UNITED STATES INTERNATIONAL TRADE COMMISSION
`WASHINGTON, D.C.
`
`Before Honorable Charles E. Bullock
`Administrative Law Judge
`
`
`
`In the Matter of
`
`CERTAIN NOISE CANCELLING
`HEADPHONES
`
`Investigation No. 337-TA-626
`
`
`
`COMPLAINANT BOSE CORPORATION’S OPPOSITION TO RESPONDENT PHITEK
`SYSTEMS LIMITED’S (NZ) FIRST MOTION TO COMPEL DISCOVERY
`
`Complainant Bose Corporation (“Bose”) hereby opposes Phitek Systems Limited’s (NZ)
`
`(“Phitek”) First Motion to Compel Discovery, filed on March 27, 2008, which seeks information
`
`regarding Bose’s investigation and testing of the accused products in preparation of its
`
`Complaint (“pre-suit testing”). In its motion, Phitek asks that the Administrative Law Judge
`
`compel Bose to respond to Phitek’s Interrogatory Nos. 28, 30, and 31, to produce documents
`
`responsive to Phitek’s Requests for Production Nos. 96 – 106, and to respond to additional
`
`questions regarding Bose’s pre-suit testing.1 Bose has responded to those discovery requests to
`
`the extent that they do not call for privileged information and attorney work product, but Bose
`
`opposes producing documents and information pertaining to the pre-suit tests that Bose engineers
`
`performed at the direction of Bose’s attorneys in anticipation of this litigation.
`
`The pre-suit testing information that Phitek seeks is not discoverable because Bose will
`
`not be relying upon it as evidence of infringement at the hearing in this Investigation. And as the
`
`Court has previously recognized—in agreement with substantial Commission precedent—a
`
`party’s internal testing is not subject to discovery unless the party intends to rely upon the results
`
`
`1 On April 4, 2008, Respondent Audio-Technica, U.S., Inc. joined Phitek’s motion. To the
`extent a response is necessary, this Opposition serves as Bose’s Opposition to Audio-Technica’s
`motion to compel as well.
`
`

`
`of that testing at trial. Moreover, Bose’s work product is entitled to considerable protection
`
`under the law, and Phitek cannot make any of the required showings to warrant stripping Bose’s
`
`pre-suit testing of its work product protection. Accordingly, Phitek’s motion must fail.
`
`I.
`
`FACTUAL BACKGROUND
`
`In this Investigation, Bose alleges, inter alia, that certain noise cancelling headphones
`
`designed and manufactured by Phitek (and sold by the other named Respondents) infringe
`
`Bose’s U.S. Patent No. 5,181,252 (“the ’252 patent”). Claim 1 of the ’252 patent includes the
`
`following limitation:
`
`a high compliance driver with a driver compliance that is greater
`than said rear cavity compliance having a diaphragm joined to a
`voice coil normally residing in a gap mounted on the baffle.
`
`As part of its pre-suit diligence to establish a good faith basis to request this Investigation, Bose
`
`engineers—at the direction of Bose’s legal counsel—measured the compliance of the accused
`
`products’ drivers and rear cavities. Bose included those measurements in its Complaint per 19
`
`C.F.R. 210.12(a)(9)(vii), which requires complainants to provide a chart applying the asserted
`
`patent claims to the product accused of infringement. (Bose Compl., Ex. 12, attached hereto as
`
`Ex. A). The Commission instituted this Investigation on December 27, 2007.
`
`Simultaneously, Bose has been engaged in settlement discussions with the respondents.
`
`To promote settlement, Bose presented the respondents with a proposal detailing how the
`
`accused products could be modified to make them non-infringing. Phitek responded that it could
`
`not discuss design-arounds until it knew the details of Bose’s pre-suit testing. Although Bose
`
`disagreed that those two matters were connected in any way, to advance settlement, Bose
`
`provided a detailed explanation of its testing methodology. (See Memorandum in Support of
`
`Phitek Systems Limited’s (NZ) First Motion to Compel discovery from Bose Corporation
`
`(hereinafter, “Mem. in Supp.”), Ex. E.) Because this information was presented to advance
`
`
`
`BOSE’S OPPOSITION TO PHITEK’S MOTION TO COMPEL—PAGE 2
`
`

`
`settlement, Bose produced it on the condition that the parties treat it in the same manner as
`
`information submitted pursuant to Federal Rule of Evidence 408. In addition, the respondents all
`
`agreed that the disclosure did not constitute a waiver of privilege or attorney work product
`
`protection. (Ex. B.) Phitek later made it clear that it was not interested in receiving the testing
`
`information for purposes of settlement, but rather for some use in discovery. Bose declined to
`
`disclose details about its pre-suit testing for purposes of discovery on the basis that such
`
`information was protected attorney work product and had only been provided to further the
`
`parties’ settlement discussions.
`
`II.
`
`ARGUMENT
`
`A.
`
`The Requested Testing Information is Not Discoverable Because Bose
`Will Not Rely Upon it as Evidence of Infringement at the Hearing
`
`Internal testing conducted by a party is not subject to discovery unless the party intends
`
`to rely upon the results of that testing at trial. The Court laid out the operative inquiry most
`
`recently in Certain Sucralose, Sweeteners Containing Sucralose, and Related Intermediate
`
`Compounds Thereof (“Sucralose”), Inv. No. 337-TA-604, Order No. 23, at 4 (Oct. 1, 2007):
`
` [S]hould Complainants decide once they have received the samples and tested
`them and decide not to use any of the testing data as evidence during the hearing,
`then Complainants should not be compelled to produce any of the testing data to
`Respondents. If Complainants decide, however, to use certain testing data from
`the samples, then all testing data should be produced to Respondents.
`
`Id. The Court’s Sucralose opinion is on all-fours with prior Commission precedent. See, e.g.,
`
`Certain High-Brightness Light Emitting Diodes and Products Containing Same (“High-
`
`Brightness LEDs”), Inv. No. 337-TA-556, Order No. 25, at 2-3 (Jul. 24, 2006) (denying motion
`
`to compel documents pertaining to pre-suit testing based, in part, upon the fact that results of
`
`testing were not being used as evidence of infringement); Certain Excimer Laser Systems for
`
`Vision Correction Surgery and Components Thereof and Methods for Performing Such Surgery
`
`
`
`BOSE’S OPPOSITION TO PHITEK’S MOTION TO COMPEL—PAGE 3
`
`

`
`(“Excimer Lasers”), Inv. No. 337-TA-419, Order No. 30, at 2-3 (July 2, 1999) (denying motion
`
`to compel documents reflecting infringement testing so long as those documents would not be
`
`relied upon at the hearing). Accordingly, the results and methodology of Bose’s internal testing
`
`are not discoverable if Bose does not intend to rely upon them as evidence of infringement.
`
`Phitek apparently understands this point. (See Mem. in Supp. at 5 (“Inasmuch as Bose uses the
`
`compliance values to support its claims of infringement, the methodology utilized in arriving at
`
`those values is relevant….”) (emphasis added).)
`
`At the hearing, Bose will present evidence of infringement including documents
`
`produced in this case, deposition testimony taken, expert opinions, and the results of tests
`
`performed by Bose’s independent experts. Bose will make all of its required expert disclosures
`
`in accordance with the Court’s Procedural Schedule and Phitek will have a fair opportunity for
`
`expert discovery. Therefore, contrary to Phitek’s claims that “Respondents cannot defend
`
`against Bose’s claim of infringement,” (Phitek Systems Limited’s (NZ) First Motion to Compel
`
`Discovery from Bose Corporation (hereinafter “Mot.”), at 2), and “Phitek cannot adequately
`
`prepare its defenses,” (Mem. in Supp. at 2-3), Phitek will not have to defend itself against any
`
`evidence at trial that it has not received during discovery.
`
`Moreover, this is not, as Phitek contends, a situation where privilege is being used as both
`
`a sword and a shield. (See Mem. in Supp. at 6-7.) As the Court indicated in Sucralose,
`
`consistent with ample Commission precedent, if testing data is to be relied upon, it must be
`
`produced in toto, the bad with the good. Sucralose at 4; see also Excimer Lasers at 2; High-
`
`Brightness LEDs at n.1. Phitek is correct that the fairness doctrine requires as much. (See Mem.
`
`in Supp. at 6-7.) However, Phitek is mistaken that the fairness doctrine is at issue here. Bose is
`
`not attempting to produce some test results as evidence of infringement for use at hearing while
`
`withholding other test results. Phitek’s reliance on Certain Network Controller and Products
`
`
`
`BOSE’S OPPOSITION TO PHITEK’S MOTION TO COMPEL—PAGE 4
`
`

`
`Containing Same (“Network Controllers”), Inv. No. 337-TA-531, Order No. 15 (Jul. 19, 2005),
`
`therefore, misses the mark. (See Mem. in Supp. at 7.) In that case, Marvell attempted to
`
`withhold testing-related materials on the grounds that they were attorney work product and they
`
`would not be relied upon at trial to prove infringement. Network Controllers at 5. However,
`
`Marvell admitted that it had shown the test results to its testifying expert who relied upon them
`
`to reach his opinion. Id. Therefore, the Court held—simply, accurately, and consistent with
`
`Commission precedent—that the fairness doctrine precluded Marvell from using the testing data
`
`(through its expert) to prove infringement at the hearing, while refusing to produce it. Id. at 6.
`
`That is entirely different than the facts of this case, where Bose’s experts have not relied upon
`
`Bose’s pre-suit testing, but rather will rely upon their own tests to confirm infringement.
`
`B.
`
`Bose’s Pre-Suit Testing is Protected From Discovery by the
`Attorney Work Product Doctrine
`
`Phitek’s motion to compel should also be denied because it seeks the mental processes,
`
`legal theories, and strategy of Bose’s counsel, which are protected by the attorney work product
`
`doctrine. As codified in Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(b)(3) and as applied in Section 337
`
`investigations, the attorney work product doctrine protects from discovery documents and
`
`information prepared by a party or its counsel in anticipation of litigation or for trial by allowing
`
`such discovery “only upon a showing that the party seeking discovery has substantial need of the
`
`materials in the preparation of the party’s case and that the party is unable without undue
`
`hardship to obtain the substantial equivalent of the materials by other means.” Fed. R. Civ. P.
`
`26(b)(3)(A); see also Network Controllers at 2. Furthermore, even if discovery of work product
`
`materials is permitted, the court “shall protect against disclosure of the mental impressions,
`
`conclusions, opinions, or legal theories of an attorney or other representative of a party
`
`concerning the litigation.” Id. Although attorney work product protection may be waived, the
`
`
`
`BOSE’S OPPOSITION TO PHITEK’S MOTION TO COMPEL—PAGE 5
`
`

`
`Federal Circuit recently explained the high burden associated with finding a waiver:
`
`Protecting lawyers from broad subject matter of work product
`disclosure “strengthens the adversary process, and … may
`ultimately and ideally further the search for truth.” …. Trial
`counsel’s mental processes … enjoy the utmost protection from
`disclosure; a scope of waiver commensurate with the nature of
`such heightened protection is appropriate.
`
`In re Seagate Technology, LLC, 497 F.3d 1360, 1375 (Fed. Cir. 2007).
`
`The information that Phitek seeks to discover here pertains to the specific tests Bose
`
`performed to determine infringement by the accused products prior to requesting this
`
`Investigation. (E.g., Mot., Ex. B at 27-29 (Phitek interrogatories at issue requesting information
`
`regarding testing of “Accused Instrumentality,” and “methods You used to determine, analyze,
`
`or test any of the products You accuse of infringing the Asserted Patents.”).) Accordingly, there
`
`is no dispute that the relevant testing was performed in anticipation of the instant litigation, and
`
`thus, qualifies as attorney work product. Therefore, Phitek bears the burden to establish that it
`
`“has substantial need of the materials in the preparation of [its] case and that [it] is unable
`
`without undue hardship to obtain the substantial equivalent of the materials by other means.”
`
`Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(3)(A); Network Controllers at 2. Because Phitek cannot establish any of
`
`these required showings, or that Bose has waived its work product protection, Phitek’s attempt to
`
`strip Bose’s pre-suit investigation of its attorney work product protection must fail.
`
`1)
`
`Phitek Does Not Dispute That Bose’s Pre-Suit Testing Was Conducted
`in Anticipation of Litigation By Bose and is Protected Work Product
`
`Pre-suit testing is ordinarily protected from discovery under the attorney work product
`
`doctrine. See, e.g., In re Unilin Decor N.V., 153 Fed. Appx. 726, 727, 728 (Fed. Cir. 2005)
`
`(“[I]nsofar as Alloc seeks to elicit the deponents’ knowledge of the accused product test or study
`
`results indicating infringement of the Unilin patent claims, those questions are improper as
`
`tending to disclose the mental impressions, conclusions, opinions, or legal theories of Unilin’s
`
`
`
`BOSE’S OPPOSITION TO PHITEK’S MOTION TO COMPEL—PAGE 6
`
`

`
`attorneys.”); SmithKline Beecham Corp. v. Pentech Pharms., Inc., 2001 WL 1397876, at *4
`
`(N.D. Ill. Nov. 6, 2001) (holding that work product protection applies because “the kinds of tests
`
`performed, the materials used in the tests, and the specific compounds tested may reveal the
`
`attorney’s strategy”); Phillips Elecs. N. Am. Corp. v. Universal Elecs. Inc., 892 F. Supp. 108, 110
`
`(D. Del. 1995) (holding that “documents sought by defendant relat[ing] to patent infringement
`
`investigations, tests or analyses performed by plaintiff’s employees for its in-house counsel” are
`
`subject to work product protection). Phitek apparently does not dispute this truism. (See
`
`generally Mem. in Supp. 4-8.) Even identification of the specific tests that Bose performed is
`
`protected attorney work product. As Phitek states: “there are many different mathematical
`
`formulas and models to calculate compliance, . . . .” (Mem. in Supp. at 2.) Accordingly,
`
`disclosing the specific mathematical formulas and models that Bose’s engineers, in consultation
`
`with Bose’s legal counsel, determined to be appropriate would provide Phitek insight into the
`
`type of mental processes that the Federal Circuit warned “enjoy the utmost protection from
`
`disclosure.” In re Seagate, 497 F.3d at 1375.
`
`2)
`
`Phitek Has Not Shown a Substantial Need for Discovery of Bose’s
`Pre-Suit Testing or an Inability to Obtain its Substantial Equivalent
`
`Phitek fails to show a “substantial need” sufficient to strip Bose’s pre-suit testing of its
`
`work product protection. Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(3)(A). Phitek merely provides blanket statements
`
`that it needs Bose’s work product to “sufficiently defend itself against Bose’s infringement
`
`allegations.” (E.g., Mem. in Supp. at 4). Such statements fall far short of the high standard
`
`required to establish substantial need. See, e.g., Equal Rights Center v. Post Props., Inc., 247
`
`F.R.D. 208, 212 (D.D.C. 2008) (holding that no substantial need existed when movant had not
`
`yet fully taken advantage of proper discovery mechanisms); U.S. Fidelity & Guaranty Co. v.
`
`Braspetro Oil Servs. Co., 2000 WL 744369, at *13 (S.D.N.Y June 8, 2000) (noting that the
`
`
`
`BOSE’S OPPOSITION TO PHITEK’S MOTION TO COMPEL—PAGE 7
`
`

`
`assertion of substantial need and undue hardship is premature when based on speculation about
`
`the inability to gain discovery). In fact, because Bose does not intend to rely upon the results of
`
`its pre-suit testing at the hearing in this matter, Phitek has no substantial need for this
`
`information to prepare its defense.
`
`Phitek also fails to establish that it is unable to obtain the “substantial equivalent [of
`
`Bose’s pre-suit testing] by other means.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(3)(A). First, Phitek has not
`
`provided any explanation why it cannot conduct its own compliance testing of the accused
`
`products. Well-established tests, such as the Added Mass Technique, are common knowledge
`
`among acoustics engineers. (See Response of Phitek Systems Limited to Complaint,
`
`Supplemental Letter, and Notice of Investigation, Ex. 1 at 29-30, attached hereto as Ex. C.)
`
`Second, Phitek cannot explain why its own experts—it has hired three for this matter—cannot
`
`determine which, in their opinion, is the proper method of measuring compliance in the accused
`
`products. They will certainly be opining on such things in rebuttal of Bose’s expert report.
`
`Third, Phitek will have ample opportunity during expert discovery to probe into the methodology
`
`and results of Bose’s experts’ testing, and generate its own rebuttal expert opinions. Thus,
`
`Phitek can clearly obtain the “substantial equivalent” through its own investigation, experts, and
`
`routine expert discovery.
`
`III. CONCLUSION
`
`For the foregoing reasons, Bose respectfully requests that Phitek’s motion be denied.2
`
`For the Court’s convenience, a Proposed Order is included herewith.
`
`
`
`2 There is a procedural impropriety in Phitek’s motion in that Phitek seeks to compel
`responses to three interrogatories (Mot. at 1), then includes a wish-list of an additional 39
`questions that it would like answered (id. at 3-5). Yet, Phitek has never served these additional
`39 questions upon Bose in the form of discovery requests. Therefore, those questions are not
`specifically dealt with herein by Bose, and are not ripe for a ruling by the Judge.
`
`
`
`BOSE’S OPPOSITION TO PHITEK’S MOTION TO COMPEL—PAGE 8
`
`

`
`
`
`
`
`
`Dated: April 7, 2008
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Respectfully submitted,
`
`
`
`FISH & RICHARDSON P.C.
`
`/s/ Andrew R. Kopsidas
`
`Ruffin B. Cordell
`Andrew R. Kopsidas
`Jeffrey R. Whieldon
`Autumn J.S. Hwang
`FISH & RICHARDSON P.C.
`1425 K Street, N.W.
`11th Floor
`Washington, D.C. 20005
`Telephone: (202) 783-5070
`Facsimile: (202) 783-2331
`
`Charles Hieken
`Gregory A. Madera
`FISH & RICHARDSON P.C.
`225 Franklin Street
`Boston, MA 02110
`Telephone: (617) 542-5070
`Facsimile: (617) 542-8906
`
`Jordan T. Fowles
`FISH & RICHARDSON P.C.
`1717 Main Street
`Suite 5000
`Dallas, TX 75201
`Telephone: (214) 747-5070
`Facsimile: (214) 747-2091
`
`Attorneys for Complainant
`Bose Corporation
`
`BOSE’S OPPOSITION TO PHITEK’S MOTION TO COMPEL—PAGE 9
`
`

`
`
`
`EXHIBIT A
`
`EXHIBIT A
`
`

`
`Exhibit 12
`
`

`
`
`
`
`
`_m>_._umocm__aEoo:9;
`
`
`
`Eo.m>m:o_6:_om_
`
`
`
`mm_o:m>_.om
`
`
`
`mo:m__n_Eoozm__._
`
`$2.6
`
`
`
`>._>moEm.
`
`asemm
`
`Erma
`
`q:o._mm
`
`b_>moE0:
`
`
`
`mwcosnvmmz:o_:..__wu:mo
`
`
`
`
`
`
`¢m_ozm>=u<mouwoSam...“m.Em._m3o_._n_m>=£:mm¢.Eww_
`
`
`
`
`
`
`o_.u:<.mw:o:o_umm::o=m__mu:momm_ozm>:o<moumo«.53.
`
`
`
`
`
`hmwcoznumwxm:___wo:momm_ozw>=u<noz<.:._.<mu_:;om._.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`_mm:o;%mwIm=___$.ao3623.2xomismx2_..E
`
`
`
`
`
`.mm:o_._a_uumIa:__oo:mowm_ozoomoI.n_mu_:omm:mn_
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`m>:m9_oucmJwcocnumormoucmomm_oz;u8_mo._
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`us:mwcoznnmmzm:___.....u:m0-wm_oz_u_.xm:m>._:<
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`,mmo:m__aEooE9ucmE0:m:_>m;.mw=_>mo._mm.ucm
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`émmumo;__mEmflozuoiEmucoamm9:.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`:o_EsEm:oaEoommu:_oc_m8:uo_n_EmncoammmmF_.Ao_u_mSoVEm.ncmAmuficcE0:9:mmmcmamwucm526mmm_:mo
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`co_um:.SoE93mEo_u_mm_>__mE._oc«ms.:8ou_o>m2_omc_o_
`
`
`
`
`
`umuemnm.ozE82.m.:.2:26:.__w_0:aEom:E_.__
`
`
`
`?m.o:uo.aEmu:oo_mom___
`
`Eocm:_:_mEooazemmcmm_u:_o:_m6:vo.n_Emucoamwm9:.
`
`
`
`
`
`Eoc£253_>moR9ucmb_>moEatmmc_>m;asemmwcofimm_am
`
`”.c_m_._.E8Hmwvmwc<
`
`
`
`—..520
`
`
`
`
`
`.>_m>=omamm._mmo:m__o_Eoub_>moB9ncmz_>mo
`
`
`
`
`EmmEn_m_ummo_u:_o:_om_m.m>Eu9:..>._2m_onm_zmsoommmomm:_umSmmwEmm.>>o_mn$_:8_oaEm_n_m.m£:__uo_o_>oa
`
`mmmo:m__qEoo>=>moE99:$5.2mm..mm_5.:mocmQEOD
`
`
`
`
`__oumo_o>m9umc_o._Emm:._Qm_ummc_>m;mocm__qEoob_>moE9Emmcm£
`
`ucm.mEmn2:co_umE:oE9%m:_mc__u_mw.>__mE.oc
`
`mmar.BusuoiE¢_9_o%mm9:BcommE.m>Eu9:.
`
`
`
`
`._£mo._mm_65mocm__aEoo._m>_€m£_>>$26mu:m__aEou:9;w
`
`.2589:
`
`..w>_.um52umasooE99?
`
`cozosvm.om_o:m>_.omcmmu:_uc_m6:uEn_Ewucoo_mom_m;._.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`..m>_S2mm2umazooEm.m>wcoaosum.mm_o:w>=omcm
`
`
`
`..:o.mmmgtomm:_>mo
`
`
`
`._m>_..om.m2
`
`
`
`..>mo82ucmEatm5mczfimnmmmEmnm
`
`
`
`
`
`AZ\F:.:vmo:m__aEoo._w>_.ow.u:uo._n_Ewuconmwm
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`$.§_%$_._:o:m__mo:momm_ozw>_..o<mommoEmma
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`mmcoz.ummzmc___oo:momm_ozm>=o<\.oz<.I._.<mo_c;om._.o_u:<
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`8S._%$_._.c___8:mo$62«:2xomxom_m_v_2En_
`
`
`
`
`
`mmcozémmzm:__mo:moww_ozoomo_._.nEo_:omm:mn_
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`mm:o;aummIm:___wo:mo-om_oz_u_-Xmcm>._:<m>:m9o
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`mmco;a_ummImc___mocmomw_ozcum._mo._
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`

`
`
`
`EXHIBIT B
`
`EXHIBIT B
`
`

`
`From: Nash, Bill [bnash@jw.com]
`
`Sent:
`
`Thursday, March 06, 2008 2:05 PM
`
`To:
`
`Cc:
`
`Autumn J. Hwang
`
`Phitek_Service@jw.com; PNA-Bose@are|aw.com; Bose ITC-Service; awineburg@akingump.com;
`dyonan@akingump.com; gtshek|eton@we|shkatz.com; jacarnahan@welshkatz.com;
`jpwhite@we|shkatz.com
`
`Subject: RE: US 337-TA—626
`
`Autumn,
`
`I believe there needs to be edits to the following:
`
`1. Bose’s Responses to Phitek’s Interrogatories
`
`Bose agreed to provide supplemental responses to certain interrogatories posed by Phitek and raised in Phitek’s
`letters to Bose. Bose agrees to supplement the certain interrogatories or inform Phitek that Bose does not
`believe any supplementation by no later than March 14, 2008.
`
`2. Bose’s Compliance Testing Method
`
`The Respondents have sent interrogatories to Bose seeking information on the compliance testing method or
`protocol used by Bose to support the claim of infringement and to produce the compliance numbers shown in
`Exhibits 12 and 30 attached to the Complaint. Bose has refused to produce the compliance testing method or
`procedure on the grounds that it is protected under pre-suit investigation privilege. The Respondents disagree
`and have agreed that production of the compliance testing method or procedure would not waive any attorney
`client privilege or attorney work product privilege. The parties are apparently at an impasse regarding whether
`Bose is required to answer discovery seeking details of Bose’s compliance testing method or procedure on the
`grounds that it is protected under pre-suit investigation privilege.
`
`3.
`
`Identification of Documents
`
`The parties agreed that it shall be required by any party relying upon C.F.R. 2] 0.29(c) (“Option to produce
`records”) in response to an interrogatory to specifically identify the documents (e.g., by production number)
`from which an answer to the interrogatory may be derived or ascertained. All parties who have not previously
`done so will provide such identifications. Bose agrees to supplement the certain interrogatories in which it
`elected to rely on CFR 210.29(c) no later than March 14, 2008.
`
`4.
`
`Inspection of Physical Items
`
`Bose agrees to produce the products identified the Respondents Requests for Production and items identified in
`response to Interrogatories during the normal work day, .i.e., Monday - Friday, between 8 am and 5 pm. For
`those items which are one of kind, no destructive testing will be permitted. The Respondents will attempt to
`coordinate inspection and give Bose several different days to choose from.
`
`

`
`Wiiiiam B. Nash
`Registered Patent Attorney
`
`JACKSON WALKER LLP.
`112 E. Pecan Street, Suite 2400
`San Antonio, Texas USA 78205
`Phone: (210) 978-7700, Fax: (210) 242-4620
`bnash@iw.com:
`!VJ,\LV_\'..-l.‘.’,‘.(.:$.3.‘,.3,I!,1,,
`
`From: Autumn J. Hwang [mai|to:Hwang@fr.com]
`Sent: Wednesday, March 05, 2008 4:11 PM
`To: Bose ITC-Respondents
`Subject: US 337-TA-626
`
`Dear Counsel:
`
`Enclosed is the draft discovery report for Feb. 1 - March 5, 2008. Please e-mail me your comments or notice that you
`need additional time to review by 12pm on Friday. This is required to be filed no later than Monday, March 10, 2008.
`
`Regards,
`Autumn
`
`Ms. Autumn ].S. Hwang
`Associate
`
`fit Fish 86 Richardson PC.
`1425 K Street, NW.
`Suite 1100
`
`Washington, D.C. 20005
`direct: (202) 6266356
`tel: (202) 783-5070
`fax: (202) 783-2331
`e—mail:hwang@fr.com
`Practice limited to matters and proceedings before federal courts and agencies.
`Not Admitted in DC (Admitted in NY and NJ)
`This e—mail message is intended for the sole use of the intended recipient(s) and may contain information that is confidential, privileged
`and]or attorneys' work product. Any review or distribution by any other person is prohibited. If you are not an intended recipient, please
`immediately contact the sender and delete all copies
`
`***********‘k****************‘k***‘k*‘k******‘k**********************‘A'****‘k******************************
`
`This email message is for the sole use of the intended reCipient(s) and may contain confidential
`and privileged information. Any unauthorized use or disclosure is prohibited. If you are not the
`intended recipient, please contact the sender by reply email and destroy all copies of the original
`message.
`
`tax advice contained in this communication (including any
`IRS CIRCULAR 230 DISCLOSURE: Any U.S.
`attachments)
`is not
`intended or written to be used, and cannot be used,
`for the purpose of
`(i)
`avoiding penalties under the Internal Revenue Code or (ii) promoting, marketing or recommending to
`another party any transaction or matter addressed herein.
`****‘k*‘k********‘k‘k*********)\"k‘k‘k********'k****‘k‘k*‘k**'k*‘k*****1\"k***‘k**'k***‘k~k‘k~k‘k‘k*****‘k*'k‘k~k******‘k*‘k*k*k‘k***
`
`

`
`
`
`EXHIBIT C
`
`EXHIBIT C
`
`

`
`chuffing noise or felt as a pulsating air stream.
`The leak is easily plugged with Mortitel“, Blue
`Tac”", or any other non-hardening sealer.
`(C) The walls of the test box should be reason-
`ably stiff, but there is no need to go overboard.
`Energy absorption due to box-wall flexing is
`reflected only in QMCT—the driver in~box mechan-
`ical Q——and does not affect the measured value of
`QECF. Do not, however, place any absorbing lining
`in the box, as this will change the effective value
`of V3. (See Chapter 3 for a discussion of the effect
`of box lining and stuffing on VB.)
`
`2.7.2 THE ADDED-MASS TECHNIQUE
`In the free-air/closed-box procedure, resonant
`frequency is raised by placing the driver in a sealed
`box. With the added-mass procedure, driver reso
`nant frequency is lowered by adding mass to the
`cone. In this method, the free—air resonant fre-
`
`quency of the driver is measured first. Then a
`known mass is added to the cone and the new,
`lower, free-air frequency is measured. This data is
`sufficient to calculate the driver moving mass,
`MMS. MMS and f3A are used next to compute dri-
`ver mechanical compliance, CMS, using Equation
`2.4. Finally, CMS and SD are used to compute VAS
`with Equation 2.14.
`For this method to work well, you should try to
`get a downward frequency shift of 25% or more.
`For large woofers this may mean adding 30—60g to
`the cone. The added ‘mass should he placed
`symmetrically about the cone apex. Use material
`such as Mortitc or non-hardening putty. Blue Tac
`non-hardening putty, available in most hardware
`stores, works especially well.
`Small ceramic disk magnets also work well as
`long as the driver frame is nonmagnetic. Placing a
`magnetic disk on each side of the cone with poles
`attracting will clamp the disk pair to the cone.
`The added mass must be weighed accurately,
`preferably to within 0.1 g. As with the free-air tests,
`the driver should be vertical to prevent preloading
`the suspension. This is especially important
`because of the extra weight of the added mass.
`Finally, if SD is not given by the manufacturer, you
`can calculate it to a good approximation by using
`a diameter which includes one-half of the sur-
`
`round, since a portion of the surround moves with
`the cone and contributes to the effective piston
`area.
`
`The added-mass procedure for determining VAS
`is given below:
`
`1. Measure fSA using one of the procedures
`given in Section 2.6.
`2. Add a known mass to the cone. If the cone
`mass is known from manufacturer’s data, add a
`mass equal to at least 50% of the cone mass.
`Measure the added mass to 0.lg accuracy.
`3. Measure the new free-air resonant frequency
`using the same procedure as in step 1. Label
`this frequency ESAM. If this frequency is not at
`least 25% lower than fSA, add additional mass
`and repeat step 3.
`4. Compute moving mass using the following
`formula:
`
`DRIVER TESTING
`
`[228]
`
`where MADD is the added mass.
`5. Compute driver mechanical compliance using:
`
`0.0253
`1
`:2 T?“""“"“"‘ ‘Z ""““‘—‘
`4752 fS2A M MS
`fsix M Ms
`
`C
`
`MS
`
`[229]
`
`6. Finally, compute VAS using Equation 2.14:
`
`VA3= pc2 CMS SD? = 1.4 x 105 CMS SD9,
`
`[230]
`
`where SD is in mg and standard atmospheric
`conditions have been assumed in evaluating the peg
`term.
`
`2.7.2.1 AN ADDED MASS EXAMPLE
`
`Let's determine VAS for the 8" woofer in example
`2.7.1.1, using the added-mass method. The free-air
`resonant frequency is already known from the pre-
`vious example. The moving mass and cone area of
`this driver are specified at 22.2}; and 002221112,
`respectively, by the manufacturer. Three blobs of
`Blue Tac totaling 23.8g were placed symmetrically
`about the cone apex and the new free-air resonant
`frequency was measured yielding:
`
`f
`SAM = 16.31-lz
`
`Then using Equations 2.28~2.30 we obtain:
`
`23.3
`M = —,~
`MS
`gfi _
`1
`16.3
`
`= 22.4 g =.0224kg
`
`C
`
`_
`
`0.0253
`(23.4)’ x 0.0224
`
`“S
`
`= 0.00206m / N
`
`VAS = 1.4 X 105 X 0.00206 X 0.02223 = 142 ltr
`
`This result is within 4% of the result obtained using
`the free-air/closed-box method. This level of agree-
`ment is excellent for VAs measurements.
`
`2.7.2.2 DISCUSSION OF ADDED-MASS
`TECHNIQUE
`
`(A) The term peg changes by about 0.4% as the
`temperature drops from 68-32°F (20°C—0°C) at
`sea-level.
`
`(B) The act of attaching a test mass to the cone
`will often shift the driver compliance due to suspen-
`sion hysteresis or creep. This happens because the
`cone position is shifted slightly when applying the
`test mass. Exciting the driver at resonance for a
`minute or so with the added mass in place will usu-
`ally reset this suspension shift. It is possible to add
`too much mass to the cone, throwing it out of
`alignment or preloading it sufficiently to move the
`suspension out of its linear range.
`Do not add a. mass larger than the cone mass
`
`
`
`

`
`TESTING
`LOUDSPEAKERS
`
`itself. Breaking the added mass into three or four
`equal elements and placing them symmetrically
`about the cone apex will help to prevent these
`problems. Ceramic disk magnets provide a very
`convenient way to add cone mass. With stamped
`steel frame drivers, however, the magnets may pull
`the cone toward the frame producing a compli-
`ance shift like that discussed above.
`
`2.7.3 COMPARISON OF ADDED-MASS AND
`CLOSED-BOX PROCEDURES FOR
`DETERMINING VAs
`Obviously, the added-mass technique is simpler to
`implement. You don't have to build a box. Unlike
`the closed—box method, the added~mass technique
`is not sensitive to leakage errors. Errors may be
`incurred, however, due to the uncertainty in SD and
`uncompensated compliance shifts. The closed-box
`method measures VAS directly. It is not subject to
`errors in SD and does not normally experience
`compliance shifts. However, leakage errors can
`occur even in a properly sealed box due to leakage
`through the driver surround or dust cap.
`The added-mass technique measures cone mass,
`MMS and compliance, CMS, directly with little error.
`The closed-box method measures VAS with little
`error. Using data from both techniques you can
`solve for SD. The appropriate equation is:
`
`so : l{ j :O’168fSA (MMsVAs)
`
`27rM v r2
`pe
`
`'”‘
`
`us.
`
`2
`
`where MMS is in grams and VA5 is in liters. Using
`the data from our examples:
`
`SD = 0.168 x 23.4 x (22.4 x 136)” = 21*/cm? = 0.0217111?
`
`This result is within 2.3% of manufacturer's
`specification.
`
`2.8 THE REST OF THE T/S PARAMETERS
`Some of the additional T/S parameters can be
`measured directly with additional instrumentation,
`but it is now common practice throughout the
`industry to calculate these parameters from the
`complete electro-mechano-acoustic model of the
`driver. The parameters we have learned how
`to measure so far, fSA, VAS, and all three Q5, are
`sufficient to calculate all of the other T/S parame
`ters of interest.
`
`2.8.1 CALCULATING CONE MASS
`Cone moving mass is determined directly via the
`added-mass technique. However, if you determined
`VAS using the closed-box procedure, you may
`wish to calculate the cone mass. This can be done
`in two steps:
`
`1) Use VAS to calculate driver mechanical
`compliance, CMS;
`2) Use fSA and CMS to compute MMS.
`
`Solving Equation 2.29 for CMS and 2.28 for
`MMS we get:
`
`and
`
`MMS
`
`0.0253
`= ——
`f:A C MS
`
`[232]
`
`Let's continue with our 8" driver example from
`Section 2.7.1:
`
`CMS = 7.16 X l()‘‘3 (0.136/0.02222) = 0.00198 N/m = 1.98 mN/in
`
`and
`
`MMS = 0.0253/(000198 x 23.42) = 0.0233kg = 22.3g
`
`This value is in good agreement with the manufac-
`turer’s specification of 222g.
`
`2.8.2 C