UNITED STATES INTERNATIONAL TRADE COMMISSION
`
`Washington, D.C.
`
`....
`u
`,*C-“?
`Lq L 9
`
`-=J
`
`1.J
`
`In the Matter of
`
`CERTAIN NOISE CANCELLING HEADPHONES
`
`Inv. No. 337-TA-626 ‘-’
`- ..
`_ - -
`-
`
`- 3
`
`1. 2 1 .-.
`
`“* --
`
`5
`
`ORDER NO. 13: INITIAL DETERMINATION GRANTING JOINT MOTION TO
`TERMINATE INVESTIGATION AS TO RESPONDENT GN US, INC. BASED UPON
`CONSENT ORDER
`
`(July 29,2008)
`
`On July 1,2008, Complainant Bose Corporation (“Bose”) and Respondent GN Netcom, Inc.
`(“GN’) filed a joint motion (626-03 l), pursuant to 19 C.F.R. $5 2 10.21 (c) for termination of this
`
`investigation with respect to GN based upon a consent order. On July 11,2008, the Commission
`
`Investigative Staff (“Staff’) filed a response in support of the motion. No other responses were filed.
`
`In accordance with Commission Rule 2 10.2 1 (c), the parties entered into a “Consent Order
`
`Stipulation” and a proposed “Consent Order,’’ attached hereto in Appendix B. Commission Rule
`
`210.21(~)(3) sets forth certain requirements for the contents of a consent order stipulation.’ The
`
`Consent Order Stipulation submitted by Bose and GN complies with the requirements of
`
`Commission Rule 2 10.2 1 ( ~ ) ( 3 ) . ~
`
`Specifically, GN agrees that upon entry of the consent order, GN shall not sell for
`
`importation, import into the United States or sell in the United States after importation, the noise
`
`cancelling headphones that infringe claims 1,2 and/or 5 of U.S. Patent No. 5’18 1,252 and/or claims
`
`19 C.F.R. $ 2 10.2 1 (c)(3).
`See Staffs Response at 2.
`
`

`
`1 andor 20f U.S. Patent No. 6,597,792. See Consent Order Stipulation, T[ H; Proposed Consent
`Order, 7 2. In addition, GN agrees, pursuant to Commission Rule 2 10.21 (c)(3)(i)(A), to:
`
`(1)
`
`(2)
`
`(3)
`
`(4)
`
`an admission of the Commission’s in rem jurisdiction over the subject matter and in
`personam jurisdiction over GN in this investigation (see Consent Order Stipulation, 7 B;
`Proposed Consent Order, T[ l),
`
`an express waiver by GN of all rights to seek judicial review or otherwise challenge or
`contest the validity of the consent order (see Consent Order Stipulation, 7 C; Proposed
`Consent Order, 7 3),
`
`GN’s representation that it will cooperate with and will not seek to impede by litigation or
`other means the Commission’s efforts to gather information under subpart I of part 210 of
`Title 19 of the Code of Federal Regulations (see Consent Order Stipulation, T[ D; Proposed
`Consent Order, 7 4), and
`
`that the enforcement, modification, and revocation of the consent order will be carried out
`pursuant to subpart I of part 210 of Title 19 of the Code of Federal Regulations,
`incorporating by reference the Commission’s Rules of Practice and Procedure (see Consent
`Order Stipulation, f E; Proposed Consent Order, 7 8).
`
`Because this is an intellectual property-based investigation, the consent order stipulation also
`
`contains a statement, pursuant to Commission Rule 21 0.2 1 (c)(3)(i)(B), that:
`
`(1)
`
`(2)
`
`the consent order shall not apply with respect to any claim of an intellectual property right
`that has expired or been found or adjudicated invalid or unenforceable by the Commission
`or a court or agency of competent jurisdiction, provided that such finding or judgment has
`become final and non-reviewable (see Consent Order Stipulation, F; Proposed Consent
`Order, 77 6-7), and
`
`a representation by GN that it will not seek to challenge the validity or enforceability of U.S.
`Patent Nos. 5,18 1,252 and 6,597,792 in any administrative or judicial proceeding to enforce
`the consent order (see Consent Order Stipulation, $I G; Proposed Consent Order, 7 5).
`
`In addition to the provisions required by Commission Rule 210.21(~)(3), the Consent Order
`
`Stipulation contains additional provisions, including a statement that the signing of the Consent
`
`Order Stipulation by GN is for settlement purposes only and does not constitute an admission by GN
`
`that an unfair act has been committed. See Consent Order Stipulation, T[ J. Commission Rule
`
`-2-
`
`

`
`2 10.2 1 (c)(3)(i)(C) specifically provides that a consent order stipulation may contain a statement that
`
`it is for settlement purposes and does not constitute an admission that an unfair act has been
`
`committed. Therefore the additional terms in the Consent Order Stipulation are permissible.
`
`Commission Rule 210.50@)(2) provides that in the case of a proposed termination by
`
`settlement agreement or consent order, the parties may file statements regarding the impact of the
`
`proposed termination on the public interest, and the administrative law judge may hear argument,
`
`although no discovery may be compelled, with respect to issues relating solely to the public intere~t.~
`
`In any initial determination terminating an investigation by settlement agreement or consent order,
`
`the administrative law judge is directed to consider and make appropriate findings regarding the
`
`effect of the proposed settlement on the public health and welfare, competitive conditions in the
`
`United States economy, the production of like or directly competitive articles in the United States,
`
`and United States consumer^.^
`
`In its motion, the parties assert that the consent order and termination of this investigation
`
`are in the public interest5 According to Staff, it is not aware of any information that would indicate
`
`termination of this investigation on the basis of the proposed consent order would be contrary to the
`
`public health and welfare, competitive conditions in the U.S. economy, the production of like or
`
`directly competitive articles in the United States, or U.S. consumers. In addition, Staff notes that the
`
`public interest favors settlement to avoid needless litigation and to conserve public resources.6 Based
`
`19 C.F.R. 3 210.50(b)(2); see also Organizer Racks at 3.
`19 C.F.R. 8 210.50(b)(2).
`See Motion at 2.
`See Staffs Response at 3.
`
`-3 -
`
`

`
`on a review of the motion, the undersigned agrees that termination of this investigation as to GN is
`
`in the public interest.
`
`Accordingly, the parties have complied with all requirements of Commission Rule 2 10.2 1 (c)
`
`and it is the undersigned’s Initial Determination that the motion (626-03 1) to terminate this
`
`investigation with respect to GN based on the consent order stipulation and consent order be granted.
`
`This initial determination, along with supporting documentation, is hereby certified to the
`
`Commission.
`
`Pursuant to 19 C.F.R.5 2 10.42(h), this Initial Determination shall become the determination
`
`of the Commission unless a party files a petition for review of the Initial Determination pursuant to
`19 C.F.R. 5 210.43(a), or the Commission, pursuant to 19 C.F.R. 8 210.44, orders, on its own
`
`motion, a review of the Initial Determination or certain issues herein.
`
`SO ORDERED.
`
`-
`Charles E. Bullock
`Administrative Law Judge
`
`-
`
`
`
`-4-
`
`

`
`APPENDIX A
`
`MOTION AND MEMORANDUM
`
`

`
`UNITED STATES INTERNATIONAL TRADE COMMISSION
`WASHINGTON, D.C.
`
`Before the Honorable Charles E. Bullock
`Administrative Law Judge
`
`In the Matter of
`
`Investigation No. 337-TA-626
`
`CERTAIN NOISE CANCELLING
`HEADPHONES
`
`..
`
`JOINT MOTION TO TERMINATE THE INVESTIGATION AS TO RESPONDENT GN
`US, INC. BASED ON ENTRY OF A CONSENT ORDER
`Pursuant to Commission Rule 210.2l(c)(l)(ii), 19 C.F.R. 5 210.21(c)(l)(ii), Complainant
`
`Bose Corporation (“Complainant” or “Bose”) and Respondent GN US, Inc., formerly known as
`
`GN Netcom, Inc. (“Respondent” or “GN”), hereby move to terminate this investigation as to GN
`
`based upon the Consent Order Stipulation, attached hereto as Exhibit “A,” and the Proposed
`
`Consent Order, attached hereto as Exhibit “B.”
`
`In a Complaint filed by Bose Corporation (“Complainant” or “Bose”) on November 29,
`
`2007, Bose alleged violations by GN of Section 337 of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended, 19
`U.S.C. 0 1337, in the importation into the United States andor sale within the United States after
`
`importation of certain noise cancelling headphones, by reason of infringement of claims 1,2 and
`
`5 of U.S. Patent No. 5,181,252; and claims 1 and 2 of U.S. Patent No. 6,597,792.’
`
`Respondent agrees to the entry of the Proposed Consent Order, attached hereto as
`
`Exhibit “B,” barring it from importing or selling within the United States after importation,
`
`GN alleges that the acts that form the basis for this investigation have ceased.
`
`5104080v.l 128214/00005
`
`

`
`certain noise cancelling headphones that infringe claims 1,2 and/or 5 of US. Patent No.
`
`5,181,252; and/or claims 1 and/or 2 of U.S. Patent No. 6,597,792.
`
`Entry of the Proposed Consent Order is in the public interest, which favors the settlement
`
`of disputes to avoid needless litigation and to conserve public resources. Accordingly, entry of
`
`the Proposed Consent Order will conserve the time and resources of both the Commission and
`
`the private parties. Further, entry of the Proposed Consent Order will not impose an undue
`
`burden on the public health and welfare, competitive conditions in the U.S. economy, production
`
`of like or directly competitive articles in the United States, or U.S. consumers.
`
`The parties represent that there are no other agreements, written or oral, express or
`
`implied, between the parties involving the subject matter of this investigation.
`
`Pursuant to Ground Rule 3.2, Respondent hereby certifies that it has contacted the
`
`Commission Investigative Staff in order to determine its position regarding the instant motion.
`
`The Staff has indicated that it will take a position after it has had an opportunity to review the
`
`joint motion, consent order stipulation, and proposed consent order. .
`
`Accordingly, Complainant and Respondent respectfully request that the Administrative
`
`Law Judge issue an Initial Determination terminating the investigation as to Respondent GN.
`
`Complainant and Respondent further respectfully request that the Proposed Consent Order,
`
`attached hereto as Exhibit B, be entered.
`
`5104080v.l 128214/00005
`
`2
`
`

`
`Dated: June x32008
`
`Respectfully submitted,
`
`w Andrew R. Kopsidas
`Jeffrey R. Whieldon
`FISH & RICHARDSON P.C.
`1425 K Street, N.W.
`Washington, DC 20005
`(202) 626-6407 (phone)
`(202) 783-233 1 (fax)
`
`Coysellor C o m p p a n t Bose Corporation
`
`William B. Nash
`Dan Chapman
`= - f
`Mark Fassold
`JACKSON WALKER L.L.P.
`112 E. Pecan Street, Suite 2400
`San Antonio, Texas USA 78205
`(2 10) 978-7700 (phone)
`(2 10) 242-4620 ( f a )
`
`Alan Cope Johnston
`G. Brian Busey
`Cynthia Lopez Beverage
`MORRISON & FOERSTER LLP
`2000 Pennsylvania Avenue, N. W.
`Washington, D.C. 20006
`(202) 887-1 500 (phone)
`(202) 887-0168 (fax)
`
`Counsel for Respondent GN US, Inc.
`
`.
`
`3
`
`5104080v.l 128214/00005
`
`

`
`UNITED STATES INTERNATIONAL TRADE COMMISSION
`WASHINGTON, D.C.
`
`Before the Honorable Charles E. Bullock
`Administrative Law Judge
`
`In the Matter of
`
`Investigation No. 337-TA-626
`
`CERTAIN NOISE CANCELLING
`HEADPHONES
`
`MEMORANDUM IN SUPPORT OF THE JOINT MOTION TO TERMINATE THE
`INVESTIGATION AS TO RESPONDENT GN US, INC. BASED ON ENTRY OF A
`CONSENT ORDER
`
`Pursuant to Commission Rule 19 C.F.R. $ 2 10.2 l(c), Complainant Bose Corporation
`
`(“Complainant” or “Bose”) and Respondent GN US, Inc., formerly known as GN Netcom, Inc.
`
`(“Respondent” or “GN”), submit this memorandum in support of their Joint Motion to Terminate
`
`the Investigation as to Respondent GN based on Entry of the attached proposed Consent Order.
`
`Commission Rule 2 10.2 l(c) provides that “[aln investigation before the Commission
`
`may be terminated pursuant to section 337(c) of the Tariff Act of 1930 on the basis of a consent
`
`order,” and that “[aln order of termination by consent need not constitute a determination as to
`
`violation of section 337.”
`
`Pursuant to Commission Rule 21 0.21 (c)( l)(ii): “At any time prior to commencement of
`
`the hearing, the motion [to terminate based on a consent order] may be filed by one or more
`
`respondents, and may be filed jointly with other parties to the investigation.”
`
`5104080~. 1 128214/00005
`
`

`
`For consent orders entered after institution of an investigation, the Rule requires that the
`
`motion be accompanied by a stipulation that, in the case of an intellectual property investigation
`
`such as the one here, contains the following six items:
`
`(1) An admission of all jurisdictional facts;
`
`(2) An express waiver of all rights to seek judicial review or
`otherwise challenge or contest the validity of the consent order;
`
`(3) A statement that the signatories to the consent order stipulation
`will cooperate with and will not seek to impede by litigation or
`other means the Commission’s efforts to gather information under
`subpart I of this part,
`
`‘
`
`(4) A statement that the enforcement, modification, and revocation
`of the consent order will be carried out pursuant to subpart I of this
`part, incorporating by reference the Commission’s Rules of
`Practice and Procedure;
`
`(5) A statement that the consent order shall not apply with respect
`to any claim of any intellectual property right that has expired or
`been found or adjudicated invalid or unenforceable by the
`Commission or a court or agency of competent jurisdiction,
`provided that such finding or judgment has become final and
`nonreviewable; and
`
`(6) A statement that each signatory to the stipulation who was a
`respondent in the investigation will not seek to challenge the
`validity of the intellectual property right(s), in any administrative
`or judicial proceeding to enforce the consent order.
`
`19 CFR tj 210.21(c)(l)(ii), (c)(3)(A), and (c)(3)(B). The Rule also provides that the stipulation
`
`may contain “a statement that the signing thereof is for settlement purposes only and does not
`
`constitute admission by any respondent that an unfair act has been committed.” 19 CFR tj 210.21
`
`(c)(3)(C). Finally, the Rule requires the stipulation to incorporate a proposed consent order. 19
`
`CFR tj 210.21(c)(l)(ii).
`
`The Consent Order Stipulation submitted with this Motion and Memorandum (Exhibit A
`
`attached hereto) comports with all six required elements. Thus, the Stipulation properly supports
`
`5104080~. 1 128214/00005
`
`2
`
`

`
`the Proposed Consent Order (Exhibit B attached hereto), and is incorporated by reference in the
`
`Stipulation. Accordingly, Bose and GN respectfully request that their motion be granted, the
`
`consent order be entered, and this investigation terminated as to Respondent GN.
`
`Dated: June*, 3 2008
`
`Respectfully submitted,
`
`.
`
`L/ hwdrew R. Kopsidas
`Jeffrey R. Whieldon
`FISH & RICHARDSON P.C.
`1425 K Street, N.W.
`Washington, DC 20005
`(202) 626-6407 (phone)
`(202) 783-233 1 (fax)
`Counsel for Complainant Bose Corporation
`
`William B. Nash
`Dan Chapman
`Mark Fassold
`JACKSON WALKER L.L.P.
`112 E. Pecan Street, Suite 2400
`San Antonio, Texas USA 78205
`(210) 978-7700 (phone)
`(2 10) 242-4620 (fax)
`
`Alan Cope Johnston
`G. Brian Busey
`Cynthia Lopez Beverage
`MORRISON & FOERSTER LLP
`2000 Pennsylvania Avenue, N. W.
`Washington, D.C. 20006
`(202) 887-1 500 (phone)
`(202) 887-0168 ( f a )
`
`Counsel for Respondent GN US, Inc.
`
`5104080v.1 128214/00005
`
`3
`
`

`
`APPENDIX B
`
`CONSENT ORDER STIPULATION AND
`[PROPOSED] CONSENT ORDER
`
`

`
`UNITED STATES INTERNATIONAL TRADE COMMISSION
`WASHINGTON, D.C.
`
`Before the Honorable Charles E. Bullock
`Administrative Law Judge
`
`In the Matter of
`
`Investigation No. 337-TA-626
`
`CERTAIN NOISE CANCELLING
`HEADPHONES
`
`CONSENT ORDER STIPULATION
`
`The United States International Trade Commission (“Commission”) instituted the above-
`
`captioned investigation under Section 337 of the Tariff Act of 1930 as amended (19 U.S.C. §
`
`1337), based upon the allegations contained in the Complaint filed by Complainant Bose
`
`Corporation (“Complainant” or “Bose”) on November 29,2007, which alleges unfair acts in the
`
`importation into the United States and the sale within the United States after importation, of
`
`certain noise cancelling headphones by GN US, Inc. formerly known as GN Netcom, Inc.
`
`(“Respondent” or “GN”).
`
`Bose and GN have moved to terminate this investigation as to GN based on a Consent
`
`Order. In support of their motion, Complainant Bose and Respondent GN hereby stipulate as
`
`follows:
`
`A.
`
`Respondent GN US, Inc., formerly GN Netcom, Inc. is a corporation with its
`
`principal place of business at 77 Northeastern Blvd, Nashua, New Hampshire 03062.
`
`5104080v.l 128214/00005
`
`

`
`B.
`
`The Commission has in rem jurisdiction over the noise cancelling headphones
`
`that form the basis of this Investigation and the Commission has in personam jurisdiction over
`
`GN for purposes of this Stipulation and Proposed Consent Order.
`
`C.
`
`Respondent expressly waives all rights to seek judicial review or otherwise
`
`challenge or contest the validity of the Consent Order.
`
`D.
`
`Respondent and Complainant will cooperate with and will not seek to impede by
`
`litigation or other means the Commission’s efforts to gather information under subpart I of the
`
`Commission’s Rules of Practice and Procedure, 19 C.F.R. Part 21 0.
`
`E.
`
`The enforcement, modification, or revocation of the Consent Order will be carried
`
`out pursuant to subpart I of the Commission’s Rules of Practice and Procedure, 19 C.F.R. Part
`
`2 10, incorporating by reference the Commission’s Rules of Practice and Procedure.
`
`F.
`
`The Consent Order shall not apply with respect to any claim of any intellectual
`
`property right that has expired or been found or adjudicated invalid or unenforceable by the
`
`Commission or a court or agency of competent jurisdiction, provided that such finding or
`
`judgment has become final and nonreviewable.
`
`G.
`
`Respondent will not seek to challenge the validity or enforceability of claims 1,2
`
`or 5 of U.S. Patent No. 5,181,252; and/or claims 1 or 2 of U.S. Patent No. 6,597,792, in any
`
`administrative or judicial proceeding to enforce the Consent Order.
`
`H.
`
`Respondent shall not sell for importation, import into the United States, or sell in
`
`the United States after importation, the noise cancelling headphones that infringe claims 1,2
`
`and/or 5 of U.S. Patent No. 5,181,252; and/or claims 1 and/or 2 of U.S. Patent No. 6,597,792.
`
`I.
`
`There are no other agreements, written or oral, express or implied between the
`
`Respondent and Complainant concerning the subject matter of this investigation.
`
`5104080v.1 128214/00005
`
`2
`
`

`
`J.
`
`The statements made herein are only for purposes o f terminating the TTC
`
`investigatim and are not made with respect to any other pmceeding or purpose and is not an
`
`admission by Respondent GN that an unfair act or other wrongdoing has been committed or that
`any claim of US. Patent No. 5,181,252 OF W.S. Patent No. 6,597,792 is valid, enforceable, or
`
`infringed.
`
`IN WITNESS WHEREOF, a duly authorized representative of thc Complainant and
`
`Respondent cause this Consent Order Stipulation to be executed as of the date indicated below.
`
`V A G d r e w R. Kopsidas
`Jeffkey R Whieldon
`FTSH iPr: RTC'HARDSON P.C.
`1425 K Street, N.W.
`Washington, DC 20005
`(202) 626-6407 (phone)
`(202) 783-233 1 (fax)
`
`Cotinsel for CornpEuinaPtt Bose Corporation
`
`President and General &@hager of
`GN us, IllC.
`
`William B. Nasfi
`Dan Chapman
`MarkFassold
`JACKSON WALKER L.L.P.
`112 E. Pecan Street, Suite 2400
`San Antonio, Texas USA 78205
`(210) 978-7700 (phone)
`(210) 242-4620 (fax)
`
`Alan Cape Johnston
`G. Brian Busey
`Cynthia Lopez Beverage
`
`5 104080v.I 12821U00005
`
`3
`
`

`
`MORRISON & FOERSTER LLP
`2000 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W.
`Washington, D.C. 20006
`(202) 887-1500 (phone)
`(202) 887-0168 (fax)
`
`Counsel for Respondent GN US, Inc.
`
`c
`
`5104080~. 1 128214/00005
`
`4
`
`

`
`UNITED STATES INTERNATIONAL TRADE COMMISSION
`WASHINGTON, D.C.
`
`Before the Honorable Charles E. Bullock
`Administrative Law Judge
`
`In the Matter of
`
`Investigation No. 337-TA-626
`
`CERTAIN NOISE CANCELLING
`HEADPHONES
`
`PROPOSED CONSENT ORDER
`
`The United States International Trade Commission (“Commission”) instituted the above-
`
`captioned investigation under Section 337 of the Tariff Act of 1930 as amended (19 U.S.C.
`5 1337), based upon the allegations contained in the Complaint filed by Complainant Bose
`
`Corporation (“Complainant” or “Bose”) on November 29, 2007, which alleges unfair acts in the
`
`importation into the United States and/or the sale within the United States after importation, of
`
`certain noise cancelling headphones by GN US, Inc., formerly known as GN Netcom, Inc.
`
`(“Respondent” or “GN”).
`
`Complainant Bose and Respondent GN have moved to terminate this investigation as to
`
`Respondent GN based on a Consent Order. Complainant and Respondent have executed a
`
`Consent Order Stipulation in which they agree to the entry of this Consent Order, and to all
`
`waivers and to other provisions as required by Commission Rules of Practice and Procedure
`210.21(c) (19 C.F.R. 6 210.21(c)).
`
`5 104080~. 1 1282 14/00005
`
`

`
`IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT:
`
`1.
`
`The Commission has in rem jurisdiction over the noise cancelling headphones
`
`that form the basis of this Investigation and the Commission has in personam jurisdiction over
`
`Respondent.
`
`2.
`
`Upon entry of this Consent Order, Respondent shall not sell for importation,
`
`import into the United States or sell in the United States after importation, the noise cancelling
`
`headphones that infringe claims 1,2, and/or 5 of U.S. Patent No. 5,18 1,252; and/or claims 1
`
`and/or 2 of U.S. Patent No. 6,597,792.
`
`3.
`
`Respondent shall be precluded from seeking judicial review or otherwise
`
`challenging or contesting the validity of this Consent Order.
`
`4.
`
`Respondent and Complainant shall cooperate with and shall not seek to impede by
`
`litigation or other means the Commission’s efforts to gather information under subpart I of the
`
`Commission’s Rules of Practice and Procedure, 19 C.F.R. Part 21 0.
`
`5.
`
`Respondent shall not seek to challenge the validity or enforceability of claims 1,
`
`2, or 5 of U.S. Patent No. 5,181,252; and/or claims 1 or 2 of U.S. Patent No. 6,597,792, in any
`
`administrative or judicial proceeding to enforce the Consent Order.
`
`6.
`
`When U.S. Patent No. 5,181,252 and U.S. Patent No. 6,597,792 expire, whichever
`
`is later, this Consent Order shall become null and void as to such expired patent.
`
`7.
`
`The terms of the Consent Order shall not apply with respect to any claim of U.S.
`
`Patent No. 5,181,252 and/or US. Patent No. 6,597,792 that has expired or been found or
`
`adjudicated invalid or unenforceable by the Commission or a court or agency of competent
`
`jurisdiction, provided that such finding or judgment has become final and nonreviewable.
`
`5104080v.l 128214/00005
`
`2
`
`

`
`8.
`
`This investigation is hereby terminated with respect to Respondent GN and
`
`Respondent GN is hereby dismissed as a named Respondent in this investigation; provided,
`
`however, that enforcement, modification, or revocation of this Consent Order shall be carried out
`
`pursuant to subpart I of the Commission’s Rules of Practice and Procedure, 19 C.F.R. Part 210.
`
`Dated:
`
`Marilyn R. Abbott
`Secretary of the Commission
`
`5104080~. 1 128214/00005
`
`3
`
`

`
`IN THE MATTER OF CERTAIN NOISE
`CANCELLING HEADPHONES
`
`337-TA-626
`
`CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
`
`I, Marilyn R. Abbott, hereby certify that the attached ORDER was served upon, Christopher
`G. Paulraj, Esq., Commission Investigative Attorney, and the following parties via first class
`,2008..
`mail and air mail where necessary on July 30
`
`Marilyn R. AbwSecretary
`U.S. International Trade Commission
`500 E Street, S.W., Room 112A
`Washington, DC 20436
`
`FOR COMPLAINANT BOSE CORPORATION:
`
`Autumn J. Hwang, Esq.
`Ruffin B. Cordell, Esq.
`Andrew R. Kopsidas, Esq.
`Jeffrey R. Whieldon, Esq.
`FISH & RICHARDSON, P.C.
`1425 K Street, N.W., 11" Floor
`Washington, DC 20005
`
`Charles Hieken, Esq.
`Gregory A. Madera, Esq.
`Adam J. Kessel, Esq.
`FISH & RICHARDSON, P.C.
`225 Franklin Street
`Boston, MA 02 1 10
`
`Jordan Fowles, Esq.
`FISH & RICHARDSON P.C.
`1717 Main Street, Suite 5000
`Dallas, TX 75201
`
`

`
`IN THE MATTER OF CERTAIN NOISE
`CANCELLING HEADPHONES
`
`337-TA-626
`
`FOR RESPONDENTS PHITEK SYSTEMS LIMITED
`
`Alan Cope Johnson, Esq.
`G. Brian Busey, Esq.
`Cynthia Lopez, Esq.
`MORRISON & FOERSTER LLP
`2000 Pennsylvania Ave, N.W.
`Washington, DC 20006
`
`Dan Chapman, Esq.
`Mark Fassold, Esq.
`JACKSON WALKER L.L.P.
`112 E. Pecan Street, Suite 2400
`San Antonio, TX 78205
`
`FOR RESPONDENT AUDIO TECHNICA U.S., INC.
`
`Daniel E. Yonan, Esq.
`Arthur Wineburg, Esq.
`AKIN GUMP STRAUSS HAUER & FELD LLP
`1333 New Hampshire Avenue, N.W.
`Washington, DC 20036
`
`James P. White, Esq.
`Gerald T. Shekleton, Esq.
`J. Aron Carnanhan, Esq.
`WELSH & KATZ, LTD.
`120 South Riverside Plaza, 22nd Floor
`Chicago, IL 60606
`
`FOR RESPONDENT CREATIVE LABS INC.
`
`Alan Cope Johnston, Esq.
`G. Brian Busey, Esq.
`MORRISON & FOERSTER LLP
`2000 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W., Suite 5500
`Washington, DC 20006
`
`

`
`IN THE MATTER OF CERTAIN NOISE
`CANCELLING HEADPHONES
`
`337-T A-626
`
`FOR RESPONDENT PANASONIC CORPORATION OF NORTH AMERICA
`
`Tom M. Schaumberg, Esq.
`Jamie D. Underwood, Esq.
`ADDUCI, MASTRIANI & SCHAUMBERG, L.L.P.
`1200 Seventh Street, N.W., Fifth Floor
`Washington, DC 20036
`
`Daniel S. Ebenstein, Esq.
`AMSTER ROTHSTEIN & EBENSTEIN, L.L.P.
`90 Park Avenue
`New York, NY 100 16
`
`RESPONDENTS:
`
`GN NETCOM, INC.
`77 Northeastern Boulevard
`Nashua, NH 03062
`
`Sherry Robinson
`LEXIS - NEXIS
`8891 Gander Creek Drive
`Miamisburg, OH 45342
`
`Kenneth Clair
`THOMSON WEST
`1100 - 13'h Street NW
`Suite 200
`Washington, DC' 20005
`
`PUBLIC MAILING LIST