Apple opposes Samsung’s Motion to Strike (filed December 28, 2012) on the following grounds:1. Samsung presents no proper basis for striking Apple’s Notice of New Facts. Samsungrefers to the “alleged new facts” set out in the Notice, but never denies that these are indeed facts, nor thatthey are new. Because these are new facts, Apple could not have raised them during the earlier briefingto the Commission, and the Commission’s procedural order governing that briefing is thus inapposite.Indeed, Commission precedent permits parties to apprise the Commission of new facts relevant to issuesunder review and to the public interest.
Certain Audible Alarm Systems for Divers
, Inv. No.337-TA-365, USITC Pub. 2903 (Aug. 1995), Comm’n Op. on Remedy, the Public Interest, and Bondingat 3 (June 6, 1995) (allowing supplementation of record with newly-discovered evidence on remedy: “TheCommission may make factual findings in the remedy phase of a section 337 investigation, to the extentnecessary, in order to reach its remedy determination, which may be based on the evidence of recordduring the violation phase of the investigation, or on the basis of submissions of the parties on remedy,the public interest, and bonding”);
. Commission Rule 210.14(d) (“The administrative law judge may,upon reasonable notice and on such terms as are just, permit service of a supplemental submission settingforth transactions, occurrences, or events that have taken place since the date of the submission sought tobe supplemented and that are relevant to any of the issues involved.”). Under that precedent—whichSamsung never addresses—Samsung’s Motion fails.2. Samsung’s Motion is Samsung’s attempt to avoid some highly inconvenient facts. Asnoted above, Samsung does not dispute the accuracy of these facts, namely that Samsung has withdrawnits requests for injunctive relief on allegedly standard-essential patents in its pending cases against Applein courts throughout Europe; that Samsung described its withdrawal decision as being made “in theinterest of protecting consumer choice” (Notice of New Facts, Ex. A); and that the European Commissionnonetheless has charged Samsung with violating European antitrust law, and has stated that it is “theCommission’s preliminary view that under the specific circumstances of this case, where a commitmentto license SEPs [standards-essential patents] on FRAND terms has been given by Samsung, and where a