UNITED STATES INTERNATIONAL TRADE COMMISSION Washington, D.C. Before The Honorable Theodore R.

Essex Administrative Law Judge

In the Matter of CERTAIN SEMICONDUCTOR CHIPS AND PRODUCTS CONTAINING SAME Inv. No. 337-TA-753

OPPOSITION OF THE COMMISSION INVESTIGATIVE STAFF TO RESPONDENTS MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE CORRECTED POST-HEARING BRIEF (MTN. DKT. NO. 753-101)

OFFICE OF UNFAIR IMPORT INVESTIGATIONS Lynn I. Levine, Director David O. Lloyd, Supervising Attorney Daniel L. Girdwood, Investigative Attorney U.S. International Trade Commission 500 E Street, S.W. Suite 401-H Washington, D.C. 20436 202.205.3409 (ph) 202.205.2158 (fax) December 14, 2011

1 The Commission Investigative Staff (Staff) hereby submits its opposition to the Respondents December 5, 2011 motion for leave to file a corrected initial post-hearing brief. In the Staffs view, the Respondents are effectively seeking leave to present new arguments and to identify new evidentiary citations outside the framework of the governing procedural schedule and without adequate opportunity for Complainant and the Staff to respond. As such, the motion is untimely and prejudicial. For at least these reasons, the Staff opposes the motion. Provided below is an overview of the relevant procedural background and one example of prejudice that Complainant and the Staff would incur should the Respondents motion to make the thirteen proposed corrections be granted. On November 8, 2011 the parties submitted initial post-hearing briefs in accordance with the procedural schedule set forth in Order No. 16 (Mar. 3, 2011).1 Roughly one business day before the deadline for filing reply post-hearing briefs and ten days after serving their initial brief, the Respondents emailed Complainant and the Staff with an errata purporting to correct or add twelve evidentiary citations within their initial post-hearing brief. See Exhibit 1 hereto (Friday, Nov. 18, 2011 email from counsel for Respondents that was received by the Staff after close of business at 5:58 pm). As discussed below, this errata did not disclose all of the corrections/additions that the

See Respondents Post-Trial Brief, EDIS Doc. ID 463633 (Nov. 8, 2011) (Resp. Initial Br.); Complainant Rambus Inc.s Posthearing Brief, EDIS Doc. ID 463649 (Nov. 8, 2011) (Comp. Initial Br.); Initial Post-Hearing Brief of the Commission Investigative Staff, EDIS Doc. ID 463598 (Nov. 8, 2011) (Staff Initial Br.).

2 Respondents now seek leave to make.2 Indeed, the proposed correction discussed below was not disclosed in this email. On November 22, 2011, the parties submitted reply post-hearing briefs pursuant to the governing procedural schedule.3 Notably, the Staffs reply post-hearing brief argues that Broadcom waived its disabled circuitry argument by failing to identify support for that argument in the Respondents initial post-hearing brief. See Staff Reply Br. at 66-67; see also Ground Rule 11.1 (all issues not adequately discussed in a partys initial post-hearing brief shall be deemed waived.). More than a week after service of the Staffs reply post-hearing brief, the Respondents filed the instant motion in which they seek to cure Broadcoms waiver by adding the missing support to page 133 of their initial post-hearing brief. See Motion at 6 (seeking to modify page 133 of Resp. Initial Br. to include reference to a footnote 55). Notably, this correction was first identified by the Respondents in the instant motion after completion of post-hearing briefing; it was not among the twelve evidentiary corrections/additions identified in the Respondents November 18, 2011 email. See generally Exhibit 1 hereto. Thus, the Staff did not have any opportunity to address Broadcoms new disabled circuitry argument in the Staffs reply post-hearing brief.

The Staff notes that it had no opportunity to respond to certain of the Respondents corrections/additions in the Staffs reply post-hearing brief. Moreover, even if all of the Respondents proposed corrections/additions had been disclosed in their November 18, 2011 errata, the Staff submits that one business day is not sufficient time to review, consider, and rebut the corrections/additions. See Respondents Post-Hearing Reply Brief, EDIS Doc. ID 465121 (Nov. 22, 2011) (Resp. Reply Br.); Complainant Rambus Inc.s Posthearing Reply Brief, EDIS Doc. ID 465112 (Nov. 22, 2011) (Comp. Reply Br.); Reply Post-Hearing Brief of the Commission Investigative Staff, EDIS Doc. ID 465069 (Nov. 22, 2011) (Staff Reply Br.).
3

3 To the extent that Broadcom argues the relevance of footnote 55 to the disabled circuitry argument on page 133 of the Respondents initial post-hearing brief was readily discernable by a slight amount of investigation, the Staff disagrees. See Motion at 5 ([T]he brief as filed provides all the relevant information and support for all arguments, and with a slight amount of investigation the reader can deduce the correct citation for almost all of the cites.). Footnote 55 in Respondents original, as-filed brief merely contains a list of exhibits; it contains no analysis or explanation tying these particular exhibits to the use of disabled circuitry in Broadcoms accused products. Nor does footnote 55 even appear on the original, as-filed page 133 which discusses Broadcoms alleged use of disabled circuitry and which the Respondents seek to modify so as to now include reference to that footnote. Thus, a slight amount of investigation would not have revealed the bases for Broadcoms disabled circuitry argument. While the example discussed above is the most egregious omission that Respondents seek to correct, other proposed corrections are similarly improper. In sum, the Staff submits that the Respondents motion improperly seeks leave to present new arguments and to identify new evidentiary citations outside the framework of the governing procedural schedule, and in conflict with the waiver provision of Ground Rule 11.1. In the Staffs view, the motion should thus be denied as untimely and prejudicial to Complainant and the Staff.

Respectfully Submitted, /s/ Daniel L. Girdwood Lynn I. Levine, Director David O. Lloyd, Supervising Attorney Daniel L. Girdwood, Investigative Attorney OFFICE OF UNFAIR IMPORT INVESTIGATIONS U.S. Intl Trade Commn 500 E Street S.W., Suite 401-H Washington, D.C. 20436 202.205.3409 (ph) 202.205.2158 (fax) December 14, 2011

Certain Semiconductor Chips And Products Containing Same CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

Inv. No. 337-TA-753

The undersigned certifies that on December 14, 2011, he caused the foregoing OPPOSITION OF THE COMMISSION INVESTIGATIVE STAFF TO RESPONDENTS MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE CORRECTED POSTHEARING BRIEF (MTN. DKT. NO. 753-101) to be filed with the Commission, served by hand upon Administrative Law Judge Theodore R. Essex (2 copies plus a courtesy .pdf and .docx copy to tamara.foley@usitc.gov), and served upon the parties (1 copy each) in the manner indicated below: Complainant Rambus Inc. Christine E. Lehman c/o Finnegan Henderson 901 New York Ave., N.W. Washington, D.C. 20001-4413 202.408.4000 (ph) 202.408.4400 (fax) ITC753-Service@finnegan.com Respondents Broadcom Corp. MediaTek Inc., Cisco Systems Inc. Motorola Mobility Inc., Oppo Digital Inc., Audio Partnership PLC, and nVidia Corp. Thomas Pease c/o Quinn Emanuel 51 Madison Ave., 22nd Floor New York, N.Y. 10010 212.849.7000 212.849.7100 Via Email Via Email

Quinn-ITC-753@quinnemanuel.com 337-753Kenyon@Kenyon.com (secondary counsel for Broadcom, MediaTek, Oppo Digital, and Audio Partnership) S&Jmotorola753@steptoe.com (secondary counsel for Motorola) Perkins-753-Dist@perkinscoie.com (secondary counsel for Broadcom) orrick753-service@orrick.com (secondary counsel for nVidia) 337-753Fish@fr.com (secondary counsel for nVidia) ciscoITCclientTeam@winston.com (secondary counsel for Cisco)

Respondents LSI Corp. and Seagate Technology Jonathan D. Link c/o Kilpatrick Townsend & Stockton LLP Suite 900 607 14th St., N.W. Washington, D.C. 20005 202.508.5800 (ph) 202.508.5858 (fax) lsirambusitc@kilpatricktownsend.com FM-LSI@fostermurphy.com Respondents ASUSTek Computer Inc., Asus Computer Intl Inc., Biostar Microtech (USA) Corp., Biostar Microtech Intl Corp., EliteGroup Computer System Co. Ltd., EVGA Corp., Galaxy Microsystems Ltd., Giga-Byte Tech. Co. Ltd., G.B.T. Inc., Hewlett-Packard Co., Jaton Corp., Jaton Technology TPE, Micro-Star Intl Co., MSI Computer Corp., Gracom Tech. LLC, Palit Microsystems Ltd., Pine Technology Holdings Ltd., Sparkle Computer Co. Ltd., Zotac USA Inc., and Zotac Intl (MCO) Ltd. Andrew R. Kopsidas c/o Fish Richardson 1425 K Street, N.W. - 11th Floor Washington, D.C. 20005 202.783.5070 (ph) 202.283.7331 (fax) 337-753Fish@fr.com Respondents STMicroelectronics N.V. and STMicroelectronics Inc. Eric Rusnak c/o K&L Gates 1601 K Street, N.W. Washington, D.C. 20006 202.778.9000 (ph) 202.778.9100 (fax) STMicro_ITC753@klgates.com Via Email Via Email Via Email

Respondent Hitachi Global Storage Tech. Alexander J. Hadjis c/o Morrison & Foerster 2000 Pennsylvania Ave., N.W. Suite 600 Washington, D.C. 20006 202.887.1500 (ph) 202.887.0763 (fax) mofo753-service@mofo.com Respondent Garmin Intl Louis S. Mastriani c/o Adduci, Mastriani & Schaumberg LLP 1200 Seventeenth St., N.W. - 5th Floor Washington, D.C. 20036 202.467.6300 (ph) 202.466.2006 (fax) GAR-3@adduci.com /s/ Daniel L Girdwood Office Of Unfair Import Investigations U.S. International Trade Commission 500 E Street, S.W., Suite 401-H Washington, D.C. 20436 202.205.3409 202.205.2158 (Facsimile) Via Email Via Email