VIA ELECTRONIC FILING

The Honorable E. James Gildea

Administrative Law Judge

U.S. International Trade Commission

500 E Street, S.W., Suite 112

Washington, DC 20436

Re: Certain Wireless Consumer Electronics Devices and Components Thereof,

Inv. No. 337-TA-853

Dear Judge Gildea:

Pursuant to paragraph 12 of the Protective Order, we hereby provide notice that we

inadvertently publicly filed portions of a deposition transcript designated by respondents Acer Inc. and Acer America Corporation (collectively “Acer”), as containing Confidential Business Information on March 12, 2013 (Motion 853-023; EDIS Doc. ID 505634).1 Our understanding from a docket clerk at the ITC is that the motion was publicly available on the ITC’s EDIS website from approximately 1:35 p.m. EDT on March 13 until approximately 9:35 a.m. EDT March 14. Although the motion was publicly available during that time, we have no knowledgeof anyone actually obtaining the information in the motion who was not authorized to receive it

under the Protective Order. Regardless, we take our obligations under the Protective Order seriously and have attempted to do everything we can to correct the error.

As stated above, the public filing of this information was inadvertent and due to an

oversight. We have taken the following steps to minimize exposure of the information. First, we filed a notice withdrawing the motion and have since filed a confidential replacement motion(Motion 853-024) under seal with the proper confidentiality label. Second, we immediately contacted all Respondents in the Investigation and the Staff to inform them of the oversight and

1 The motion contained two quoted selections from the deposition transcript of one of

Acer’s 30(b)(6) witnesses: (1) a quotation that established that the deponent was speaking on behalf of Acer; and (2) a quotation that is substantively equivalent to a summary of the same quotation in a motion and declaration that Judge Grewal in the related district court action recently determined was not confidential and should not be sealed. See Dkt. No. 409 at 5-6 in Acer Inc. v. Technology Prop. Ltd., Case No. 5:08-cv-00877-PSG (denying motion to seal).

The Honorable E. James Gildea

March 14, 2013

Page 2

asked them to treat the motion and its contents as Confidential Business Information under the Protective Order. Third, we attempted to contact ITC personnel immediately upon learning of the error (shortly after 5:00 p.m. EDT on March 13, 2013) to ask that the filing be removed from public view on EDIS, but unfortunately no one answered the phone. Finally, we contacted a docket clerk at the ITC early this morning (at approximately 9:25 a.m. EDT / 6:25 a.m. local time), explained the situation, and asked that the motion be removed from public view. In response, the docket clerk we spoke with made the document confidential at approximately 9:35 a.m. EDT.

We regret this error and take our responsibilities under the Protective Order very

seriously. We have done everything that we can to minimize the potential exposure of the information labeled as Confidential Business Information, and will endeavor to avoid any further oversights from occurring in the future.

Very truly yours,

Philip W. Marsh