UNITED STATES INTERNATIONAL TRADE COMMISSION
`WASHINGTON, DC
`
`In the Matter of
`
`CERTAIN NOISE
`CANCELING HEADPHONES
`
`___ _. -_. ----
`
`RESPONDENT PANASONIC CORPORATION OF NORTH AMERICA’S REQUEST
`FOR SPECIAL APPEARANCE AND UNOPPOSED MOTION FOR EXTENSION OF
`TIME IN WHICH TO RESPOND TO BOSE CORPORATION’S COMPLAINT,
`SUPPLEMENTAL LETTER AND NOTICE OF INVESTIGATION
`
`Pursuant to Commission Rules 210.13 and 210.15(d) and Ground Rule 1.8, Proposed
`
`Respondent Panasonic Corporation of North America (“Panasonic”), through counsel,
`
`respectfully requests permission to appear specially in the above-captioned investigation for the
`
`limited purpose of filing this motion for a brief extension of time in which to respond or
`
`otherwise plead to Bose Corporation’s (“Bose”) Complaint, Supplemental Letter, and Notice of
`
`Investigation. Currently, pursuant to Commission Rules 2 10.13, the due date for Panasonic’s
`
`response is January 22,2008.
`
`As set forth in the accompanying memorandum, which is incorporated herein by
`
`reference, good cause exists for the Administrative Law Judge (ALJ”) to allow Panasonic to file
`
`its response on January 29,2008, because (1) Panasonic is not the manufacturer of the Panasonic
`
`accused products, and, thus, it is more difficult to obtain responsive information regarding those
`
`products; (2) Phitek, the manufacturer of the Panasonic accused products, was granted an
`
`extension of time until January 28, 2008; and (3) the recent holiday has further delayed the
`
`collection of information for Panasonic’s response.
`
`
`WASHINGTON, DC
`
`In the Matter of
`
`CERTAIN NOISE
`CANCELING HEADPHONES
`
`___ _. -_. ----
`
`RESPONDENT PANASONIC CORPORATION OF NORTH AMERICA’S REQUEST
`FOR SPECIAL APPEARANCE AND UNOPPOSED MOTION FOR EXTENSION OF
`TIME IN WHICH TO RESPOND TO BOSE CORPORATION’S COMPLAINT,
`SUPPLEMENTAL LETTER AND NOTICE OF INVESTIGATION
`
`Pursuant to Commission Rules 210.13 and 210.15(d) and Ground Rule 1.8, Proposed
`
`Respondent Panasonic Corporation of North America (“Panasonic”), through counsel,
`
`respectfully requests permission to appear specially in the above-captioned investigation for the
`
`limited purpose of filing this motion for a brief extension of time in which to respond or
`
`otherwise plead to Bose Corporation’s (“Bose”) Complaint, Supplemental Letter, and Notice of
`
`Investigation. Currently, pursuant to Commission Rules 2 10.13, the due date for Panasonic’s
`
`response is January 22,2008.
`
`As set forth in the accompanying memorandum, which is incorporated herein by
`
`reference, good cause exists for the Administrative Law Judge (ALJ”) to allow Panasonic to file
`
`its response on January 29,2008, because (1) Panasonic is not the manufacturer of the Panasonic
`
`accused products, and, thus, it is more difficult to obtain responsive information regarding those
`
`products; (2) Phitek, the manufacturer of the Panasonic accused products, was granted an
`
`extension of time until January 28, 2008; and (3) the recent holiday has further delayed the
`
`collection of information for Panasonic’s response.
`
`
`
`Panasonic represents that it has contacted the Commission Investigative Staff and counsel
`
`for Bose to obtain their respective positions on this motion. Neither the Staff nor Bose opposes
`
`the requested special appearance and motion for extension. Granting the extension will not
`
`affect any other deadlines, including the target date, and should not prejudice any party.
`
`Counsel is aware that Ground Rule 1.8 requires that motions for extension be made in
`
`writing the day before the original due date and will adhere strictly to this Rule as the
`
`investigation moves forward. Panasonic asks, however, that, given the short length of the
`
`extension requested, the lack of opposition to the motion for extension, and the lack of prejudice
`
`in the granting of such motion, the ALJ waive this requirement for this limited purpose.
`
`For all the foregoing reasons, Panasonic asks that the ALJ grant this request and motion
`
`to extend the due date for its response to the Complaint until January 29,2008.
`
`DATE: January 22,2008
`
`Jamie DkJndenvooa
`ADDUCI, MASTRIANI & SCHAUMBERG, LLP
`1200 Seventeenth Street, NW, Fifth Floor
`Washington, DC 20036
`Telephone: (202) 467-6300
`Facsimile: (202) 466-2006
`
`Daniel Ebenstein
`Abraham Kasdan
`Joseph Casino
`AMSTER, ROTHSTEIN & EBENSTEIN LLP
`90 Park Avenue
`New York, NY 100 16
`Telephone: (212) 336-8000
`Facsimile: (212) 336-8001
`Counsel for Panasonic Corporation of
`North America
`
`2
`
`
`
`UNITED STATES INTERNATIONAL TRADE COMMISSION
`Washington, D.C.
`Before the Honorable Charles E. Bullock
`
`IN THE MATTER OF
`
`CERTAIN NOISE CANCELLING
`HEADPHONES
`
`Investigation No. 337-TA-626
`
`MEMORANDUM IN SUPPORT OF RESPONDENT PANASONIC CORPORATION OF
`NORTH AMERICA'S REQUEST FOR SPECIAL APPEARANCE AND
`UNOPPOSED MOTION FOR EXTENSION OF-TIME IN WHICH TO
`RESPOND TO BOSE CORPORATION'S COMPLAINT,
`SUPPLEMENTAL LETTER AND NOTICE OF INVESTIGATION
`
`Pursuant to Commission Rules 210.13 and 210.15(d) and Ground Rule 1.8, Proposed
`
`Respondent Panasonic Corporation of North America ("Panasonic"),
`
`through counsel,
`
`respectfully submits this memorandum in support of its request for permission to appear
`
`specially in the above-captioned investigation for the limited purpose of filing this motion for a
`
`brief extension of time in which to respond or otherwise plead to Bose Corporation's ("Bose")
`
`Complaint, Supplemental Letter, and Notice of Investigation.
`
`I.
`
`BACKGROUND
`
`Bose filed its Complaint under Section 337 of the Tariff Act of 1930, as Amended on
`
`November 29, 2007, and its Supplemental Letter to the Complaint on December 20, 2007 (the
`
`"Supplemental Letter"). The U.S. International Trade Commission ("the Commission") issued
`
`its Notice of Investigation in the above-captioned matter on December 27, 2007. Currently,
`
`pursuant to Commission Rules 210.13, the due date for Panasonic's Response is January 22,
`
`2008.
`
`
`
`11.
`
`ARGUMENT
`
`The Administrative Law Judge's Ground Rule 1.8 governs requests for extensions of time
`
`and requires that that good cause for such extension be established. See Order No. 2 at 2. As to
`
`motions for extensions of time, Commission Rule 210.15(d) permits an ALJ to rule on such
`
`motions ex parte.
`
`Panasonic submits that good cause exists for the ALJ to allow Panasonic to file its
`
`response on January 29, 2008. First, this additional time is warranted for Panasonic, as it is not
`
`the manufacturer of the Panasonic accused products. Therefore, it is more difficult and time-
`
`consuming to obtain the information necessary to provide its response. Second, recently Phitek
`
`was granted an extension of time to January 28, 2008. Panasonic submits respectfully that it
`
`should be allowed to file its response after the manufacturer of the Panasonic accused products.
`
`Finally, the recent holiday has further delayed the collection of information for the response.
`
`Panasonic is working diligently to locate responsive material to the Complaint,
`
`Supplemental Letter, and Notice of Investigation. Granting this brief extension will not affect
`
`any other deadlines, including the target date, and will not prejudice any party.
`
`Indeed, neither
`
`the Staff nor Bose opposes the requested special appearance and motion for extension.
`
`Counsel is aware that Ground Rule 1.8 requires that motions for extension be made in
`
`writing the day before the original due date and will adhere strictly to this Rule as the
`
`investigation moves forward. Panasonic asks, however, that, given the short length of the
`
`extension requested, the lack of opposition to the motion, and the lack of prejudice in granting
`
`the motion, the ALJ waive this requirement for this limited purpose.
`
`2
`
`
`
`111. CONCLUSION
`
`For all the foregoing reasons, Panasonic asks that the ALJ grant this request and motion
`
`to extend the due date for its response to the Complaint until January 29,2008.
`
`DATE: January 22,2008
`
`Respectfully submitted,
`
`ADDUCI, MASTRIANI & SCHAUMBERG, LLP
`1200 Seventeenth Street, NW, Fifth Floor
`Washington, DC 20036
`Telephone: (202) 467-6300
`Facsimile: (202) 466-2006
`
`Daniel Ebenstein
`Abraham Kasdan
`Joseph Casino
`AMSTER, ROTHSTEIN & EBENSTEIN LLP
`90 Park Avenue
`New York, NY 100 16
`Telephone: (212) .336-8000
`Facsimile: (212) 336.8001
`
`Counsel for Panasonic Corporation of
`North America
`
`3
`
`
`
`CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
`
`I hereby certify that a copy of the RESPONDENT PANASONIC CORPORATION
`OF NORTH AMERICA'S REQUEST FOR SPECIAL APPEARANCE AND
`UNOPPOSED MOTION FOR EXTENSION OF TIME IN WHICH TO RESPOND TO
`BOSE CORPORATION'S COMPLAINT, SUPPLEMENTAL LETTER & NOTICE OF
`INVESTIGATION AND MEMORANDUM IN SUPPORT THEREOF (PUBLIC) was
`served as indicated, to the parties listed below, this 22"d day of January 2008:
`
`The Honorable Marilyn R. Abbott
`Secretary
`U.S. INTERNATIONAL TRADE COMMISSION
`500 E Street, S.W., Room 112A
`Washington, DC 20436
`(VIA HAND DELIVERY - original + 6 copies)
`
`The Honorable Charles E. Bullock
`
`ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE
`U.S. INTERNATIONAL TRADE COMMISSION
`500 E Street, S.W., Room 317
`Washington, DC 20436
`(VIA HAND DELIVERY - 2 copies)
`
`COUNSEL FOR COMPLAINANT BOSE CORPORATION
`Jeffiey R. Whieldon
`FISH &RICHARDSON P.C.
`1425 K Street, N.W., Suite 1100
`Washington, DC 20005
`
`Jordan Fowles
`FISH & RICHARDSON P.C.
`1425 K Street, N.W., Suite 1100
`Washington, DC 20005
`
`VIA FEDERAL EXPRESS
`
`VIA FEDERAL EXPRESS
`
`PAN100008
`
`ADDUCI, MASTRIANI & SCHAUMBERG, L.L.P.
`1200 Seventeenth Street, N.W., Fifth Floor
`Washington, DC 20036
Accessing this document will incur an additional charge of $.
After purchase, you can access this document again without charge.
Accept $ Charge
Still Working On It
This document is taking longer than usual to download. This can happen if we need to contact the court directly to obtain the document and their servers are running slowly.
Give it another minute or two to complete, and then try the refresh button.
A few More Minutes ... Still Working
It can take up to 5 minutes for us to download a document if the court servers are running slowly.
Thank you for your continued patience.
This document could not be displayed.
We could not find this document within its docket. Please go back to the docket page and check the link. If that does not work, go back to the docket and refresh it to pull the newest information.
Your account does not support viewing this document.
You need a Paid Account to view this document. Click here to change your account type.
Your account does not support viewing this document.
Set your membership
status to view this document.
With a Docket Alarm membership, you'll
get a whole lot more, including:
- Up-to-date information for this case.
- Email alerts whenever there is an update.
- Full text search for other cases.
- Get email alerts whenever a new case matches your search.
One Moment Please
The filing “” is large (MB) and is being downloaded.
Please refresh this page in a few minutes to see if the filing has been downloaded. The filing will also be emailed to you when the download completes.
Your document is on its way!
If you do not receive the document in five minutes, contact support at support@docketalarm.com.
Sealed Document
We are unable to display this document, it may be under a court ordered seal.
If you have proper credentials to access the file, you may proceed directly to the court's system using your government issued username and password.
Access Government Site
