned subsidiary, defines “YouTube Products” as “YouTube software
`
`used in conjunction with respondents’ devices including, but not limited to, YouTube
`
`applications and services and YouTube discovery and launch (‘DIAL’), second screen, or
`
`remote control functionality.” Ex. 2 at 5.
`
`- 3 -
`
`BHM Ex. 2003
`
`
`
`II.
`
`ARGUMENT
`
`A.
`
`Legal Standard
`
`The Commission’s rules expressly provide for a third party to intervene in a
`
`pending investigation. Rule 210.19; Certain Sucralose, Sweeteners Containing Sucralose,
`
`and Related Intermediate Compounds Thereof, Inv. No. 337-TA-604, Order No. 7
`
`(July 25, 2007) (“The Commission generally follows the Federal Rules of Civil
`
`Procedure in determining whether intervention in a particular matter is appropriate.”)2
`
`The Commission evaluates the following factors in determining whether intervention is
`
`appropriate:
`
`(1) was the motion timely; (2) does the moving party have “an interest
`
`relating to the property or transaction which is the subject of the action;” (3) is the
`
`moving party “so situated that the disposition of the action may as a practical matter
`
`impair or impede its ability to protect that interest;” and (4) is the moving party “not
`
`adequately represented by existing parties.” Id.
`
`B.
`
`GOOGLE SATISFIES THE STANDARD FOR INTERVENTION
`
`1.
`
`Google’s Motion is Timely
`
`A motion to intervene is timely if filed at a “relatively early” stage of the
`
`investigation. Id. Google’s motion is timely, as this investigation was only instituted on
`
`June 18, 2013, a little more than five weeks ago, and the preliminary hearing before the
`
`ALJ will not occur until August 6, 2013.
`
`See Certain Portable Electronic
`
`Communication Devices, Including Mobile Phones and Components Thereof, Inv.
`
`2 Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 24 provides: “On timely motion, the court must
`permit anyone to intervene who .
`.
`. claims an interest relating to the property or
`transaction that is the subject of the action, and is so situated that disposing of the action
`may as a practical matter impair or impede the movant’s ability to protect its interest,
`unless existing parties adequately represent that interest.”
`
`- 4 -
`
`BHM Ex. 2003
`
`
`
`No. 337-TA-885, Order No. 5 (July 16, 2013) (motion timely when filed “within weeks
`
`of the institution of the investigation”); Certain Cigarettes and Packaging Thereof, Inv.
`
`No. 337-TA-424, Order No. 15 (Nov. 19, 1999) (granting motion to intervene filed less
`
`than ninety days after publication of the notice of investigation and prior to the initial
`
`conference).
`
`2.
`
`Google Has a Compelling Interest in This Investigation
`
`Google has a compelling interest in this investigation as a result of Complainant’s
`
`assertion that the alleged infringement is based, in part, on Respondents’ devices and
`
`their use of proprietary Google products and services, including Google Play Music,
`
`Google Maps/Latitude, and YouTube. See Certain Portable Electronic Communication
`
`Devices, Including Mobile Phones and Components Thereof, Inv. No. 337-TA-885,
`
`Order No. 5 (finding Google established that it has a substantial interest due to the
`
`alleged infringement of HTC devices that run Google products or services); Certain
`
`Electronic Devices, Including Mobile Phones and Tablet Computers, and Components
`
`Thereof, Inv. No. 337-TA-847, Order No. 3 (Aug. 3, 2012) (finding Google established
`
`that it has a substantial interest because “proprietary Android applications developed by
`
`Google and imbedded [sic] in the accused HTC devices form the basis of Nokia’s
`
`infringement allegations”); see also, Ancora Tech., Inc. v. Toshiba Am. Info. Sys., Inc.,
`
`2008 WL 4326788 at *1 (C.D. Cal. Sept. 22, 2008) (granting motion to intervene where
`
`“[a]pplicant has a significantly protectable interest because the Defendants are important
`
`OEM customers who make and sell computer products equipped with Applicant’s
`
`software, and Plaintiff alleges patent infringement based on the Defendants’ use of
`
`- 5 -
`
`BHM Ex. 2003
`
`
`
`Applicant’s software and technology in connection with making and selling computer
`
`products”).
`
`Google also has a business interest in the continued importation and sale of
`
`Respondents’ accused products that utilize Google proprietary products and services.
`
`Google has invested substantial resources in developing and supporting these products
`
`and services and has a strong interest in assuring that Respondents can continue to utilize
`
`these products and services by importing their products into the United States. See
`
`Certain Garage Door Operators, Inv. No. 337-TA-459, Order No. 5 (Oct. 1, 2001)
`
`(party’s status as “a designer, manufacturer and supplier” of a principal component of
`
`“the accused device renders its interest in this investigation substantial”).
`
`3.
`
`Google’s Substantial Interests Are Not Adequately
`Protected by the Respondents
`
`In two prior investigations involving Google’s proprietary products and services,
`
`with closely analogous facts, the Commission found that the respondents could not
`
`adequately protect Google’s interests. See Certain Electronic Devices, Including Mobile
`
`Phones and Tablet Computers, and Components Thereof, Inv. No. 337-TA-847, Order
`
`No. 3 (Aug. 3, 2012) (“I find that HTC, as the accused device manufacturer, but not the
`
`developer of the Android applications embedded in those devices, does not adequately
`
`represent Google’s interests.”); Certain Portable Electronic Communication Devices,
`
`Including Mobile Phones and Components Thereof, Inv. No. 337-TA-885, Order No. 5
`
`(“The ALJ finds that Google’s interests are not adequately protected by existing parties”).
`
`The same holds true in this investigation.
`
`- 6 -
`
`BHM Ex. 2003
`
`
`
`Moreover, Google’s products and services are not the only third-party products
`
`and services that are alleged to infringe the asserted patents, and Respondents’ interests
`
`will be more focused on their own accused products as opposed to Google’s proprietary
`
`products and services.
`
`See Certain Personal Computer with Memory Management
`
`Information Storied in External Memory, Inv. No. 337-TA-352, (July 15, 1993) (“Cyrix
`
`will not be adequately represented by the other parties in this investigation. The
`
`Twinhead respondents have an interest in selling personal computers, not necessarily
`
`those with Cyrix microprocessors. . . . Cyrix should not be forced to depend on the other
`
`parties to litigate issues which will have a very substantial effect on Cyrix’s interests.”).
`
`III.
`
`CONCLUSION
`
`For all these reasons, Google respectfully requests that its Motion to Intervene in
`
`Investigation as a party with full participation rights under Rule 210.19 be granted.
`
`Dated: July 26, 2013
`
`Respectfully submitted,
`
`/s/ Stefani E. Shanberg
`Stefani E. Shanberg
`Jennifer J. Schmidt
`Robin L. Brewer
`Michael J. Guo
`Madeleine E. Greene
`WILSON SONSINI GOODRICH & ROSATI
`Professional Corporation
`One Market Plaza
`Spear Tower, Suite 3300
`San Francisco, California 94105
`Telephone:
`(415) 947-2000
`Facsimile:
`(415) 947-2099
`E-Mail:
`sshanberg@wsgr.com
`jschmidt@wsgr.com
`rbrewer@wsgr.com
`mguo@wsgr.com
`mgreene@wsgr.com
`
`- 7 -
`
`BHM Ex. 2003
`
`
`
`Larry L. Shatzer
`WILSON SONSINI GOODRICH & ROSATI
`Professional Corporation
`1700 K Street, N.W., Fifth Floor
`Washington, D.C. 20006
`Telephone:
`(202) 973-8800
`Facsimile:
`(202 973-8899
`E-Mail:
`lshatzer@wsgr.com
`
`Counsel for GOOGLE INC.
`
`- 8 -
`
`BHM Ex. 2003
`
`
Accessing this document will incur an additional charge of $.
After purchase, you can access this document again without charge.
Accept $ Charge
Still Working On It
This document is taking longer than usual to download. This can happen if we need to contact the court directly to obtain the document and their servers are running slowly.
Give it another minute or two to complete, and then try the refresh button.
A few More Minutes ... Still Working
It can take up to 5 minutes for us to download a document if the court servers are running slowly.
Thank you for your continued patience.
This document could not be displayed.
We could not find this document within its docket. Please go back to the docket page and check the link. If that does not work, go back to the docket and refresh it to pull the newest information.
Your account does not support viewing this document.
You need a Paid Account to view this document. Click here to change your account type.
Your account does not support viewing this document.
Set your membership
status to view this document.
With a Docket Alarm membership, you'll
get a whole lot more, including:
- Up-to-date information for this case.
- Email alerts whenever there is an update.
- Full text search for other cases.
- Get email alerts whenever a new case matches your search.
One Moment Please
The filing “” is large (MB) and is being downloaded.
Please refresh this page in a few minutes to see if the filing has been downloaded. The filing will also be emailed to you when the download completes.
Your document is on its way!
If you do not receive the document in five minutes, contact support at support@docketalarm.com.
Sealed Document
We are unable to display this document, it may be under a court ordered seal.
If you have proper credentials to access the file, you may proceed directly to the court's system using your government issued username and password.
Access Government Site
