Motion to Compel More Specific Invalidity Defenses and Interrogatories Responses on Invalidity Denied Where Respondents Identified Some Prior Art in Either Interrogatory Responses or Amended Responses to the Complaint
APJ Luckern denied Richtek’s request to compel more specific responses in the Respondents’ affirmative defenses and interrogatory responses. APJ Luckern noted that the Commission Rules encourage but do not require Respondents to provide a showing of how the prior art renders a claim invalid or unenforceable. In addition, the Respondents identified certain prior art that it contended invalidated the asserted patents. The Respondents did not rely on bald assertions of invalidity unlike other cases where the ITC previously ordered supplementation. (PDF)
