UNITED STATES INTERNATIONAL TRADE COMMISSION
`WASHINGTON, D.C.
`
`Before the Honorable MaryJoan McNamara
`Administrative Law Judge
`
`In the Matter of
`
`CERTAIN ACTIVE MATRIX OLED
`DISPLAY DEVICES AND COMPONENTS
`THEREOF
`
` Investigation No. 337-TA-1225
`
`COMPLAINANT’S UNOPPOSED MOTION TO TERMINATE THE
`INVESTIGATION IN ITS ENTIRETY BASED ON WITHDRAWAL OF
`COMPLAINT AND TO STAY THE PROCEDURAL SCHEDULE
`AND
`REQUEST FOR EXPEDITED TREATMENT
`
`Pursuant
`
`to Commission Rule 210.21(a)(1), Complainant Solas OLED Ltd.
`
`(“Complainant” or “Solas”) respectfully moves to terminate the Investigation in its entirety based
`
`on withdrawal of the Complaint. Complainant also moves to stay all deadlines in procedural
`
`schedule pending a ruling in the motion to terminate, as well as the Commission review of the
`
`same, in order to avoid expenditure of substantial resources by the parties and the Administrative
`
`Law Judge. Finally, Complainant requests expedited treatment given the impending deadlines in
`
`the procedural schedule.
`
`GROUND RULE 2.2 CERTIFICATION
`
`On November 4, 2020, pursuant to Ground Rule 2.2, Solas provided notice of its intent to
`
`file this motion to terminate. All Respondents indicated that they do not oppose this motion. The
`
`Staff also indicated that it does not oppose this motion but reserves its position upon review of the
`
`papers.
`
`1
`
`LG Display
`Exhibit 1026
`LG Display v. Solas
`IPR2020-01238
`
`Ex. 1026-001
`
`

`

`I.
`
`DISCUSSION
`
`Commission Rule 210.21(a)(1) provides in part that: “[a]ny 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 . . . .” 19 C.F.R.
`
`§ 210.21(a)(1). The Commission has stated that “[i]n the absence of extraordinary circumstances,
`
`termination of an investigation will be readily granted to a complainant during the prehearing stage
`
`of an investigation.” Certain Microfluidic Sys. & Components Thereof & Prods. Containing Same,
`
`Inv. No. 337-TA-1100, Order No. 27 at 1 (Dec. 10, 2018) (citing Certain Television Sets,
`
`Television Receivers, Television Tuners, & Components Thereof, Inv. No. 337-TA-910, Order No.
`
`50 (Nov. 12, 2014)); see also Certain Subsea Telecommunications Sys. & Components Thereof,
`
`Inv. No. 337-TA-1098, Order No. 52 (Dec. 6, 2018); Certain Memory Modules & Components
`
`Thereof, Inv. No. 337-TA-1089, Order No. 27 at 2 (Dec. 6, 2018); Certain Toner Cartridges &
`
`Components Thereof, Inv. No. 337 TA-1106 Order No. 33 (Nov. 26, 2018). Here, the initial
`
`determination on violation has not yet been issued. The investigation is currently in the prehearing
`
`stage and parties are yet to serve discovery responses. Furthermore, public policy supports
`
`termination of the withdrawn complaint in order to conserve public and private resources. See
`
`Certain Modular LED Display Panels & Components Thereof, Inv. No. 337-TA-1114, Order No.
`
`23 at 2–3 (Oct. 24. 2018); Certain Road Construction Machs. & Components Thereof, Inv. No.
`
`337-TA-1088, Order No. 38 (Oct. 16, 2018).
`
`In addition, in order to avoid unnecessary expenditure of resources by the private parties,
`
`Commission Investigative Staff, and the Administrative Law Judge, Complainant moves to stay
`
`the procedural schedule pending the Administrative Law Judge’s review of this motion and
`
`2
`
`Ex. 1026-002
`
`

`

`Commission review of any ruling on this motion to terminate. There is good cause to grant this
`
`motion to terminate and to grant an immediate stay of the procedural schedule pending a ruling
`
`from the Administrative Law Judge on the motion to terminate the Investigation. See, e.g., Certain
`
`Muzzle-Loading Firearms & Components Thereof, Inv. No. 337-TA-777, Order No. 24 at 2 (Nov.
`
`30, 2011) (granting motion to suspend the procedural as to certain respondents pending a ruling
`
`on a motion to terminate because “[s]everal events are set to occur shortly in this matter); Certain
`
`Devices for Mobile Data Commc’n, Inv. No. 337-TA-809, Order No. 60, at 2 (Oct. 12, 2012)
`
`(suspending the procedural schedule pursuant to Complainant’s request); Certain Coupler Devices
`
`for Power Supply Facilities, Components Thereof, & Prods. Containing Same, Inv. No. 337-TA-
`
`590, Order No. 31 (Aug. 23, 2007) (granting motion to stay procedural schedule in light of pending
`
`motion to terminate). There are a number of imminent deadlines in this Investigation, including
`
`the deadline for Solas to serve Responses to Respondents’ First Set of Interrogatories and Requests
`
`for Production and the deadline for parties to File a List of Tentative Econ Prong Witnesses, both
`
`due Monday, November 9, 2020; the Telephone management conference, scheduled for Tuesday,
`
`November 10, 2020; and the deadline for Complainant to serve its Expert Report on Econ Prong
`
`and file a separate Econ Prong Contentions, which is due Friday, November 13, 2020. See Order
`
`No. 3 (Oct. 26, 2020) (Scheduling Order for the 100-Day Phase of this Investigation). There is no
`
`need for the Parties to continue to expend resources to litigate issues pending the outcome of
`
`Complainant’s motion to terminate. The requested stay and request for expedited treatment will
`
`therefore conserve the resources of the Administrative Law Judge, the Commission Investigative
`
`Staff, and the private parties.
`
`Pursuant to Commission Rule 210.21(a)(1), Solas states that there are no agreements,
`
`written or oral, express or implied, between the Parties concerning the subject matter of this
`
`3
`
`Ex. 1026-003
`
`

`

`Investigation (e.g., no settlement, licensing, or other such agreement). In addition, there are no
`
`extraordinary circumstances that would justify denying termination of this Investigation based on
`
`withdrawal of the Complaint.
`
`II.
`
`CONCLUSION
`
`Based on the foregoing, Solas respectfully requests that this Investigation be terminated in
`
`its entirety based on withdrawal of the Complaint and requests that all procedural schedule
`
`deadlines be stayed.
`
`Dated: November 6, 2020 Respectfully submitted,
`
`/s/ Evan H. Langdon
`Evan H. Langdon
`NIXON PEABODY LLP
`799 9th Street NW, Suite 500
`Washington, DC 20001-5327
`Telephone: (202) 585-8000
`Facsimile: (202) 585-8080
`E-Mail: solas_itc@nixonpeabody.com
`
`Paulina M. Starostka
`Vivian Sandoval
`NIXON PEABODY LLP
`70 West Madison St., Suite 3500
`Chicago, IL 60602
`
`Reza Mirzaie
`Marc A. Fenster
`Brian D. Ledahl
`Neil A. Rubin
`Philip X. Wang
`C. Jay Chung
`Kent N. Shum
`Amy E. Hayden
`Christian W. Conkle
`Shani Williams
`Kristopher R. Davis
`Jonathan Ma
`RUSS AUGUST & KABAT
`12424 Wilshire Boulevard, 12th Floor
`Los Angeles, CA 90025
`
`4
`
`Ex. 1026-004
`
`

`

`Phone: (310) 826-7474
`E-Mail: rak_solas_itc@raklaw.com
`
`Matthew D. Aichele
`RUSS AUGUST & KABAT
`800 Maine Avenue, SW, Suite 200
`Washington, DC 20024
`
`Counsel for Complainant
`Solas OLED Ltd
`
`5
`
`Ex. 1026-005
`
`

`

`UNITED STATES INTERNATIONAL TRADE COMMISSION
`WASHINGTON, D.C.
`
`Before the Honorable MaryJoan McNamara
`Administrative Law Judge
`
`In the Matter of
`
`CERTAIN ACTIVE MATRIX OLED
`DISPLAY DEVICES AND COMPONENTS
`THEREOF
`
` Investigation No. 337-TA-1225
`
`[PROPOSED] ORDER GRANTING COMPLAINANT’S UNOPPOSED MOTION TO
`TERMINATE THE INVESTIGATION IN ITS ENTIRETY BASED ON WITHDRAWAL
`OF COMPLAINT AND TO STAY THE PROCEDURAL SCHEDULE
`AND
`REQUEST FOR EXPEDITED TREATMENT
`
`On November 6, 2020, Complainant Solas OLED Ltd. submitted an Unopposed Motion
`
`to Terminate the Investigation in its Entirety Based on Withdrawal of Complaint and to Stay the
`
`Procedural Schedule and Request for Expedited Treatment. Having considered the Motion, and
`
`finding that good cause exists and the motion to terminate is justified, it is hereby ORDERED
`
`that, in the above-captioned Investigation, (1) The investigation be terminated in its entirety and
`
`(2) The procedural schedule is hereby stayed as to all deadlines.
`
`Issued:
`
`_______________________
`MaryJoan McNamara
`Administrative Law Judge
`
`6
`
`Ex. 1026-006
`
`

`

`CERTAIN ACTIVE MATRIX OLED DISPLAY
`DEVICES AND COMPONENTS THEREOF
`
`Inv. No. 337-TA-1225
`
`CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
`
`I, Bilal Iddinn, hereby certify that on November 6, 2020, copies of the foregoing were
`filed with and served upon the following as indicated:
`
`The Honorable Lisa R. Barton
`Secretary to the Commission
`U.S. INTERNATIONAL TRADE COMMISSION
`500 E Street, S.W., Room 112
`Washington, DC 20436
`
`The Honorable MaryJoan McNamara
`Administrative Law Judge
`U.S. INTERNATIONAL TRADE COMMISSION
`500 E Street, S.W., Room 317
`Washington, D.C. 20436
`McNamara337@usitc.gov
`
`Jae Lee, Esq.
`Attorney Advisor
`U.S. INTERNATIONAL TRADE COMMISSION
`500 E Street, S.W.
`Washington, D.C. 20436
`jae.lee@usitc.gov
`
`Monica Bhattacharyya, Esq.
`Office of Unfair Import Investigations
`U.S. INTERNATIONAL TRADE COMMISSION
`500 E Street, S.W.
`Washington, D.C. 20436
`monica.bhattacharyya@usitc.gov
`
`COUNSEL FOR RESPONDENTS SAMSUNG CO., LTD.;
`SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS AMERICA, INC.; SAMSUNG
`DISPLAY CO., LTD.; AND DELL TECHNOLOGIES INC.:
`
`D. Sean Trainor
`O’MELVENY & MYERS LLP
`1625 Eye Street, NW
`Washington, DC 20006
`SolasITCSamsungDellOMM@omm.com
`
` Via First Class Mail
` Via Courier (FedEx)
` Via Hand Delivery
` Via Email
` Via EDIS
`
` Via First Class Mail
` Via Courier (FedEx)
` Via Hand Delivery
` Via Email
`
` Via First Class Mail
` Via Courier (FedEx)
` Via Hand Delivery
` Via Email
`
` Via First Class Mail
` Via Courier (FedEx)
` Via Hand Delivery
` Via Email
`
` Via First Class Mail
` Via Courier (FedEx)
` Via Hand Delivery
` Via Email
`
`Ex. 1026-007
`
`

`

`COUNSEL FOR RESPONDENTS LG DISPLAY CO. LTD.; LG
`DISPLAY AMERICA, INC.; LG ELECTRONICS INC.; LG
`ELECTRONICS USA, INC.; AND SONY ELECTRONICS INC.:
`
`Bert C. Reiser
`LATHAM & WATKINS LLP
`555 Eleventh Street, N.W.
`Suite 1000
`Washington, DC 20004
`lgd-itcsolas.lwteam@lw.com
`
`Gregory S. Gewirtz
`LERNER, DAVID, LITTENBERG,
`KRUMHOLZ & MENTLIK, LLP
`20 Commerce Drive
`Cranford, New Jersey 07016
`SEL-LD-ITC@lernerdavid.com
`
`COUNSEL FOR RESPONDENT APPLE INC.; AND
`MOTOROLA MOBILITY LLC:
`
`Mark Fowler
`DLA PIPER LLP (US)
`2000 University Avenue
`East Palo Alto, CA 94303-2214
`DLA-Solas-ITC@us.dlapiper.com
`
`Sean C. Cunningham
`DLA PIPER LLP (US)
`401 B Street, Suite 1700
`San Diego, CA 92101
`DLA-Solas-ITC@us.dlapiper.com
`
` Via First Class Mail
` Via Courier (FedEx)
` Via Hand Delivery
` Via Email
`
` Via First Class Mail
` Via Courier (FedEx)
` Via Hand Delivery
` Via Email
`
` Via First Class Mail
` Via Courier (FedEx)
` Via Hand Delivery
` Via Email
`
` Via First Class Mail
` Via Courier (FedEx)
` Via Hand Delivery
` Via Email
`
`/s/ Bilal Iddinn
`Bilal Iddinn
`Paralegal
`NIXON PEABODY LLP
`799 9th Street NW, Suite 500
`Washington, DC 20001-5327
`Telephone: (202) 585-8670
`Facsimile: (202) 585-8080
`E-Mail: biddinn@nixonpeabody.com
`
`2
`
`Ex. 1026-008
`
`