Search court records - party Kripa Raman, page 8

Motion to Quash Subpoena Duces Tecum and Subpoena Ad Testificandum Directed to SSC's Counsel No. 302807

Document Certain Short Wavelength Semiconductor Lasers and Products Containing Same, 337-627, No. 302807-1 (U.S.I.T.C. Jun. 11, 2008)

FINNEGAN, HENDERSON, FARABOW, GARRETT & DUNNER, L.L.P. Complainant Seoul Semiconductor Co. Ltd. (“SSC”) respectfully moves for an order quashing the subpoena duces tecum and subpoena ad testificandum served May 30,2008 (“Subpoena”), by Respondent Nichia Corporation (“Nichia”) on SSC’s trial counsel Finnegan, Henderson, Farabow, Garrett & Dunner, L.L.P. (“Finnegan”).

Second, to the extent the Subpoena seeks trial counsel’s work product-the real motivation here-it conflicts the Federal Circuit’s en banc decision in In re Seagate Technology, LLC, 497 F.3d 1360 (Fed. Cir. 2007), it has no justification in the facts or circumstances of this matter, and is a transparent tactic to harass SSC’s counsel and divert the focus of this Investigation into irrelevant collateral issues.

Accordingly, as set forth in more detail in the accompanying Memorandum in Support, SSC respectfully requests that the Subpoena to Finnegan, SSC’s trial counsel, be quashed in its entirety.

Respectfully submitted, Thomis L. Jarvis Andrew C. Sonu Paul C. Goulet James T. Wilson Darren M. Jiron

Cite Document

Analyze

Motion for Extenstion of Time to Respond to Amended Complaint No. 302826

Document Certain Short Wavelength Semiconductor Lasers and Products Containing Same, 337-627, No. 302826-1 (U.S.I.T.C. Jun. 11, 2008)

Respondents Hitachi, Ltd. and Hitachi America, Ltd. (collectively “Hitachi”), through the undersigned counsel, respectfully requests that the Administrative Law Judge extend the time for Hitachi to respond to the Amended Complaint filed by Complainant Seoul Semiconductor Company, Ltd. in the above-captioned matter until and including July 2, 2008.

For the reasons set forth in the Memorandum submitted herewith, Hitachi respectfully requests that the motion be granted.

Cite Document

Analyze