Corporation And Request To Notify The Central Authority Of Finland Of The Filing OF The

Transkriptio

1 UNITED STATES INTERNATIONAL TRADE COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. Before the Honorable Theodore R. Essex Administrative Law Judge In the Matter of CERTAIN HANDHELD ELECTRONIC COMPUTING DEVICES, RELATED SOFTWARE, AND COMPONENTS THEREOF Investigation No. 337-TA 769 MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE A REPLY IN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO QUASH BARNES & NOBLE, INC. AND BARNESANDNOBLE.COM S LETTER OF REQUEST TO THIRD PARTY NOKIA CORPORATION AND REQUEST TO NOTIFY THE CENTRAL AUTHORITY OF FINLAND OF THE FILING OF THE MOTION TO QUASH Non-party Nokia Corporation seeks leave to file a reply in support of its Motion to Quash Bames & Noble, lnc., And Barnesandnoble.com s Letter Of Request To Third Party Nokia Corporation And Request To Notify The Central Authority Of Finland Of The Filing OF The Motion To Quash ( Motion to Quash ) (Motion Dkt. No ). Nokia filed its Motion to Quash because the Request For International Judicial Assistance ( Letter of Request ) issued by the Court upon Barnes & Noble s ex parte application is untimely; violates both the Hague Convention on the Taking of Evidence Abroad in Civil or Commercial Matters of 18 Mar. 1970, 23 U.S.T. 2555, 847 U.N.T.S. 23 ( Hague Convention ) and the Finnish Code of Judicial Procedure; requests information that is duplicative of information that already has been provided by Complainant Microsoft Corporation or that is privileged; and unduly burdens Nokia Corporation. DMSUBR/\RY0l l780l70l.5 1 DMSLIBR/\RY0l DMSLIBR/\RY()l l8()696l l.l

2 Nokia also filed papers in the Finnish court seeking to have it stay its review of the Letter of Request in favor of having this forum first decide the underlying issue of the propriety of the discovery as presented in Nokia s Motion to Quash. In a transparent effort to force the Finnish court to decide the discovery issue first, Barnes & Noble, in its response to the Motion To Quash, made several erroneous representations regarding the state of proceedings at both the Finnish Ministry of Justice, which serves as the Finnish Central Authority for purposes of the Hague Convention, and the District Court of Espoo, Finland. Many of Bames & Noble s representations are inaccurate or untrue. Nokia s proposed reply, which is attached, provides a correct understanding of the state of proceedings in Finland makes clear that Nokia s motion to Quash should be granted or, at a minimum that the Court notify the Finnish Ministry of Justice that Nokia s Motion to Quash stays all discovery sought under the Letter of Request. In accordance with Ground Rule 3.2, Nokia Corporation has contacted counsel for Barnes & Noble and the Office of Unfair Import Investigations. Bames & Noble consents to this motion. The staff attorney takes no position on the motion. For the foregoing reasons, Nokia respectfully requests that the Court accept Nokia s reply in support of its Motion to Quash. Dated: January 17,2012 Respectfully submitted, (#2447 v»q2»,e;7 Je frey M. Telep KING & SPALDING LLP 1700 Pennsylvania Ave. NW Suite 200Washington, DC Phone: (202) Fax: (202) DMSLIBRARYOI-l780l70l.5 2 DMSLIBRARYOI-l DMSLIBRARYOI ,1

3 Robert F. Perry Alexas D. Skucas Laura Huffman KING & SPALDING LLP Avenue of the Americas New York, NY Phone: (212) Fax: (212) Attorneysfor Non-party Nokia Corporation DMSLIBRARYOI DMSLIBRARYOI DMSLIBRARYOI

4 UNITED STATES INTERNATIONAL TRADE COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. Before the Honorable Theodore R. Essex Administrative Law Judge In the Matter of CERTAIN HANDHELD ELECTRONIC COMPUTING DEVICES, RELATED SOFTWARE, AND COMPONENTS THEREOF Investigation No. 337-TA-769 REPLY IN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO QUASH BARNES & NOBLE, INC. AND BARNESANDNOBLE.COM S LETTER OF REQUEST TO THIRD PARTY NOKIA CORPORATION AND REQUEST TO NOTIFY THE CENTRAL AUTHORITY OF FINLAND OF THE FILING OF THE MOTION TO QUASH Non-party Nokia Corporation respectfully files this reply in support of its Motion to Quash Barnes & Noble, Inc., And Barnesandnoble.com s Letter Of Request To Third Party Nokia Corporation And Request To Notify The Central Authority Of Finland Of The Filing OF The Motion To Quash ( Motion to Quash ) (Motion Dkt. No ). Nokia filed its Motion to Quash because the Request For Intemational Judicial Assistance ( Letter of Request ) issued by the Court upon Barnes & Noble s ex parte application is untimely; violates both the Hague Convention on the Taking of Evidence Abroad in Civil or Commercial Matters of 18 Mar. 1970, 23 U.S.T. 2555, 847 U.N.T.S. 23 ( Hague Convention ) and the Finnish Code ofludicial Procedure; requests information that is duplicative of information that already has been, or should have been, provided by Complainant Microsoft Corporation or that is privileged; and unduly burdens Nokia Corporation. Nokia also filed papers in the Finnish court seeking to have it stay its review of the Letter of Request in favor of having this forum first decide the underlying issue of the propriety of the

5 discovery as presented in Nokia s Motion to Quash. In a transparent effort to force the Finnish court to decide the discovery issue first, Barnes & Noble, in its response to the Motion To Quash, made several erroneous representations regarding the state of proceedings at both the Finnish Ministry of Justice, which serves as the Finnish Central Authority for purposes of the Hague Convention, and the District Court of Espoo, Finland. Many of Barnes & Noble s representations are inaccurate or untrue, and a correct understanding of the state of proceedings in Finland makes clear that Nokia s motion to Quash should be granted or, at a minimum that the Court should notify the Finnish Ministry of Justice that Nokia s Motion to Quash stays all discovery sought under the Letter of Request. I. Barnes & Noble Misrepresented The Status Of The Proceedings In Finland Bames & Noble has made a series of erroneous statements concerning the actions taken by the Finnish Ministry of Justice. According to Bames & Noble, the Ministry of Justice has dismissed Nokia s arguments concerning Finland s Article 23 Reservations under the Hague Convention and has found that the Letter of Request complies with Finland s reservation: [T]he Finland Ministry of Justice already accepted despite Nokia s objections the Letter of Request as in compliance with Finland s reservations to the Hague Convention... B&N Resp. at 1. N0kia s objections submitted to the Finland Ministry of Justice were not sustained, however, and Nokia is now trying to receive a better reception before the ITC. B&N Resp. at 2. Barnes & Noble s statements are false, and Nokia recently filed a letter from its Finnish counsel with the Finnish court to call attention to these misrepresentations. (See Letter dated ' Nokia s Finnish counsel has brought these misrepresentations to the attention of the District Court of Espoo. See Letter dated January 16, 2012, from Aapo Saarikivi to District Court Judge Eeva Tikka of the District Court of Espoo, attached hereto as Ex. 1.

6 January 16, 2012, from Aapo Saarikivi to District Court Judge Eeva Tikka of the District Court of Espoo, attached hereto as Ex. 1). On December 23, 2011, Nokia stated to the Ministry of Justice, as a preliminary remark, that Barnes & Noble s Letter of Request contradicted Finland s reservation to Article 23 of the Hague Convention. After investigating the matter, the Ministry of Justice informed Nokia on January 3, 2012 and again on January 11, 2012 that it, as a Central Authority under the Hague Convention, considered that it did not have jurisdiction to rule on Nokia s argument. See Ex. 1, English Translation, at 1-2. The Ministry of Justice then assigned the Letter of Request in its entirety to be decided by the court it considered to be competent in the matter - the District Court of Espoo in Finland. It is Nokia s understanding that the Ministry of Justice has also informed the District Court of Espoo of Nokia s argument concerning the reservation. (See Ex. 2, dated January 16, 2012 from Aapo Saarikivi to Tuuli Kainulainen of the Finnish Ministry of Justice, attached hereto as Ex. 2.) Bames & Noble also incorrectly describes the actions of the District Court of Espoo. In particular, Bames & Noble misrepresents the stage of proceedings in which the Letter of Request is being adjudicated: In addition, enforcement proceeding on the Letter of Request have already begun in the District Court o_/"espoo (the Finland Court ), which has ordered that the documents sought to be produced, has directed the parties to schedule the requested depositions, and will rule on any matters of Finnish domestic procedural law. B&N Resp. at 1 (emphasis supplied). In fact, Nokia has not yet formally responded to the Letter of Request, let alone presented all of its grounds for objection. The above cited paragraph also gives the erroneous impression that the hearing of witnesses is imminent. Specifically, Bames & Noble claims that the District Court of Espoo has ordered the parties z'.e. Nokia and Barnes & Noble - to schedule the requested depositions. This assertion is simply false and tries to create

7 an impression that the measures taken by the District Court of Espoo are final and adverse to Nokia. They are neither. (See Ex. 1, English Translation, at 2.) Barnes & Noble also distorts the meaning of the request for a statement sent by the District Court to Nokia on January 5, Barnes & Noble incorrectly refers to it as a summons. In addition, Bames & Noble attempts to create the impression that Nokia has been ordered in this summons to produce the documents within seven days: On January 5, 2012, the Finland Court issued a summons to Nokia, requesting that Nokia produce the documents listed in the Letter of Request to the Finland Court. (See Gold Decl. Ex. 5.) The Finland court requested that Nokia answer within seven days. B&N Resp. at 5. (emphasis supplied). Again, this statement by Bames & Noble is just false. Barnes & Noble fails to describe the true status of the matter in the Finnish District Court. In fact, Nokia was given an opportunity to give its statement on whether it accepts or objects to the request to produce documents, as presented in the Letter of Request. (See Ex. 1, English Translation, at 2.) In sum, Barnes & Noble has characterized the production of documents and witnesses in Finland as afait accompli, already ordered by the District Court of Espoo and to which this Court must defer. But the proceedings in Finland are in their preliminary stages, and the production of documents and witnesses has not been ordered. Moreover, this Court should not defer to the proceedings in Finland. Rather, the Court has an obligation under the Supreme Court s decision in Societe Nationale Industrielle Aerospatiale v. United States District Court for the Southern District oflowa, 482 U.S. 522, 546 (1987), to supervise the foreign discovery sought by Barnes & Noble,2 particularly on those aspects of Nokia s Motion to Quash that 2 Bames & Noble s attempt to distinguish Aerospatiale on the ground that it applied to parties rather than non-parties lacks merit. B&N Resp. at 7. If anything, the Court has a greater

8 implicate important rules and practices of the Commission. These rights cannot and should not be adjudicated by the Finnish courts. The only challenge to the propriety of the Barnes & Noble Letter of Request to date has been the Nokia Motion to Quash. The very authority under which the Finnish court is acting comes from the fact that this Court allowed the Letter of Request to proceed to service under the Hague Convention. Without some review of the Request by the third party target of the discovery there can be no proper due process afforded to Nokia. Accordingly, the Court should grant Nokia s Motion to Quash. II. In The Interim, This Court Should Advise The Central Authority Of Finland That Nokia s Motion To Quash Automatically Stays Discovery In its Motion to Quash, Nokia also requested that the Court advise the Central Authority of Finland that, under Ground Rule a motion to quash automatically stays compulsory third party discovery. In its response, Barnes & Noble asserts that the Letter of Request is merely a request, grounded in comity considerations, and international law, for a foreign judicial body to issue process in conformity with the home country s laws. B&N s Resp. at 17. As such, B&N contends that the Letter of Request is not subject to a motion to quash. Id. Barnes & Noble s position is simply wrong and counter to the very concept of due process. In fact, a Request for lntemational Judicial Assistance appears to be compulsory. See Hague Convention, Article 10 ( In executing a Letter of Request the requested authority shall apply the appropriate measures of compulsion in the instances and to the same extent as are provided by its internal law for the execution of orders issued by the authorities of its own country or of requests made by parties in internal proceedings ). Moreover, the Letter of Request in this case was issued based on an application that never was served on Nokia Corporation. As such, the Letter of Request is tantamount to a compulsory non party subpoena obligation to protect non-parties who have no stake in the proceedings from abusive foreign discovery requests.

9 issued based on an ex parte application to which Nokia Corporation had no opportunity to object before the Request was signed and sent to the Finnish Central Authority. Nokia filed its Motion to Quash in the expectation that discovery against it would be stayed pending resolution of the motion. As noted above, Nokia s Motion to Quash raises many arguments that implicate important protections afforded non-parties by the Commission s rules and practices. See Motion To Quash at 7-8, challenging the timeliness of the Letter of Request, the overbreadth of the document requests, and the prohibition on apex depositions. The Commission, not the Finnish District Court, should decide these issues in the first instance. But the Finnish District Court may not adhere to Ground Rule without some guidance from the ITC. Indeed, if it proceeds at this point, Nokia may be obligated to produce discovery without ever being heard by this Court on the lawfulness of the Request.3 Finally, Bames & Noble s proposed course of action raises serious due process concerns and issues of fundamental fairness. If this were a domestic non-party subpoena issued on an ex parte basis, the non-party target of the subpoena would have an opportunity to be heard by means of a motion to quash challenging on the lawfulness of the subpoena before having to search for and produce any responsive documents or witnesses. The non-party would have no obligation to produce such documents or witnesses at least until such time as the ALJ decides the motion to quash in the first instance. If the Finnish Court were to impose any obligation on Nokia before its Motion to Quash is decided, however, Nokia would never have the opportunity 3 Barnes & Noble s representations to the Finnish District Court are calculated to force Nokia to respond to discovery before this Court has an opportunity to rule on Nokia s Motion To Quash. In its filing with the District Court of Espoo dated Monday, January 16, Barnes & Noble states that a Request for Judicial Assistance cannot be disputed in the court that has transmitted the request, but in the court where the evidence is to be presented. See Exhibit 3 at 1] IV.l.9. In fact, Nokia is entitled to challenge the Letter Request by means of a motion to quash, just as it is entitled to challenge an ex parte subpoena on a non-party.

10 to be heard by this Court -- the judicial entity that issued the Letter of Request. Moreover, Bames & Noble would receive more rights than it would have if it had obtained a subpoena from the ITC on a U.S.-based party. It would be fundamentally unfair for the Hague Convention to be used in a manner that imposes more obligations on foreign non-parties than would be imposed on domestic non-parties. Accordingly, this Court should advise the Central Authority of Finland that Nokia s Motion to Quash automatically stays discovery until such time as the Court decides the motion. III. Conclusion For the foregoing reasons, Nokia respectfully requests that the Court grant its motion to quash and, in the interim, advise the Finnish Central Authority that Nokia s motion to quash automatically stays discovery until such time as the Court decides the motion. Dated: January 17, 2012 Respectfully submitted, fgggg5 l\/\ 72,5012 J ffrey M. Telep KING & SPALDING LLP 1700 Pennsylvania Ave. NW Suite 200Washington, DC Phone: (202) Fax: (202) Robert F. Perry Alexas D. Skucas Laura Huffman KING & SPALDING LLP 1185 Avenue of the Americas New York, NY Phone: (212) Fax: (212) Attorneys for Non-party Nokia Corporation

11 UNITED STATES INTERNATIONAL TRADE COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. Before the Honorable Theodore R. Essex Administrative Law Judge In the Matter of CERTAIN HANDHELD ELECTRONIC COMPUTING DEVICES, RELATED SOFTWARE, AND COMPONENTS THEREOF Investigation No. 337-TA-769 ORDER Upon consideration of Non Party Nokia Corporation s Motion For Leave To File A Reply In Support Of Its Motion To Quash Barnes & Noble, Inc. And Barnesandnob1e.com s Letter Of Request To Third Party Nokia Corporation And Request To Notify The Central Authority Of Finland Of The Filing Of The Motion To Quash, it is hereby ORDERED that the motion is granted, and it is further ORDERED that the Secretary of the Commission is directed to accept Nokia Corporation s Reply In Support Of Its Motion To Quash Barnes & Noble, Inc. And Barnesandnoble.com s Letter Of Request to Third Party Nokia Corporation and that Nokia's Request To Notify The Central Authority Of Finland Of The Filing Of The Motion To Quash is granted and the Secretary of the Commission is directed to notify the Central Authority of Finland that the Letter of Request supporting Barnes & Noble's request under the Hague Convention has been quashed. Date: Theodore R. Essex Administrative Law Judge DMSLIBRARYOI-l DMSLIBRARYOI I

12 Exhibit 1

13 ROSCHIER Petn Taivalkoski Roschler Asianajolonnisto Oy Puh Keskuskatu 7 A Faksi Helsinki petrrlaivalkoski@roschier.com FINLAND Puh Faksl Kotipaikka. Helsinki Y--lunnus Espoon karajaoikeus osasto Karajatuomari Eeva Tikka / karajasihteeri Helka Ylinen Vitikka Espoo Lahetilla ja s-postitse PT/Asaar Asia: DNo Oikeusapupyynto Barnes & Noble, karajéioikeuden asianro H 11/16979 Hyva Karajatuomari Eeva Tikka, Viittaamme Nokia Oyj:n ("Nokia") paivattyyn lykkaamispyyntoon otsikkoasiassa. Barnes & Noble, Inc. ja barnesandnoblecom LLC (yhdessa "Barnes & Noble ) ovat toimittaneet United States international Trade Commissionille ("ITC") vastinekirjelmansa (Memorandum in Opposition) Nokian paivatyn kumoamispyynnon (Motion to Quash) johdosta. Nokia sai vastinekirjelman tiedoksi perjantain ja lauantain valisena yona Suomen aikaa. Barnes & Noblen ltc:lle toimittama vastinekirjelma sisaltaa lukuisia virheellisia vaitteita ja laintulkintoja. Naita Nokia oikoo aikanaan tarpeellisessa maarin asiaankuuluvassa foorumissa eli ltc:ssa. Katsomme kuitenkin Nokian lykkayspyynnon kannalta valttamattomaksi kiinnittaa karaijaoikeuden huomiota siihen tapaan, jolla Barnes & Noble vaaristelee oikeusapupyynnon kasittelya Suomessa. Jaljempana esitettavat esimerkit Barnes & Noblen ltc:lle toimittamasta vastinekirjelmasta osoittavat, etta Barnes & Noblen kuvaus niin Suomen oikeusministerion kuin Espoon karajaoikeudenkin toimista vaikuttaa tietoisen harhaanjohtavalta ja paikoin selvasti virheelliselta. Barnes & Noble esittaa ensinnakin virheellisia vaitteita oikeusministerion toiminnasta asiassa. Barnes & Noblen mukaan oikeusministerio olisi hylannyt Nokian sille esittamat, Haagin yleissopimuksen 23 artiklaan ja Suomen valtion sen nojalla tekemaan varaumaan perustuvat vaitteetja katsonut oikeusapupyynnon olevan Suomen tekeman varauman mukainen: [...]the Fin/and Ministry of Justice already accepted despite Nokia s objections the Letter of Request as in compliance with Finland's reservations to the Hague Convention[...] (Vastinekirjelman sivu 1) Nokia s objections submitted to the Fin/and Ministry of Justice were not sustained, however, and Nokia is now trying to receive a better reception before the /TC. (vastinekirjelman sivu 2) ^ " l\.-\jl).i\ {U};L I Ill-J! 1.1-lJl.\.\ lam: N '.wwua \.'() \( ()ll.h-.1--ma lrxtuw V t.l,ii'ilci 0< P 7

14 2 (3) ROSCHIER Barnes & Noblen vaitteet ovat virheellisia. Nokia esitti olkeusministerlolle alustavana huomionaan, etta Barnes & Noblen oikeusapupyynto oli Suomen valtion Haagin yleissopimuksen 23 artiklan nojalla tekeman varauman vastainen. Perehdyttyéan asiaan oikeusministerio llmoitti Nokialle ensln ja uudelleen , etta se ei Haagin yleissopimuksessa tarkoitettuna keskusviranomalsena katsonut olevansa toimivaltalnen ratkaisemaan Nokian vaitetta. Oikeusministerio siirsl nain ollen koko oikeusapupyynnon ja Nokian vaitteen ratkaistavaksi asiassa toimivaltaiseen Espoon karajaolkeuteen. Nokian kasityksen mukaan oikeusministerio ilmoittl Espoon karajaoikeudelle myos Nokian varaumaa Koskevasta vaitteesta. Barnes & Noblen kuvaus Espoon karajaoikeuden toimista asiassa on myos virheellinen. Barnes & Noble pyrkii luomaan ltc:lle virheellisen kasityksen olkeusapupyynnon kasittelyvaiheestaz In addition, enforcement proceedings on the Letter of Request have already begun in the District Court of Espoo (the "Finland Court ), which has ordered that the documents sought be produced, has directed the parties to schedule the requested depositions, and will rule on any matters of Finnish domestic procedural law. (Vastlnekirjelman sivu 1) (lihavointl tassa) Barnes & Noble siis vaittaa ylla lainatussa klrjelmansa kohdassa yhtaalta, etta Espoon Karajaoikeus olisi jo maarannyt Nokian toimittamaan pyydetyt asiakirjat ("the District Court of Espoo[...] which has ordered that the documents sought be produced ). Tamakin vaite on virheellinen. Todellisuudessa Nokia ei ole vlela edes vastannut oikeusapupyyntoon saati eslttanyt vastustamisensa perusteita. Barnes 8: Noble pyrkii ylla lalnatussa kirjelmansa kohdassa Iuomaan TC:lle virheellisen kuvan myos oikeusapupyynnossa nimettyjen todistajien kuulemisesta. Barnes & Noble nimittain vaittaa, etta Espoon karajaoikeus olisi maaranny: osaguolet slis Nokian "a Barnes & Noblen aikatauluttamaan gyydeyt valaehtoiset todistukset ( the District Court of Espoo[...] has directed the parties to schedule the requested depositions ). Tamakaan vaite el anna totuudenmukaista kuvaa Espoon karajaoikeuden aslassa suorittamista tolmenpiteista tai edes siita, minkalaisia maarayksia Suomen voimassaolevan lainsaadannon nojalla olisi ylipaataan mahdollista antaa. Muualla vastinekirjelmassaan Barnes & Noble vaaristelee karajaoikeuden Nokialle lahettamaa lausumapyyntoa, jota se kutsuu vlrheellisesti haasteeksi ( summons ). Barnes & Noble antaa Iisaksi ymmartaa, etta Nokiaa olisi kehotettu tassa haasteessa toimittamaan pyydetyt asiakirjat seitsemassa paivassa: On January 5, 2012, the Finland Court issued a summons to Nokia, requesting that Nokia produce the documents listed in the Letter of Request to the Finland Court. (See Gold Decl. Ex. 5.) The Finland Court requested that Nokia answer within seven days. (Vastinekirjelman sivu 5) (lihavolnti tassel) Barnes & Noblen vaitteet eivat taltakaan osln kuvaa asianmukalsella tavalla vallitsevaa tilannetta. Todelllsuudessa Nokialle varattiin mahdollisuus antaa lausuma siita, hyvaksyyko val vastustaako se olkeusapupyynnossa esitettyja asiakirjojen tolmltuspyyntoja. Nokia pitaa tarkoituksenmukaisena valittomastl kiinnittaa karajaoikeuden huomiota Barnes & Noblen ylla kuvattuihin, ltc:lle esitettyihin vlrheellisiin vaitteisiln ja tolvoo, etta ne otetaan asianmukaisella tavalla huomioon aslan kasittelyssa. Ystavallisln tervelsi er Perri T rvalkoski be/n Aapo Saarikivi W/

15 3 (3) ROSCHIER Liite Barnes & Noblen péivétty Memorandum in Opposition kirje!mé liitteineen W/

16 Petri Taivalkoski Roschier, Atlomeys Ltd. Tel Keskuskatu 7 A Fax Helsinki petn.laivaikoski@roschier.com FINLAND Tel Fax Reg. office: Helsinki Business ID: District Court of Espoo 16 January Department District Court Judge Eeva Tikka / secretary Helka Ylinen Vitikka 1 By courier and Espoo PT/ASaar Re: DNo Request for Judicial Assistance Barnes & Noble, district court id H 11I16979 Dear District Court Judge Eeva Tikka, We refer to Nokia Corp s ( Nokia ) request for stay of proceedings, dated 11 January 2012, in the matter identified above. In consequence of Nokia s Motion to Quash, dated 3 January 2012, Barnes & Noble, Inc. and barnesandnoble.com LLC (jointly Barnes & Noble ) have on 13 January 2012 submitted their Memorandum in Opposition to the United States international Trade Commission ( ITC ). Nokia was given notice of the Memorandum in Opposition on the night between Friday 13 January and Saturday 14 January 2012 Finnish time. The Memorandum in Opposition submitted by Barnes & Noble to the ITC includes numerous erroneous allegations and interpretations of law. Nokia will correct these as necessary in due course in the appropriate forum, i.e. the ITC. We nevertheless deem it necessary to draw the court s attention to the manner in which Barnes & Noble distorts the Finnish proceedings concerning the Request for Judicial Assistance. The following examples from Barnes & Noble's Memorandum in Opposition show that Barnes & Noble's description of the actions taken by the Finnish Ministry of Justice and the District Court of Espoo appears to be deliberately misleading and at times clearly incorrect. First, Barnes & Noble sets forth erroneous statements concerning the actions taken by the Ministry of Justice. According to Barnes & Noble, the Ministry of Justice has dismissed Nokla s arguments concerning article 23 of the Hague Convention and Finland's reservation thereto, and thus found that the Letter of Request complies with Finland's reservation: []the Fin/and Ministry of Justice already accepted despite Nokia s objections the Letter of Request as in compliance with Finland's reservations to the Hague Convention[] (Memorandum in Opposition page 1) Nokia s objections submitted to the Fin/and Ministry of Justice were not sustained, however, and Nokia is now trying to receive a better reception before the ITC. (Memorandum in Opposition page 2)

17 ROSCHIER Barnes & Nob e s assertions are erroneous. On 23 December 2011 Nokia stated to the Ministry of Justice, as a preliminary remark, that Barnes & Noble's Letter of Request was in contradiction with Finland's reservation to article 23 of the Hague Convention. After investigating the matter the Ministry of Justice informed Nokia firstly on 3 January 2012 and again on 11 January 2012 that it, as a Central Authority under the Hague Convention, did not have jurisdiction to rule on Nokia's argument. The Ministry of Justice thus assigned the matter in its entirety to be decided by the court it considered competent, the District Court of Espoo. It is Nokia's understanding that the Ministry of Justice has also informed the District Court of Espoo of Nokia's argument concerning the reservation. Barnes & Noble s description of the actions of the District Court of Espoo is also incorrect. Barnes & Noble seeks to give the ITC an erroneous impression of the stage in which the proceedings regarding the Request for Judicial Assistance are: Barnes & In addition, enforcement proceeding on the Letter of Request have already begun in the District Court of Espoo (the Finland Court ), which has ordered that the documents sought to be produces, has directed the parties to schedule the requested depositions, and will rule on any matters of Finnish domestic procedural law. (Memorandum in Opposition page 1) (bolded here) Noble thus claims in the above cited paragraph of its memorandum that the District Court of Espoo has already ordered Nokia to produce the requested documents ( the District Court of Espoo[...] which has ordered that the documents sought be produced ). This assertion is also erroneous. In reality, Nokia has not yet even responded to the Request for Judicial Assistance, let alone presented grounds for its objections. With the above cited paragraph of the Memorandum in Opposition Barnes & Noble also tries to give ITC an erroneous impression regarding the hearing of witnesses. Barnes & Noble claims that the District Court of Espoo has ordered the parties i.e. Nokia and Barnes & Noble to schedule the requested depositions. This assertion fails to provide a true impression of the measures taken by the District Court of Espoo or even of what orders are possible to give under Finnish law. in other parts of the Memorandum in Opposition Barnes & Noble distorts the meaning of the request for statement sent by the district court to Nokia on 5 January Barnes & Noble incorrectly refers to it as a summons. In addition, Barnes & Noble gives the impression that Nokia has been ordered in this summons to produce the documents within seven days: On January 5, 2012, the Finland Court issued a summons to Nokia, requesting that Nokia produce the documents listed in the Letter of Request to the Finland Court. (See Gold Decl. Ex. 5.) The Finland court requested that Nokia answer within seven days. (Memorandum in Opposition page 5) (bolded here) Barnes & Noble's allegations fail to provide a true impression of the current state of affairs. In reality, Nokia was given an opportunity to give its statement on whether it accepts or objects to the request to produce documents, as presented in the Request for Judicial Assistance. Nokia considers it necessary to immediately draw the court's attention to the abovementioned erroneous assertions that Barnes & Noble has presented to the ITC, and hopes that these false statements will be appropriately taken into account in the handling of the matter. Yours sincerely, Petri Taivalkoski Aapo Saarikivi

18 ROSCHIER Enclosure Barnes & Nob e s Memorandum in Opposition, dated on 13 January 2012, with appendices

19 Exhibit 2

20 From: Sent: To: Cc: Aapo Saarikivi Monday, January 16, :09 AM tuu i.kainu Petri Taivalkoski Subject: Oikeusapupyynto Barnes & Noble [ROSCH-WDocs.F D208795] Hei, Nokia esitti otsikkoasiaan liittyen , etta Suomi on antanut Haagin yleissopimuksen 23 artiklan mukaisen varauman, jonka mukaan se ei tule suostumaan oikeusapupyyntoihin, joiden tarkoituksena on toteuttaa common law maissa tunnettu pre-trial discovery of documents. Nokia totesi lis'a'ksi, etta oikeusapupyynnon perusteella vaikuttaa selvalta, etta Nokialle esitetyt asiakirjoja koskevat esittamispyynnot ovat juuri 23 artiklassa kuvailtuja pyyntojé. Olimme aiempien otsikkoasiassa k'a'ytyjen keskustelujen perusteella siina kasityksessa, etta oikeusministerio ei Haagin yleissopimuksen mukaisena keskusviranomaisena ole pitéinyt itseaan toimivaltaisena ratkaisemaan Suomen 23 artiklaan perustuvaan varaumaan tukeutuvia vaitteita. Kasitimme myos, etta oikeusministerio on taste syysta siirtanyt asian ratkaistavaksi toimivaltaiseksi katsomalleen Espoon karajéoikeudelle. Barnes & Noble vaittaa kuitenkin Yhdysvaltain International Trade Commissionille toimittamassaan kirjelmassa, etta Suomen oikeusministerio Nokian 23 artiklaa koskevat vaitteet sivuuttaen olisi nimenomaisesti katsonut Barnes & Noblen oikeusapupyynntjn olevan yhdenmukainen Suomen Haagin yleissopimukseen tekemien varaumien kanssa ( [...]the Finland Ministry of Justice already accepted despite Nokia s objections the Letter of Request as in compliance with Fin/and s reservations to the Hague Convention [...] ) Tama ei vastaa Nokian kasitysta asiaintilasta. Vaarlnkasitysten valttamlseksi toivoisimme tellta mahdollisimman pikaista vahvistusta siita, etta Nokian yl 'a kuvattu kasitys pitaa paikkansa Barnes & Noblen poikkeavista v'a'itteista huolimatta. Vaihtoehtoisesti toivomme oikeusministerién selostavan asiain oikean tolan suoraan International Trade Commissionille. Olemme kaytettavissa mikali toivotte lisaselvitysté asiassa. Ystavallisin terveisin, Aapo Saarikivi ROSUHIER t\z;;nl:!~,:lml:i 1 ll-'} q rr/c( nv'i: mu-i-2: mlririuzizz l ml 'r'*.,..-»;u V5: 0R.1") M w?/u. ;

21 _>_x:mmw oqm<.memmw._ Rom._w:mE 9: Emco_..mo_Em_o._ _.._t_. vwmc :o> Esocm _mmoqw_n._:o> Emam w>>.co_mm_eeoo mvmc. _m:o=meme_ 9: 9>:omEU _m.:me 9:.6 92m: ms: 9: Emfixm E303 mozmzw B>:m_ES_ 9: 6.: mac: m>>.>_m>:mem:<.>._m:coo 9: Bmco:mmm m m.m_noz M. wmztmm Bawmc Umtoo m_ mc_v:em_mv:: vmncowmu m>onm m.m_xoz ES m_emmoq mm coom mm EE.Eoo c_:o>> :o> ;m_>> 95.mmc_Ucm..8ouc:m_E Eo>m. oh.co:m3_m or: Bmc_o:m..m$nc: m.m_v_oz _>> ucogwmtoo 5: woov me._..a..~...?o._.~:m>:o0 3%:,2: Bm:o.=m\:mmm: w..o:m.e.i SE oo:m.=qeoo Emm Nmmscmm.6 6:3,2: I m:o.com.3o m.m..eo2 mtqmwb I nmkqmoom. Acmmém enemas, go \Sm.E. <.o:me.e m ~...C co_em>:oo mama: 9: Bmco_..m>._mmm: m.ccm_en_ 53> mocm qeoo Ema 2mocm_.m_ww< _m_o_v2,.2 wmmzcwm w. _QOZ MwmEmm_ E58 >=_o axo w>m: 2:95 I mcofiowmm m,m_xoz mc_em.mm._w_v I wo_..w2. B>:m_E_>_ cm_cen_ 9: :9: N_ on bmscmw m Bco_mm_EEoo mum; _mco=mc.c_ mmxmem 82:3 9: 9E:ccm_oEwE m: Emmmm m...m>m>>o_._.m_noz av wmemm_..m:me 9.: E98500 um:mu_m:oo mm; EcoE>> ooamm Btsoo 6Em_Q 9: 98:9,: 9: vwtflmt comma. m_ 5.. mm; momma:.6 >:m_e_>_ 9: E5 vo2m_ou:: om_m o>>.co_ew>coo 2am: ms..6 mm m_oe< Eng: cozmimmm. m.vcm_en_ co umwmn mcofimmmm co m_e 2Ew_.mqEoo Emmu n9mu_wcoo go: mm: wozmi,.0 >:m_c >_ 9: E5 co_mwm:qe_ 9:._ U:3 mzmzs m>>..m:me cmcozqmo 9: Ewco_wm:om_o m:o_>m.a co ummmm.mn w_o_t< Enmntomwv mm Emm:c9 cozm zfimxm Em meme:oou mosnoa 9flmmsvm. 9: E5 _mo_u memmw EmocEw_mw< E fioscmm 9: Bw_mmn 9: co Er: vmzfim m_xoz.mm_:c:oo >>m_ coeeoo 9: Esocx mm..meme:oov.6 >._w>oom_u _me-9q_. meem5o.6wmmoqsa ms Ewoom 6: >> E:oE>> 9mEEooom co_em>coo mama: ms:.0 mm w_oe< 53:: :o_..m.>._mmm_ m mums. mm; Ucm_c_n_ 6.: Esme. umcozamo 9: EU90: m_xoz _:.om _m5ewomn_ mm :0.o mi m_n_oz wmwemm 8cSm_mm< _m_u_u:m._o _ ummscmm uuwmnsm _v_m9 m>_. _bmn_ U0.c.Eo cmc_m_:c_ _. :B_ no... mofl NSN 53:3 3scum _>_vemmm on_m< _Eo..u_ L....>III

22 Exhibit 3

23 ESPOON KARAJAOIKEUDELLE 2. osasto I ASIA Virl<:1 :1pu ulkomaalzlisellc tuomioistuimelle (dia:11 inumero ll ll/16979) II ASIANOSAISTIEDOT Lausuman antajat '1) Pmrnes & Noble Inc. 2) barneszmdnoblecorn IJ_,C (yhdcssfi Barnes & Noble ) Lausuman antajien asiamies ja prosessiosoite /\si:11mjaj21 Patrik Lindfors./\si2majotoimjsto I.indfots & Co Oy Kluuvilmtu 3, Helsinki Pub Fax Séil1l<op()sti: )at.1:il<.lii1dfc>rsfdlir1dforsco.com Hakija Oikcusmlnisterio/kansztinvbilinen yl<sil<k c/o 'l'uuli Kainulaincn 1)]. 25, VAI..TIONIJ'.UVOSTO Asiaan osallinen Nokia Oyj ( Nokia ) Asiaan osallisen asiamiehet ja prosessiosoite Asianajaja Petri Taivalkoski OTK Aapo Sa211 il<ivi Roschier Asiarmjotoimisto Oy Keslcuskatu 7 A, Helsinki Pull Fax SLdl1k<'3p()sti: etri.t21iv21lkosl<jfdhroschier.corn 2121 )o.sa21rikivi C{}rosehier.co1n Bnmes 8: Noble lnc. on F(_)I'tLI11c 500 '\-Titys (l"'ortlmc 500 llstzut \'uosittnin Yhdysvalrojen 500 suurinrn _\'1'ltystii liikevzlilxnlon pl't'11stel-lla) jn mnnilmzm snurin l\'i1'j<)jl-n myyjii. B:u'n<:s & Noble Inc. on listnttu New York Stock l.xcl1m\gce11 jzx sun lxil<c\'uih to vuonn/, oll uoin 5,8 miljzwclizx Yl1Llys\'21lr<)jcn dollarin. I.fil1dct: Bnmcs 81 Noble lnc.:n lntcrnct sivut ()s()li[t ('SSfl 111.;lugi l\11\_ &l_>al_c..$? I1_«L1_nfl).ls: in L,:, -Q1;!}.-

24 111 LAUSUMAPYYNTO 1. Espoon kéiréijéioikeus on péiivéitylléi lausumapyynnolléiéin pyytfinyt Barnes & Noblelta lausumaa Nokian lepéiéiméiéinjéittéirrlispyynnon osalta. 2. Méiiiréipiivéi Barnes & Noblen lausurnalle on IV LAUSUMA 3. Barnes & Noble vastustaa Nokian pyyntoii jiittiiii piiivéityn oikeus apupyynnon kéisittely kaikjlta osin lepéiéimiiiin. Oikcusapupyynnon kéisittelyéi ei pidéi jéittiiéi miltéiin osin lepéiéiméiéin. Barnes & Noble vaatii siten kunnioittavasti, ett'2i kéiréljéloikeus hylkiiii Nokian lcpééimfiéinjittiinnspyynnén alla tarkemmin mainituilla perusteilla. IV.1 Lepiiiiméiiinjéittiimispyynnén hyviiksyminen aiheuttaisi oikeudenmenctyksiii 4. Nokian tarkoituksena on kaikin keinoin viivéistyttiiii oikeusapupyynnon kisittelyii, jotta todistelun vastaanottamincn ci onnistuisi ennen International Trade Cornmissionin ( ITC ) péiékélsittelyn alkamista Nokia on ensin pyrkinyt vaikuttamaan oikeustninisteri«':'>6n2 ja kun téimii ei onnistunut, Nokia pyrkij nyt viiviistyttéiméiéin kéiréijéioikeuden kiisittelyits Nokia on nyt sarnanaikaisesri pyytéinyt kiiréijéioikeutta odottamaan I'l'C:n ratkaisua ja ITC:téi odottarnaan kéiréijiioikeuden ratkaisua ennen piiiitoksienséi tekemistii. 5. Oikeusapupyynto on annettu Nokialle tiedoksi tosin virheellisesti jo Nokian on liséiksi téiytynyt olla tietoinen kansainvéilisen oikeus apupyynnon esittiimisen todcnniikéisyydestéi jo huomattavasrj ennen oike usapupyynnon tiedoksiantoaf Mikiili Nokialla olisi aito tarve asian 1epéi'2i miiéinjéittéinfisefle, Nokia olisi voinut esittéiéi tiitéi koskevan pyynnon kéiréij.ioi keudelle jo ennen joulua. 6. Nyt kéisillfi olevassa tilanteessa on kaksi mahdollista etenemisvaihtoehtoa: 1. jéittéiéi oikeusapupyynnon kéisittely kaikilta osin u siihen liittyvéit valmistelutoimet) lepéiéméiéin, joka tarkoittaisi sitéi, ettei oikeusapu pyynnéssii tarkoitettua todistelua ehditéi vastaanottamaan ennen 3 Ks. Nokian liite 2, OTK Anpo Sazlrikiven séihkoposti Tuuli Kainulaiscllc Barnes & Noble kiistéiéi Nokinn viiittccn siiti, ettéi tiiytéintéiéinpanon kiireellisyys olisi Barnes & Noblen toiminnan seurausta. Elnsinnéikin téiytiintoiinpanon kiireellisyys ei ole peruste asian lepiiéiméiéinjéittéimiselle. Toiseksi riiytiintiiéinpanon kiircellisyys Cl johdu Barnes & Noblesta, vnan asian knsittelystfi ITC:sséi. ITC on lisiiksi jo hyvéiksynyt oikeusapupyynnéin, vaikka se on ollut tictoincn aikataulusm ja asian kiirccllisyydestfi. 4 Ks. Nokian pyynté, s. 4, kohm 17: Bar/1e: </J Nob/e an ta:z'a.r[a.r.rajo kerra/1 erittriryir 12a.rtaa1/arzpyy/z/m n /ac/ix/ezk/e/2 ej"z'l/a"mi.re:lz'z' Noaéia/1}//Jdywa/ra/aixe//e Vt;/rm/211a //:2 1\Iok./'4 Imur//e [...]. Ks. Nokian liite 4, Nokia lnc.:n asiarniehen Susan Kimin siihkiiposti Bar nes & Noblen yhdysvaltalaiselle asiamiehelle Stuart Goldille , jossa Nokia lnc.:n asiamies toteaa, cttii siltéi osin kuin Barnes 8: Noble on kiinnostunut emoyhtié Nokialla olevista tiedoista, Barnes & Noblen tulisi pyytéiii tictoja emoyhtio Nokialta Haagissa vuonnn 1970 solmitun ylcissopimuksen mukaiscstj. Nokia Inc. on varmasti informoinut emoyhtié) Nokian asiasta.

25 l'i C:n piiikéisittelyn alkamista, jolloin Barnes & Noblellc todc1'méikéisesti aiheutuisi oikeudenmenetyksiéi; mi 2. luottaa ITC:n aikaisempaan ja voirnassaolevaan piiiitékseen hyviiksyéi oikeusapupyynté ja jatkaa oikeusapupyynnén kéisittclyii. siihen liittyviéi valmistelutoimia), jolloin oikeusapupyynnésséi tarkoitetun todistelun Vastaanottaminen olisi mahdollista ennen ITC:n piilikéisib telyn alkamista eikéi yhdellckifin asianosaiselle aiheutuisi 0ikeuden menetyksiéi. 7. Ainoa oikea etenemisvaihtochto on jéilkimméiinen vaihtoehto. Kuten Nokia itsekin toteaa, asiassa on oletettavaa, ettéi ITC antaisi Nokian niin sanotun kurnoamispyyntééi ( Motz'0/1 to Qua; ) koskevan ratkaisunsa lyhyen ajan kulucssa siitii kun Barnes & Noblen vastaus on toimitettu ITC:1le (Barnes & Noble on jialttéinyt vastauksen ITC:lle ), rnutta téistéi ei ole varmuut ta. On myéis mahdollista, ettéi ITC antaa ratkaisunsa vasta useiden viikkojen péiéistii. 8. Mikéili ITC vastoin Barnes & Noblen kéisitystii hyviiksyisi Nokian pyynn6n5, voidaan oikeusapupyynnésséi tarkoitetun todistelun Vastaanottarniseen dihtéiéivéit valmistelutoirnet keskeyttéiéi ja lopettaa. Toisaalta on huornattava, ettii Vaikka todistelu ehdittéiisiinldn ottamaan vastaan cnnen ITC:n ratkaisua, se ei aiheuttaisi asiaan osallisille oikeudenrnenetyksiéi, koska ITC:n asiana olisi téilléin ratkaista, onko vastaanotettu todistelu mahdollista ottaa huomioon ITC:n kéisittelyssii ja milléi tavoin se voidaan huomioida kiisittelysséi. Titméi arviointi kuuluu luonnollisesti kuitenkin ITC:11e. 9. Nokian ITC:1le tekernéi pyyntii tullaan todcnnéikéiiscsti hyfldiéimiiéin. Kéiréijéb oikeuden ei sitcn tule viivfistyttéiéi oikeusapupyynnéin téiytéintéénpanoa. Oikeusapupyyntéii ei léihtékohtaisesti voida kiistéiii oikeusapupyynnén 1iihett a' nccssfi tuornjoistuimessa, Vaan todistelua vastaanottavassa tuornioistuirnessa. Nokia ei ole ITC:1le tekemiisséiéin pyynnésséiéin viitannut yhteenkéién oikeus léihtccseen, jonka mukaan samanlainen pyynté olisi jossakin tapauksessa hyvéiksytty oikeusapupyynnén léihettéineesséi tuornioistuimessa. 5 Nokian ltc:1ic tekemii pyynté sisiiltéiii lukuisia virhecllisyyksiii jn sc on Barnes & Noblcn mukaan selvésti pcrustceton. Ensinniikin jo tchryii (>ikeusapupyynt6ii koskcvzm p%s'2iti'>ksen kumoarninen ci ole mahdollista ITC:ssii Nokian esittémien véiitteiden perusteclln. Lisiiksi Nokian kumoarnispyynniissfi nnnetaan csimerkiksi harl'manjo11mvaa tietoa siitii, errfii 0ikeusapupyynté olisi zmnettu todistajillc virheelliscsti tiedoksi, vnikka ticdoksiantoa Ci tuolloin ollut edes tapahtunut. Tiiméin liséiksi Nokian 1<umoamispyynn<")ssii on csitctry virheellisiéi niikemyksiéi Suomen Haagissa vuonna 1970 solmitun yleissopimuksen 23 artiklan mukaisesti tekerniistfi rnjarusm vatauksesta. Ks. tiiltfi osin Nokian liitc 1, Nokian kumoamispyynt('s, s. 12 ja 14.

26 IV.2 Lepéiéiméiiinjéittiimispyynniin hyvéiksyminen olisi vastoin Haagin yleissopimuksen tarkoitusta Lepéifimiénjéittéirrfispyynnén arvioinnissa on rnyéis huomioitava, ettéi koska oikcusapupyynté on I-Iaagin yleissopimuksen mukainen, 1epéiiiméiiinjéitt'2irnis pyynnfin hyvéiksyminen olisi selviisti vastoin yleissopimukscn tarkoitusta. Haagin yleissopimus léihtee siitii, ettéi léihettiivéin ja vastaanottavan sopimus- Valtion keskusviranomaiset torjuvat sellaiset oikeusapupyynnét, jotka civéit kuulu yleissopimuksen soveltarnisalaan tai jotka civiit téiytii yleissopirnukscn ascttamia muodollisia vaatimuksia.7 Tiisséi tapauksessa ITC tai Suomen (oi~ keusministerié) keskusviranomainen ei ole matta Nokian vastustukscsta huo1i torjunut oikeusapupyyntééi, jotcn oikeusapupyynté on kuulunut ylcissopirnuksen soveltamisalaan ja se myés tiiyttiiii yleissopimukscn muodolliset vaatimukset. Haagin yleissopimuksen 12 artiklan rnukaan oikcusapupyynnéssé pyydettyyn toimenpiteesccn ryhtymisestéi voidaan kieltéiytyii vain artiklassa mainitujlla perusteilla, jotka eivéit ole nyt kiisilléi. Yleissopirnuksen 9 artiklan mukaan oiketxsapupyyrlnésséi /wldetgyn toime/ pz'tee.ree/2 on 7)1/}t_I'}Il76'I'I/6'2 vizy/q//éjetta'. Tiiméin vuoksi lepéiéimiiéinjéittéimispyynnén hyviiksyminen olisi selvéisti vastoin Haagin yleissopimuksen tarkoitusta ja pyynnén hyvéiksymiselle asctcttava kynnys tulee joka tapauksessa olla erityisen korkea. Fakta on, ettéi ITC on hyviiksynyt oikeusapupyynnén ja ettii pyynté on cdclleen voimassa. Tiirnéin vuoksi Suomcn viranomaisten tulee cdcté. asiassa I-Iaagin yleissopimuksen tarkoittamalla tavalla viivytyksetté. Oikeusapupyyn nén jéittiiminen lepéiéiméiéin olisi sclvéisti vastoin Haagin ylcissopimuksen tarkoitusta. 14. Nokian yritys pyytiéi sekéi ITC:téi ettéi kiiriijéioikeutta samanaikaisesti tutki maan oikeusapupyynnén oikeellisuutta on csimcrkki asiattomasta ruomio~ istuinshoppailusta ( f0mm J /napping ), joka on vastoin Haagin y1eissopimuk sen tarkoitusta. Nokia 011 ITC:lle tckeméisséiiin pyyun6ss'2i'2in pyytiinyt I'I'C:tii piiéiasialliscsti tutkimaan, onko oikeusapupyynté Suomen prosessilakien ja Suomen I-Iaagin yleissopimukseen tckemfiin varaukscn mukainen. Téiméi arviointi kuuluu kuitcnkin Suomen oikeusministeriéllc ja kéiréijéioikeudelle. Haagissn vuonna 1970 solmittu todisteiden vastaanottamism ulkomailla siviili ja kauppaoikcudellisissa asioissa koskcva yleissopimus. 7 Ks. Haagin ylcissopirnus, 5 artikla sekii Proscssioikeus, Lappalairlen Er. 211., Helsinki 2007, Todettakoon, ettei Suomen Hnagin ylcissopimuksen 23 artiklzm mukaiscsti tekemii rgjzgggq varaus voi edes teoriassa koskea nyt kiisillii olevaa asian. Varauksen mukann Suomi ei suostu sellaisiin oikeusapupyyntéihin, joiden tarkoituksena on toteuttaa Common Law ~m21issa sovellcttu p1'e triai discovery of documents" -mcncttcly, siltéi osin kuin pyydctéiéin jonkun ve1voittamista 1) ilmoittarnarm llallusszmn olevat mi olleet asiakirjat mi 2) esittiiméiiin mui _ kgin g;jkgg _a;;1;_p;gg11gg';' s%i eriksecn mainit tuja asiakirjoja. Tiissii mpaukscssa oikcusapupyynnijssii ei ole pyydetty Nokiaa ilmoittamaan hallusszmn olevia asiakirjoja ja siinéi on erikseen mainitru nc usinkirjnt, ]oita pyydetiién esitettiivéksi.

27 IV.3 Eriiistfi Nokian esittéimistéi viiittéimistii 15. Barnes & Noble katsoo aiheelliseksi lisiksi vastata erfiisiin Nokian csittiimiin viiitteisiins 16. Nokian véiite: No, z'a ei ole aria/zosaiyena,é)/reixexyzipmxexxiyxa, ezkd Mz27 o.rofl. z'n' ' kanlee//a 0/e No/ézbn kfixzyikxen mméaan muutoinzéaa/2 /z'itgji7m z'k:o/jtia NoK=:z'zm/2 tai Suomem Vastaus: Asialla ei ole merkitystéi Haagin yleissopimukscn alla. Selvéiéi on, etti rnyés muilta kuin prosessin asianosaisilta voidaan pyytéiéi ja yleenséi pyydetfiiinlml ~ asiakirjoja ja muita kuin asianosaisia voidaan kuulla todistajina ko. yleissopimuksen nojalla. Mcrkillcpantavaa on lisiiksi, ettei Nokia pyynnésséiéin sanallakaan mainitse Microsoftin olevan yksi Nokian t'2irkcim mistéi avainkumppaneista ellei tiirkein (Barnes & Noblen liite 1, Nokian lehdistbtiedotteet ja ). Nokian véiite: Bame.r 2'? Noble 92' 0/e rrydnéddn pyrkirg/t Jaattamaan laden/ta"/ea"?- re/éxz} el/:2 /éztz//ta:/ikyz nimetgyen todixtajien t2'edaz'//a taz' pjg/deg/2'//('1' ayz'méz'_r7'oz'//a z2oz'jz' 0/~ /a mer,éz:l;/rid Mz'mmftz'n patentteya ko:/éez/ien w'z'z'z 2 ez'den /éc/mm/rd. Vastaus: Asialla ei ole merkitystéi I-Iaagin ylcissopirnuksen alla. Todistajien tietojcn pyydettyjerl asiakirjojen rncrkitykscn on joka tapaukscssa arvioitu jo IT(.:n toirnesta. Merkillepantavaa myéis on, ettéi Nokia viittaa todistajien mahdollisiin tietoihin, vaikka lcpéiéiméii-injéittéimispyyntéiii ci ole ainakaan suoranaisesti esitetty todistajien puolesta, vaan pelkéistiiéin yhtién puolesta. Nokian véiite: [...] Bar/ze.r 2'? No/7/en aiiéeuxapupgg/nté on / //flail 2/am'zzm»éa/axte/z/yr2'gI5 0'1 :/2z'ng e><pedz'tz'o;2) Nozéizm /z'mzmz'2ztz - ja /izléetozkrzmtaxtratqgiaarz ja yen toimimzan éanna/ta kes/éezlreen /uottamukxe//zlreeiz_yrigjlitietan/1. fen totezrttaminen on omiamz at"/jet/2 tamaan Nokia//e ja Jen jo/jlaji//e z2zer»éz'ttzlv'vz'z'a" ya/jiméaoa, 1/aiz/aa ja kmlamzz/,é.rz'a. Vastaus: Barnes & Noblen pyyntéi ei ole kalasteluyritys. Tiillaiser ka1as teluyritykset eiviit ole sallittuja Yhdysvalloissa, joten koska ITC on hyvéiksynyt oikeusapupyynnén, ITC ei ole pitéinyt oikeusapupyyntééi ka1asteluyrityksenéi. Kaikki Barnes & Noblen pyytéiméit ticdot ovat relevantteja, jotta se pystyy puolustautumaan Nokian avainkumppanin Microsoftin tekemiéi perusteettomia véiitteitii vastaan. On ljséiksi selviiii, ett.i kaikenlaisen todistelun toirnittaminen oikcudelle aihcuttaa aina jollckin vaivaa ja kustannuksia. 'l 2i~ méi ei luonnollisestikaan ole peruste olla esittimétti todistelua saati peruste sille, ettii oikeusapupyyntij voitaisiin jéittéiéi lepiiéiméiixl. Nokian véiite: P}}/Izta" 0223//éJ z'/é'z'77zc'z to"r1, ja :1 //d pyrz'tdh'/2 re//éecli3'tz' Jaamaam Nokia/ta /.z'z'»é:eja/aziu z/mé.rien mrja/1 pzirizh 2;/z//5/12z'a tietojcf. 9 Microsoft Corporation.

28 23. Vastaus: Pyynto ci ole yksilijirnialtén. l'i"c ja Suomen keskusviranomainen ovat kumrnatkin hyvéiksyneet pyynnén. Nokialla on mahdollisuus esittéiéi lii kcsalaisuuksia koskevat véiitteenséi, kun Nokia lausuu asiakirjojen toim.itta rnisesta, minkéi jéilkeen Barnes & Noble voi lausua viiitteistéi ja kéiréijidoikeus ottaa niihin kantaa. Nokian viittaus liikesalaisuuksiin ci cstéi todistclun vastaanottamista eikfi sillii varsinkaan voi olla merkitystii arvioitaessa asian jittiimistéi lepiiéimiiéin. Edelleen kaikki Nokjan csittéiméi todistelu kuuluisi ITC:r1 prosessissa annetun tiukan salassapitomiéiriiyksen soveltamisalaan. Sekéi Barnes & Noble ettéi Microsoft Corporation ovat kummatkin antaneet exittéiin salaisia asiakirjoja toisillcnsa edelléi mainitun salassapitoméiiiréiyksen alla. Liikesalaisuuksiin liittyvé viite on ylipéiéinséi merkillinen, koska csimcrkiksi Nokian yhdysvaltalaincn tytiiryhtio Nokia Inc. ei ole sanallakaan viitarmut liikesalaisuuksiinsa asian aiemmissa vaiheissa.' 24. Nokian viiite: ()zkez/ya 1/ nib on m 6: /ii/vetet.s zzome/2 oz}éezzmzz'i2z':terz'z')'//e ex J) J. parte mztamatta No/éia//e ti/az'.rum 2 a tu//a kw///u,(.:z Vastaus: Nokia ci olc viitannut yhteenkéiéin ITC:n séliintéon tai yhdysvalt21 laiseen ermakkotapaukseen, joka osoittaisi, ctt'a' ei asianosaisellc ulkomaiselle osapuolelle eli Nokialle olisi pitéinyt antaa tilaisuus tulla kuulluksi ermcn kuin oikeusapupyynto toimitetaan Suomeen. ITC:n siéintojen mukaan Nokiaa ei ole tarvinnut kuulla ennen oikcusapupyynnén lélhettémistéi Suomeen. Nokia on lisiiksi ollut tietoinen, etté Barnes & Noble tulee pyytiimiiin siltéi tietoja. Nokian véiite: ]o: mddrcyi panrzaan tag/ti1 I1t0'6/2 ermen /éz/in I']'C://a" on o//z/t ma/1- do//zkuux cmtaa ffllléflifllflfd Nazézkm pemyte/tzg'er1 uasia/auxeidenjo/ydaxta, job2'az':z' tdma" vakauaan Nokzian oi/eemtzm/an /au/é/(ea;/kzxeenja /oz/réléazki /z'.ra')éiz' 0z'.éez/.y'cz y e:ty,éie7/2- me per;/rteij'iz'n km//ztma ). Vastaus: Barnes & Noble viittaa kohdassa IV.1 mainittuun ja toteaa, ettéi Nokian vastalauseet eivéit ole perusteltuja, Vaan virheellisii harhaanjohta via. ITC on jo kertaalleen hyvéksynyt oikeusapupyynnén, eli ITC on jo kertaallecn antanut samoja asioita koskevan péiéitoksen. Kiiriijiioikeus on lisiiksi antanut Nokiallc rnahdollisuuden tulla kuulluksi sekéi csittéiéi niikcmyksensli asiakirjojen toirnittamisesta. Kuulernisperiaatetta on siten noudatettu ainakin Suomessa Nokian viiitc: Mi; c'z'/2'/g}9iizto",bai1r2aan ta)1la"nt('2'o"iz, jo/7taz'j z' ta"mc z' Iz'z'/7m ettii Barney e 7 No/2/e pciizkzki /éanxainwcf/ixid imrrmrze/2t2 _e7'a byfidyntdmd//d pare/72/haam /op/jztfz//ob Jew, kmi/1 mi/71' re 0/iii /. 2c'1'z'1'.r:s)1tpu/Jtaaxzi,émzJa//z'm m prorej J z'j.rd. Vastaus: Nokian véiite on virheellinen. Barnes & Noble ei péiéise parempaan lopputuloksccn oikeusapupyynnon avulla, kuin mihin se olisi piiiissyt puh taasrj kansallisessa prosessissa. Asialla ei myéskéiéin ole mcrkitystéi Haagin ylcissopimuksen alla. Asiassa on ljsiiksi huomattava, etté ITC on léihettiinyt W Ks. esimerkiksi Nokinn liitt-. 4, Nokin lr1c.:r1 ltc:lle tekcmii rajoitus-/kumoztrnispyynte).