(August 1, 2012) On July 18, 2012, complainant ChriMar Systems, Inc. (“ChriMar”) and respondent Avaya, Inc. (“Avaya”) jointly moved to tenninate the investigation based on a settlement agreement.

The C0mmission’s Rules provide that “[a]ny party may move at any time for an order to terminate an investigation in whole or in part as to any or all respondents on the basis of a settlement, a licensing or other agreement...” 19 C.F.R. § 2l0.21(a)(2); see also Certain

Pursuant to Ground Rule 3.2, counsel for ChriMar and Avaya certify that they have consulted with the remaining Respondents and the Staff regarding the issues presented herein prior to filing this motion.

Accordingly, for the reasons set forth above and in the accompanying joint motion, ChriMar and Avaya respectfully request that this Investigation be partially terminated pursuant to the provisions of l9 U.S.C. § 1337(0) and 19 C.F.R. § 210.21(b).

(August 1, 2012) On July 20, 2012, complainant ChIiMar Systems, Inc. filed a motion for tennination of the investigation in its entirety based on withdrawal of the complaint against respondents Cisco Systems, Inc., Cisco Systems Intemational, B.V., Cisco-Linksys LLC, Cisco Consumer Products LLC (collectively the “Cisco Respondents”), Hewlett-Packard Company (“HP”), and Extreme Networks, Inc. (“Extreme”) and to suspend the procedural schedule pending a mling on the motion to terminate.

On July 23, 2012, the ALJ granted in part Motion No. 817-048 to the extent it sought to suspend the procedural schedule.

Under CommissionRule 2l0.2l(a)(l): 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 for an order 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.

The motion states that there no agreements, written or oral, express or implied between the parties conceming the subject matter of the investigation.

(July 23, 2012) On July 20, 2012, complainant ChriMar Systems, Inc. d/b/a CMS Technologies (“ChriMar”) filed a motion to terminate this investigation in its entirety based on ChriMar’s withdrawal of the complaint against respondents Cisco Systems, Inc., Cisco Systems Intemational, B.V., Cisco-Linksys LLC, Cisco Consumer Products LLC, Hewlett-Packard Company and Extreme Networks, Inc. (collectively “non-settling Respondents”) (Motion Docket No.

The motion states that the Commission Investigative Staff (“Staff”) does not oppose the suspension of the procedural schedule, and the non-settling Respondents support suspension of the procedural schedule.

In light of its motion to terminate the investigation as to the non-settling Respondents based on withdrawal of the complaint, ChriMar seeks to suspend the procedural pending a ruling on said motion to terminate in order to avoid unnecessary work on the part of the private parties, Staff and the ALJ.

Good cause being shown and there being no opposition, Motion No. 817-048 is hereby GRANTED TN PART.

A claim must contain “enough facts to state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face,” Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 3 ChriMar states that none of these foregoing facts, including those further discussed in the HPCC, are relevant to its ...