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
`
`MEMORANDUM IN SUPPORT OF PHITEK SYSTEMS LIMITED’S (NZ)
`MOTION TO MODIFY ORDER NO. 4: SETTING THE PROCEDURAL SCHEDULE
`
`Respondent Phitek Systems Limited (“Phitek”) respectfully submits this Memorandum in
`
`Support of its Motion to Modify Order 4: Setting the Procedural Schedule (“Procedural
`
`Schedule”). Phitek submits it has good cause for an extension of its deadline to serve its initial
`
`expert report from May 28, 2008 to June 11, 2008 and to move the deadline to exchange rebuttal
`
`reports from June ll, 2008 to June 18, 2008 for the following reasons:
`
`(1) Bose has failed to
`
`produce critical discovery; (2) Phitek will be unduly burdened to produce its expert report
`
`without the benefit of discovering the testing methodologies and results that are actually in
`
`dispute; (3) It is consistent with federal practice for the party with the burden of proof to produce
`
`its expert report prior to the party without the burden of proof; and (4) Phitek is not seeking to
`
`modify or disturb any other deadlines in the Procedural Schedule.
`
`PRELIMINARY STATEMENT
`
`This ITC investigation is based on Bose’s allegations that Phitek’s Black Box M14 Noise
`
`Cancelling Headphones infringe two Bose patents - U.S. Patent No. 5,l81,252, entitled “High
`
`Compliance Headphone Driving” (the “’252 patent”) and U.S. Patent No. 6,597,792 (the “‘792
`
`patent”).
`
`In its complaint, Bose has alleged, inter alia, that Phitek’s headphones infringe “one or
`
`5l0l75lv.2 128214/00004
`
`

`
`more of claims 1, 2, and 5 of the ‘252 patent.”] As the Complainant, Bose bears the burden of
`
`proving that Phitek’s headphones meet each and every limitation of the claims which Bose
`
`alleges are infringed.2
`
`To support its allegations of infringement of Claim 1 of the ‘252 patent, Bose relies on
`
`two claim charts submitted with its complaint.3 Bose relies upon the same claim chart data in
`
`answering interrogatories directed to why Respondents’ products allegedly infringe the ‘252
`
`patent.4 These claim charts contain Bose’s allegations on how Phitek’s headphones infringe each
`
`element of Claim 1 of the ‘252 patent.
`
`As seen in these claim charts, one of the key elements of Claim 1 of the ‘252 patent is “a
`
`high compliance driver with a driver compliance that
`
`is greater
`
`than said rear cavity
`
`compliance....”5 To support its claim that Phitek’s headphones meet this compliance6 element,
`
`Bose relies on its own measurements of the compliance of the driver and of the rear cavity of the
`
`Phitek’s headphones and affixes specific numbers for each compliance measurement.7
`
`1 See Bose Complaint at $1 7.1 (“[T]he proposed respondents sell for importation...noise reducing headphones that
`directly infringe...one or more of claims 1, 2, and 5 ofthe ‘252 patent...”).
`2
`See Bayer AG v. Elan Pharmaceutical Research Corp, 212 F.3d 1241, 1247 (Fed. Cir. 2000)(for literal
`infringement, patentee must prove accused device contains each limitation of asserted claim(s))(internal citation
`omitted).
`
`3 See Bose Complaint at 11 7.2 (“...a claim chart applying exemplary claim 1 of the ‘252 Patent to the Accused
`Product is attached hereto as Exhibit 12...”); and Bose Complaint at $1 10.1 (“Claim charts applying representative
`claim 1 of the ‘252 patent...[is] attached as Exhibit 30 ...” ). Complaint Exhibits 12 and 30, attached as Exhibit A
`to Respondent Phitek System Limited’s (NZ) Motion and Memoranda of Law to Compel Discovery from Bose
`Corporation, filed on March 27, 2008 (“Phitek’s Motion to Compel”).
`
`4 See Exhibits 5 & 7 to COMPLAINANT BosE’s FIRST SUPPLEMENTAL RESPONSES TO PH1TEK‘S FIRST SET or
`INTERROGATORIES (“BosE’s FIRST SUPPLEMENTAL RESPONSES”), attached as Exhibit B to Phitek’s Motion to
`Compel.
`.
`
`5 See Exhibit A (Complaint Exhibits 12 and 30) to Phitek’s Motion to Compel.
`6
`“Compliance” is a measurement of the amount of movement in response to an applied force.
`stiffness.
`
`It is the inverse of
`
`7 See Exhibits A & B (Ex. 12 to Complaint and Ex. 5 to Bose’s First Supplemental Responses contain charts with
`numerical values which Bose claims are the compliance measurements of Phitek products) to Phitek’s Motion to
`Compel.
`
`5l0l751v.2 128214/00004
`
`

`
`However,
`
`there are many different mathematical
`
`formulas and models to calculate
`
`compliance and Phitek cannot determine whether Bose’s compliance measurements are accurate
`
`and its methodology sound without discovery into how Bose calculated the compliance
`
`measurements set forth in its complaint. Moreover, because Bose is relying on its compliance
`
`measurements as proof of infringement, Phitek cannot adequately prepare its defense against
`
`Bose infringement claims without discovery regarding Bose’s compliance measurements.
`
`On January 4, 2008, Phitek explicitly requested information and documents related to
`
`Bose’s method for determining compliance in both its First Set of lnterrogatories and Requests
`
`for Production. Specifically, Phitek Interrogatory Nos. 28, 30 and 31 and Requests for
`
`Production Nos.
`
`96-106 seek all methods,
`
`test protocols,
`
`instruments,
`
`assumptions,
`
`computations, results, specifications, formulas, analysis, and evaluations (hereinafter referred to
`
`as “methodology”) used by Bose to determine the values for driver compliance and rear cavity
`
`compliance as set forth in the Complaint EXh1bl1S.8
`
`Although Bose relied upon the numerical values of compliance resulting from its tests to
`
`claim infringement, Bose refuses to disclose how it conducts and calculates the compliance
`
`measurements. Bose objects to Phitek’s interrogatories and document requests on the grounds
`
`that the information sought is protected by the attorney work—product privilege and attorney-
`
`client privilege. Even when Bose supplemented its interrogatory answers, it relied upon the Same
`
`objections.9 In addition, in response to Interrogatory 31, Bose further objected on the grounds
`
`that the information seeks expert opinion testimony and legal conclusions”)
`
`8 See Exhibit B (BOSE’S FIRST SUPPLEMENTAL RESPONSES) attached to Phitek’s Motion to Compel.; See also
`BOSE’S RESPONSES TO PHITEI<’S FIRST SET OF REQUESTS FOR PRODUCTION (“BOSE’S RESPONSE TO PRODUCTION
`REQUEST”), attached as Exhibit C to Phitek’s Motion to Compel..
`9 See Exhibit B (BOSE’S FIRST SUPPLEMENTAL RESPONSES) attached to Phitek’s Motion to Compel.
`10
`See Id.
`
`5l0175lv.2 128214/00004
`
`

`
`In a good faith attempts to resolve this dispute without the Administrative Law Judge’s
`
`intervention, Phitek’s counsel wrote to Bose’s counsel requesting the compliance measuring
`
`methodology.” While Bose responded to the request, it did so only under Rule 408, and even the
`
`information provided on Bose’s alleged methodology is incomplete (at best).12 Bose did not
`
`disclose sufficient information for Phitek to duplicate Bose’s tests, and Bose has disclosed no
`
`documentation of the testing results whatsoever. Moreover, the communication being subject to
`
`FRE 408 cannot be relied upon in discovery in this matter.
`
`Phitek again requested this information at
`
`the parties’ March 10, 2008 Discovery
`
`Committee Meeting without
`
`resolution.
`
`Bose again refused to produce the requested
`
`13
`
`information. Although Bose supplemented its interrogatory answers on March 14, 2008, Bose
`
`nonetheless stood on its same objections and refused to produce the appropriate information.”
`
`Accordingly, on or about March 27, 2008, Phitek filed a Motion to Compel Discovery
`
`from Bose Corporation (“Motion to Compel”).
`
`15
`
`In Bose’s Opposition to Phitek’s Motion to
`
`Compel Discovery, filed on or about April 7, 2008, Bose stated it will present evidence of
`
`compliance testing vis-a-vis its independent experts during the initial exchange of expert
`
`reports.16 As a result, the first time Phitek will learn Bose’s methodology for compliance testing,
`
`upon which it will rely to show infringement, is on May 28, 2008, the deadline for all parties to
`
`exchange initial expert reports.
`
`Phitek then asked Bose to agree to extend Phitek’s deadline to produce its initial expert
`
`report to a week after Bose’s production of its expert report so that Phitek’s experts could limit
`
`H See Feb. 22, 2008 ltr from Phitek counsel to Bose counsel, attached as Exhibit D to Phitek’s Motion to Compel.
`12 See March 4, 2008 ltr from Bose counsel to Phitek counsel, attached as Exhibit E to Phitek’s Motion to Compel.
`‘3 See Discovery Committee Report, March 10, 2008, ll 7 attached as Exhibit F to Phitek’s Motion to Compel..
`‘‘ See Exhibit B (BosE’s FIRST SUPPLEMENTAL RESPONSES) to Phitek’s Motion to Compel.
`15 See Respondent Phitek’s Motion to Compel, filed March 27, 2008.
`16 See id.
`
`5l0l75lv.2 128214/00004
`
`

`
`their reports to the issues presented in Bose’s report, specifically with regard to the “compliance”
`
`testing on which Bose so heavily relies.” Bose represented it would not produce its complete
`
`testing methodology until
`
`it produced its initial expert report,l8 refused to agree to extend
`
`Phitek’s initial expert report deadline and agreed this matter was ripe for a motion to modify the
`
`Procedural Schedule.”
`
`ARGUMENT & AUTHORITIES
`
`Phitek seeks an Order extending its deadline to serve its initial expert report from May
`
`28, 2008 to June 11, 2008 and to move the deadline to exchange rebuttal reports from June 11,
`
`2008 to June 18, 2008, which would not affect the remainder of the Procedural Schedule.
`
`“Modifications of the procedural schedule by any party shall be made by written motion
`
`showing good cause.”20 Good cause includes the opposing party’s engagement in dilatory tactics
`
`and refusals to provide discovery critical to formulating an expert’s opinion
`
`21 and the ability to
`
`extend a date without affecting the remainder of the procedural schedule.”
`
`The International Trade Commission has followed the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure
`
`on occasion. For example, In the Matter of Certain Hard Disk Drives, Components Thereof and
`
`Products Containing the Same, USITC lnv. No. 337-TA-616 (“Hard Disk Drives”), Order No.
`
`11 (March 10, 2008), the Administrative Law Judge ordered the party bearing the burden of
`
`proof to produce its expert report two weeks prior to the party not bearing the burden of proof.
`
`I7 See Discovery Committee Agenda dated April 28, 2008, attached hereto as Exhibit A.
`l8 See Discovery Committee Agenda dated April 28, 2008, attached hereto as Exhibit A.; see also Bose’s Opposition
`to Phitek’s Motion to Compel, filed April 7, 2008.
`I9 See id.
`
`20 Order No. 2: Notice of Ground Rules and Target Date and Order Setting Date for Submission of Discovery
`Statements (January 4, 2008), Ground Rule 2.
`
`Z‘ See In the Matter of Certain Nand Flash Memory Devices, lnv. No. 337—TA—553, (“Flash Memory Devices”),
`Order No.15 (April 3, 2006); see also In the Matter of Certain Plasma Display Panels,
`lnv. No. 337—TA-445
`(“Plasma Display”), Order No. 17 (May 17, 2001).
`
`22 See Plasma Display, Order No. 17.
`
`5I0l75Iv.2 128214/00004
`
`

`
`Phitek has good cause for an extension of its deadline to serve its initial expert report
`
`from May 28, 2008 to June ll, 2008 and to move the deadline to exchange rebuttal reports from
`
`June ll, 2008 to June 18, 2008. First, Bose’s refusal to provide its testing methodology and
`
`results prior to the exchange of initial expert reports prejudices Phitek by denying Phitek the
`
`information its experts need to conduct their own testing and analysis. Without knowledge of the
`
`testing methodology and results upon which Bose relies in its claim charts and interrogatory
`
`answers, Phitek’s experts will be required to guess the manner in which Bose conducted its
`
`testing. Phitek’s experts should have the opportunity to review the manner and method in which
`
`Bose generated the compliance values upon which it relies so that they can accurately opine on
`
`the matters at issue in this case. Secondly, it is unduly burdensome and impossible for Phitek’s
`
`experts to properly prepare its expert report without such information. That is, if Bose discloses
`
`its testing protocol and results, Phitek’s experts could prepare reports which only address the
`
`areas of disagreement. Third, it is consistent with federal practice for the party with the burden
`
`of proof to produce its expert report prior to the party without the burden of proof,23 and the
`
`International Trade Commission has utilized such a procedure, when requested to do so, in the
`
`past.24 Finally, Phitek is only seeking to modify one deadline, and such modification will not
`
`affect any other deadlines in the Procedural Schedule. Specifically, Phitek only seeks to modify
`
`the Procedural Schedule with regard to the expert reports as follows:
`
`l.
`
`2.
`
`Bose’s deadline to serve its initial expert report:
`(original deadline for “Exchange of Initial Expert Reports”)
`
`May 28, 2008
`
`Phitek’s deadline to serve its initial expert report:
`
`June ll, 2008
`
`23 See 1993 Notes to FED. R. CIV. P. 26 at ll 15, which provide, “. . .in most cases the party with the burden of proof
`on an issue should disclose its expert testimony on that
`issue before other parties are required to make their
`disclosures with respect to that issue.”; see also ABA, Civil Discovery Standards, at 42 (Plaintiff should disclose
`expert first, followed by Defendant’s disclosure).
`
`24 See Hard Disk Drives, Order No. l l.
`
`5l0l75lv.2 128214/00004
`
`

`
`3.
`
`Deadline to exchange rebuttal expert reports:
`
`June 18, 2008
`
`CONCLUSION
`
`For the foregoing reasons, Phitek submits it has good cause to seek a modification of the
`
`Procedural Schedule and therefore, requests that the Administrative Law Judge grant Phitek an
`
`extension of its deadline to serve its initial expert report from May 28, 2008 to June 1 1, 2008 and
`
`to move the deadline to exchange rebuttal reports from June 1 1, 2008 to June 18, 2008.
`
`Exhibits
`
`Exhibit A
`
`April 28, 2008 Discovery Committee Agenda
`
`Respectfully submitted,
`
`
`nnn
`
`pbnn `nnn
`
`William B. Nash
`
`Daniel Chapman
`Mark A. J. Fassold
`
`JACKSON WALKER LLP
`
`1 12 E. Pecan, Suite 2400
`
`San Antonio, Texas 78205
`
`(210) 978-7700
`(210) 242-4620
`
`Alan Cope Johnson
`G. Brian Busey
`Cynthia Beverage
`MORRISON & FOERSTER, L.L.P.
`
`2000 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W.
`Washington, D.C. 20006
`ATTORNEYS FOR PHITEK SYSTEMS LIMITED
`
`Dated: May 9,2008
`
`5101751v.2 128214/00004
`
`

`
`
`
`EXHIBITEXHIBIT
`
`
`
`AA
`
`

`
`fix Fish & Richardson p.c.
`
`Memorandum
`
`Date April 28, 2008
`To Discovery Committee
`From Fish & Richardson
`
`Re
`
`In the Matter of Certain Nose Cancelling Headphones, Inv. No. 337—TA-626
`
`Agenda for Discovery Committee Meeting April 30, 2008
`
`Discovery by Complainant Bose
`
`Depositions
`
`1.
`
`2.
`
`3.
`
`Request a contact person at Bell Gully, Phitek’s New Zealand counsel, and phone
`number for Phitek personal deposition arrangements. Need two conference rooms for
`each ofMay14,15,l6, 19, 20, and 21, 2008.
`
`Phitek personal deposition — need confirmation whether Nancy Dobrodolski and Helen
`Zhang will appear for deposition.
`
`Relationship of Valdis Dunis, Ras Dudas, and Helen Zhang to Phitek. Fassold stated in
`April 25, 2008 letter that Vladis Dunis and Ras Dudas are “not employees of Phitek.”
`Does this mean that they are no longer employed by Phitek or that they are independent
`contractors? Also, what is meant that Phitek needs to confirm whether Helen Zhang is an
`employee of Phitek?
`
`4.
`
`Response to April 21, 2008 letter to Phitek requesting information for:
`
`a.
`
`b.
`
`c.
`
`d.
`
`Sean Mahnken — requested contact information
`
`Damien Givernet ~ former employee of Phitek, requested last known address,
`current employer, date when they ceased employment with Phitek, positions at
`Phitek, and names of replacements at Phitek
`
`Maggie - requested full name, her title, her employment information, and contact
`information
`
`Jack Sun — former employee of Phitek, requested last known address, current
`employer, date when they ceased employment with Phitek, positions at Phitek,
`and names of replacements at Phitek
`
`e.
`
`Jason Liu ~ requested contact information
`
`5096790v.2 128214/00004
`5096790v.2 128214/00004
`
`

`
`f.
`
`g.
`
`h.
`
`Daniel Gray — former employee of Phitek, requested last known address, current
`employer, date when they ceased employment with Phitek, positions at Phitek,
`and names of replacements at Phitek
`
`Randy Diaz — requested contact information
`
`Alan Branningan (deposition notice withdrawn) — former employee of Phitek,
`requested last known address, current employer, date when they ceased
`employment with Phitek, positions at Phitek, and names of replacements at Phitek
`
`Prior Art Disclosure
`
`5.
`
`Request date by which Respondents will supplement responses to Bose interrogatories
`and requests for productions (see April 24, 2008 letter from Kopsidas).
`
`Production
`
`6.
`
`Status of Respondents’ document production. Phitek stated that it was completed, minus
`small amounts (PHI 61111). Creative (CRT 3508)? Panasonic (PAN 10043)? Audio-
`Technica (AT 132460)?
`
`Discovery by Respondent Phitek
`
`7.
`
`Production — Completion: Bose stated that its production would be substantially
`completed by the end of last week. What is Bose’s estimate of the number of documents
`remaining for Bose to produce and how much more time is necessary for Bose to
`complete production?
`
`Exchange of Privilege Log: During the past discovery committee meetings, the status of
`the parties exchanging their privilege logs. Phitek and Creative are ready to exchange
`privilege logs. When will Bose agree to produce its privilege log?
`
`Exchange of Initial Expert Reports. The current scheduling order has an exchange of
`initial expert reports on May 28, 2008. Since Bose has refused to produce information on
`its testing protocol on the 252 compliance and any testing on the 792 ear pad design, it is
`unduly burdensome and impossible for respondents’ experts to properly prepare their
`expert reports. If Bose had disclosed its testing protocol and results, respondents experts
`could prepare reports which only address the areas of disagreement. Without this
`information respondents experts will be required to guess how Bose did its testing, etc.
`Bose has stated it will disclose its testing protocol in its expert report. Will Bose agree to
`modify the scheduling order to provide its initial expert report on May 28, 2008.
`Respondents then will provide their experts’ reports on June 6, 2008. Parties exchange
`rebuttal reports June 13, 2008. This would be consistent with standard federal court
`practice.
`
`10.
`
`Compliance with 19 C.F.R. 210.29: Phitek requested that Bose supplement its responses
`to Phitek’s Interrogatories to identify which of the Bose documents produced after March
`14, 2008 are responsive to Phitek’s Interrogatories to Bose. (Reference Andrew
`
`5096790v.2 128214/00004
`5096790v.2 128214/00004
`
`

`
`Kopsidas’ letter dated March 14, 2008 and Bill Nash’s letters dated March 18, 2008 and
`April 14, 2008). Bose previously agreed it was preparing supplemental responses to refer
`to its production. What is Bose’s estimated date of completion?
`
`Production —- Missing Images: Phitek requested that Bose produce BOSITC041742,
`074272-074275, 075373-075376, 077601, 303713-303937, and 387169-387170.
`(Reference Bill Nash’s letter to Andrew Kopsidas dated April 21, 2007). Bose
`previously stated it was checking with its vendor. What is the status?
`
`Sennheiser Massachusetts and EPO litigation: At the previous Discovery Committee
`conference, Phitek requested that Bose confirm it has produced the discovery, production,
`and pleadings from the Massachusetts litigation involving Sennheiser and the EPO
`proceeding involving Sennheiser, EPO T 1060/98 - 3.5.1 regarding application number
`90309125.4. Have the discovery, production, and pleadings been produced? Which
`documents?
`
`Inadequate Discovery Responses: Phitek requested that Bose supplement its responses
`to Phitek’s lnterrogatories and Requests for Production. (Reference Bill Nash’s letter to
`Andrew Kopsidas dated April 21, 2008). Phitek requests the following:
`
`11.
`
`12.
`
`13.
`
`a.
`
`b.
`
`c.
`
`d.
`
`e.
`
`f.
`
`Confirmation that Bose (1) does not have any responsive documents or (2) is
`withholding documents based on the objections and/or privileges asserted with
`respect to Phitek Requests for Production Nos. 41, 92, 94, 95, 126-128, 146-165.
`
`Confirmation that Bose will not provide a response based on the objections and/or
`privileges asserted with respect to Phitek Interrogatory Nos. 18, 21, and 44.
`
`With respect to Phitek Interrogatory Nos. 27 and 52, Bose relies on 19 C.F.R.
`210.29(c). Phitek requests that Bose supplement its responses to identify the
`responsive production pursuant to the rule or confirm that Bose has no responsive
`documents and is not going to answer based on the objections and/or privileges
`asserted.
`
`Phitek requests that, in addition to the name of each person identified, Bose
`supplement its discovery responses to provide (1) the present address and
`telephone number, or if known, the last known address and telephone number, (2)
`current employer, (3) title and position, and (4) employment duties, functions, and
`responsibilities to Phitek Interrogatory Nos. 1, 26, 40-43, 63, 67, and 68. Phitek
`requests Amy Gray’s job title and job description.
`
`Phitek requests that Bose provide an explanation as to why Phitek has a duty to
`show that the cited references in Phitek’s Interrogatory Nos. 20 and 22 may be
`relevant.
`
`Phitek requests that Bose supplement its responses to Interrogatory Nos. 26, 29,
`34, 35, 36, 45, 59, and 60.
`
`5096790v.2 128214/00004
`5096790v.2 128214/00004
`
`

`
`14.
`
`15.
`
`Depositions (Fact Witnesses). Is it necessary for the Phitek employee depositions in
`New Zealand be scheduled for the entire May 14 -21, 2008 duration?
`
`Deposition —— Phitek corporate representative. Confirm that the call in number will
`work internationally and will allow Phitek to attend the deposition of its corporate
`representative by phone.
`
`5096790v.2 128214/00004
`5096790v.2 128214/00004
`
`

`
`CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
`
`Marilyn R. Abbott
`Secretary
`U.S. International Trade Commission
`
`500 E. Street, S.W., Room 112A
`Washington, DC 20436
`
`The Honorable Charles E. Bullock
`
`Administrative Law Judge
`U.S. International Trade Commission
`
`500 E. Street, S.W., Room 317
`Washington, DC 20436
`
`2 copies
`
`Jennifer whang
`Administrative Law Judge Attorney-Advisor
`
`2 copies w/out attachments
`
`Christopher Paulraj, Esq.
`T. Spence Chubb, Esq.
`Office of Unfair Import Investigations
`U.S. International Trade Commission
`
`pUnn вnn StreCt, Ànnn ROOIH nnn
`Washington, DC 20436
`
`Via First Class Mail
`
`Via Hand Delivery
`
`Via Overnight Delivery
`
`Via Facsimile
`
`Via E—File
`
`Not Served
`
`Via First Class Mail
`
`Via Hand Delivery
`
`Via Overnight Delivery
`
`Via Facsimile
`
`[]@[]DD@i[][][]@DDDDD@D@DDD[j Via Facsimile
`
`Via Electronic Mail
`
`Not Served
`
`Via Electronic Mail
`
`Via First Class Mail
`
`Via Hand Delivery
`
`Not Served
`
`Cl M .1
`V. F.
`ass
`an
`la
`lrst
`Via Hand Delivery
`
`À8nn
`
`@Mù
`
`Via Electronic Mail
`
`Not Served
`
`5I0l751v.2 128214/00004
`
`

`
`Ruffin B. Cordell
`
`Andrew R. Kopsidas
`Jeffrey R. Whieldon
`FISH & RICHARDSON P.C.
`
`1425 K Street, N.W.
`
`Washington, DC 20005
`
`Attorneys for Complainant Bose Corporation
`
`Charles Hieken
`
`Gregory A. Madera
`Adam J. Kessel
`
`FISH & RICHARDSON P.C.
`
`225 Franklin Street
`
`Boston, MA 02 l 10
`
`Attorneys for Complainant Bose Corporation
`
`James P. White
`
`Gerald T. Shekleton
`
`J. Aron Carnahan
`
`Welsh & Katz Ltd.
`120 South Riverside Plaza, 22” Floor
`Chicago, Illinois 60606
`
`Attorneys
`U.S. Inc.
`
`for Respondent Audio Technica,
`
`Arthur Wineburg
`Daniel E. Yonan
`
`Akin Gump Strauss Hauer & Feld, LLP
`1333 New Hampshire Avenue, N.W.
`Washington, DC 20036
`
`Via First Class Mail
`
`Via Hand Delivery
`
`Via Overnight Delivery
`
`Via Facsimile
`
`Via Electronic Mail
`
`Via First Class Mail
`
`Via Hand Delivery
`
`Via Overnight Delivery
`
`Via Facsimile
`
`Via Electronic Mail
`
`
`
`EQDDDEQEQDDDEZJE§lDDDE§l&DDDE§l Via First Class Mail
`
`
`
`Via Hand Delivery
`
`Via Overnight Delivery
`
`Via Facsimile
`
`Via Electronic Mail
`
`Via First Class Mail
`
`Via Hand Delivery
`
`Via Overnight Delivery
`
`Via Facsimile
`
`Attorneys
`U.S. Inc.
`
`for Respondent Audio Technica,
`
`Via Electronic Mail
`
`5101751v.2 128214/00004
`
`

`
`Via First Class Mail
`
`Via Hand Delivery
`
`Via Overnight Delivery
`
`Via Facsimile
`
`Via Electronic Mail
`
`Via First Class Mail
`
`Via Hand Delivery
`
`Via Overnight Delivery
`
`Via Facsimile
`
`Via Electronic Mail
`
`EQDDDEEQDDDEEDDDE Via First Class Mail
`
`Tom M. Schaumberg
`Jamie D. Underwood
`
`Adduci, Mastriani & Schaumberg, LLP
`1200 Seventeenth Floor, NW, Fifth Floor
`
`Washington, DC 20036
`
`Attorneys for Panasonic Corporation of North
`America
`
`Daniel Ebenstein
`
`Abraham Kasdan
`
`Joseph Casino
`Amster, Rothstein & Ebenstein LLP
`90 Park Avenue
`
`New York, NY 100l6
`
`Attorneys for Panasonic Corporation of North
`America
`
`Alan Cope Johnston
`G. Brian Busey
`Cynthia Lopez Beverage
`MORRISON FOERSTER
`
`2000 Pennsylvania Ave., NW
`Washington, D.C. 20006-l888
`
`Via Hand Delivery
`
`Via Overnight Delivery
`
`Via Facsimile
`
`Attorneys for Phitek Systems Limited and
`Creative Labs, Inc.
`
`Via Electronic Mail
`
`, 5*’
`
`.5 ‘
`n 2
`
`/:3/:///I `Cn
`J:/gr»?
`’
`William ‘B. Nash
`
`_
`5‘;
`
`,n“""~mw.}§
`“"¢>.»\.
`
`
`
`W
`
`510175lv.2 128214/00004