I don't have time to type the entire document. I did, however, type some of it and abbreviated in some areas. I think you can understand what is in that order. Please forgive any typing errors.

Respondents assert that good cause exists for granting this motion for several reasons. Respondents argue that their motion for summary determination will efficiently resolve all issues in this investigation. Further, Respondents assert that in Complainants’ infringement contentions Complainant indicated they would be relying on expert testimony to prove their infringement claims. However, Respondents say that Complainants’ expert report on infringement only provides conclusory assertions regarding infringement under Respondents’ and Staff’s proposed constructions of the claim terms. Respondents argue that they relied on statements made in Complainants’ contentions and believed that there would be specific proof of alleged infringement under all proposed constructions in the expert report. Respondents conclude that good cause exists to grant this motion based on their reliance and complainants’ expert’s failure to address Respondents’ and Staff’s proposed constructions. Finally, Respondents assert that no prejudice will result because they worked to immediately prepare their motion for summary determination upon receiving Complainant’s expert report and filed the motion just nine business days after the procedural schedule deadline. Respondents also argue that the motion for summary determination was filed before the 60day period set forth in the Commission Rules.

Commission Rule 210.18(a) states, in relevant part, that “under exceptional circumstances and upon motion, the presiding administrative law judge may determine that good cause exists to permit a summary determination motion to be filed out of time. The ALJ find that the parties’ dispute regarding the applicability of the 60 day deadline before hearing for filing summary determination motions, as set forth in Commission Rule 210.18(a) is moot because the ALJ finds that based on the situation presented here, exceptional circumstances and good cause exist such that Respondents’ motions for SD should be allowed. Respondents assert and Staff agrees that Complainants indicated in their contention interrogatory responses that additional charts and evidence would be provided in Complainant’s expert’s report on infringement. Complainants do not dispute that these representations were made and the ALJ find that Respondents justifiably relied on Complainants’ representations and had reason to anticipate that a material issue of fact would be raised by Complainant’s expert based on evidence that was properly disclosed during fact discovery.