7UNITED STATES INTERNATIONAL TRADE COMMISSION
`WASHINGTON, D.C. 20436
`
`Before The Honorable Charles E. Bullock
`Administrative Law Judge
`
`
`
`
`In the Matter of
`
`CERTAIN NOISE CANCELLING
`HEADPHONES
`
`Investigation No. 337-TA-626
`
`COMPLAINANT BOSE CORPORATION’S PRE-TRIAL STATEMENT
`
`
`
`
`
`
`WASHINGTON, D.C. 20436
`
`Before The Honorable Charles E. Bullock
`Administrative Law Judge
`
`
`
`
`In the Matter of
`
`CERTAIN NOISE CANCELLING
`HEADPHONES
`
`Investigation No. 337-TA-626
`
`COMPLAINANT BOSE CORPORATION’S PRE-TRIAL STATEMENT
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Pursuant to Order Nos. 4 and 12 and Ground Rule 8.1, Complainant Bose Corporation
`
`(“Bose”) hereby indicates its desire to participate in the final hearing in this Investigation by
`
`submitting this Pre-Trial Statement. Bose has prepared separately and is filing concurrently
`
`herewith a Pre-Trial Brief that sets forth in detail the legal, factual and equitable bases for the
`
`arguments it will present at the hearing. Further, pursuant to Ground Rule 8.1, Bose presents as
`
`follows.
`
`
`
`I.
`
`HEARING WITNESSES
`Pursuant to Ground Rule 8.1(a), Bose identifies the following witnesses it expects to
`
`appear at the Hearing, in order, together with a synopsis of each witnesses proposed testimony.
`
`Witness
`
`(1) Sean Garrett, fact witness
`
`Bose Corporation
`The Mountain
`Framingham, MA [need to repeat
`this for other fact witnesses?]
`
`(2) Dan Gauger, fact witness
`
`Bose Corporation
`The Mountain
`Framingham, MA
`
`(3) Roman Sapiejewski, fact
`witness
`
`Bose Corporation
`The Mountain
`Framingham, MA
`
`
`Testimonial Topics
`
`Mr. Garrett will provide testimony relating to the
`formation, structure and organization of Bose
`Corporation’s Noise Reduction Technology Group
`(“NRTG”), the scope of NRTG’s business activities and
`operations in noise cancelling headphones, Bose’s
`investment in noise reduction technology, the
`marketplace for noise cancelling headphones, and Bose’s
`overall innovation and success in the noise cancelling
`headphone marketplace.
`Mr. Gauger will provide testimony regarding Bose’s
`history and innovations in the noise cancelling
`headphone technology.
`
`Mr. Sapiejewski is an inventor of the asserted patents,
`U.S. Patent Nos. 5,181,252 and 6,597,792 He will
`provide testimony regarding the inventions claimed in
`the asserted patents and Bose’s development of noise
`cancelling headphone technology.
`
`COMPLAINANT BOSE CORPORATION’S PRE-TRIAL STATEMENT
`
`PAGE 2
`
`
`
`Witness
`
`(4) Michael Monahan, fact
`witness
`
`Bose Corporation
`The Mountain
`Framingham, MA
`
`(5) Dr. Durand Begault, expert
`witness
`
`Charles M. Salter Associates, Inc.
`Consultants in Acoustics
`130 Sutter Street, 5th Floor
`San Francisco, CA 94104
`
`
`
`
`Testimonial Topics
`
`Mr. Monahan is an inventor of U.S. Patent No.
`6,597,792. He will provide testimony regarding the
`inventions claimed that asserted patent and Bose’s
`development of noise cancelling headphone technology.
`
`Dr. Begault’s expertise is acoustics and acoustical testing
`methods. He will provide testimony regarding
`infringement of the asserted patents by Respondents, the
`validity of the asserted patents, and Bose’s satisfaction of
`the technical prong of the domestic industry requirement
`for the asserted patents. He will also provide background
`information regarding the patented technology.
`
`II.
`
`
`EXHIBIT LIST
`Pursuant to Ground Rule 8.1(b), Bose appends hereto its Complainant Bose
`
`Corporation’s Second Supplemental Proposed Trial Exhibit List. Bose will continue to review
`
`its exhibit list in an attempt to reduce the number of exhibits for trial. Further, Bose submits a
`
`Joint Exhibit List containing exhibits to which the parties have agreed should be jointly
`
`submitted into evidence.
`
`
`
`III.
`
`STIPULATIONS
`Pursuant to Ground Rule 8.1(c), the parties have met and conferred and have agreed to a
`
`stipulation, which the parties will submit in written form to the Court, that if the Administrative
`
`Law Judge so finds that any of Bose’s domestic industry products practice any valid and/or
`
`enforceable claim of the asserted patents, Respondents do not contest that the economic prong of
`
`the domestic industry requirement is met for that domestic industry product.
`
`
`
`COMPLAINANT BOSE CORPORATION’S PRE-TRIAL STATEMENT
`
`PAGE 3
`
`
`
`IV. AGENDA FOR THE PRE-HEARING CONFERENCE
`Pursuant to Ground Rule 8.1(d), Bose proposes the following agenda for the Pre-Trial
`
`Conference: (1) division of time at trial; (2) resolution of any pending motions in limine; (3)
`
`resolution of any other unresolved pre-trial motions; (4) resolution of any remaining objections
`
`to physical or demonstrative exhibits, and witness statements; (5) admission of joint exhibits; and
`
`(6) determination of order of presentation of Respondents’ cases-in-chief (if necessary) (Ground
`
`Rule 10.1(3)).
`
`
`
`V.
`
`TIME ESTIMATES FOR LIVE WITNESSES
`Pursuant to Ground Rule 8.1(e), the parties met and conferred on the estimated dates and
`
`times for each witness, but did not reach an agreement. The following reflects Bose’s estimated
`
`tentative order of presentation of witnesses and the estimated dates and times for each witness,
`
`and estimates received from Respondents. Bose estimates that it will need approximately 11
`
`hours of trial time. Respondents contend they will need approximately 22.5 hours.
`
`Witness
`
`Sean Garrett
`(Complainant Bose’s
`direct fact
`witness/Respondents’
`adverse fact witness)
`Dan Gauger
`(Complainant Bose’s
`direct fact
`witness/Respondents’
`adverse fact witness)
`Roman Sapiejewski
`(Complainant Bose’s
`direct fact
`
`Complainant’s
`Time
`
`Respondents’
`Time
`
`Estimated
`Date of
`Appearance
`Bose’s Case-in-Chief
`15 min.
`2 hours.
`
`Dec. 4
`
`Staff’s
`Time
`
`Total
`Time
`
`10 min.
`
`2 hours
`25 min.
`
`Dec. 4-5
`
`15 min.
`
`1 hour
`30 min.
`
`10 min.
`
`1 hour
`55 min..
`
`Dec. 5-8
`
`30 min.
`
`5 hours
`
`15 min.
`
`5 hours
`45 min.
`
`COMPLAINANT BOSE CORPORATION’S PRE-TRIAL STATEMENT
`
`PAGE 4
`
`
`
`Witness
`
`Estimated
`Date of
`Appearance
`
`Complainant’s
`Time
`
`Respondents’
`Time
`
`Staff’s
`Time
`
`Total
`Time
`
`Dec. 8
`
`
`15 min.
`
`1 hour
`
`10 min.
`
`1 hour
`25 min.
`
`Dec. 8-9
`
`
`30 min.
`
`3 hours
`45 minutes
`
`30 min.
`
`4 hours
`45 min.
`
`Respondents’ Rebuttal & Case-in-Chief
`Dec. 9
`30 min.
`10 min.
`
`
`10 min.
`
`50 min.
`
`15 min.
`
`10 min.
`
`10 min.
`
`35 min.
`
`30 min.
`
`15 min.
`
`10 min.
`
`55 min.
`
`witness/Respondents’
`adverse fact witness)
`Michael Monahan
`(Complainant Bose’s
`direct fact
`witness/Respondents’
`adverse fact witness)
`Durand Begault
`(Complainant Bose’s
`direct fact witness)
`
`Mark Lunt
`(Respondent Phitek’s
`direct fact witness)
`Steve Erickson
`(Respondent Creative’s
`direct fact witness)
`
`Jackie Green
`(Respondent Audio-
`Technica’s direct fact
`witness)
`
`Dr. Douglas Winker
`(Respondents’ direct
`expert witness)
`Dr. Marshall Buck
`(Respondents’ direct
`expert witness)
`John Breen
`(Respondents’ adverse
`fact witness)
`John Martin
`(Respondents’ adverse
`fact witness)
`
`Dr. Durand Begault
`(Complainant Bose’s
`rebuttal expert
`witness—if needed)
`
`Dec. 9
`
`
`Dec. 9
`
`
`Dec. 9-10
`
`
`Dec. 10
`
`
`Dec. 10-11
`
`
`2 hours
`
`30 min
`
`30 min.
`
`Dec. 10
`
`2 hours
`
`30 min.
`
`30 min.
`
`15 min.
`
`1 hour
`
`10 min.
`
`10 min.
`
`30 min.
`
`10 min.
`
`50 min.
`
`3 hours
`
`
`3hours
`
`
`1 hour
`25 min.
`
`Dec. 11
`
`Bose’s Rebuttal Case
`1 hour
`2 hours
`
`30 min.
`
`3 hours
`30 min.
`
`COMPLAINANT BOSE CORPORATION’S PRE-TRIAL STATEMENT
`
`PAGE 5
`
`
`
`Estimated
`Date of
`Appearance
`Dec. 11
`
`Dec. 11-12
`
`
`Witness
`
`Sean Garrett
`(Complainant Bose’s
`rebuttal fact witness—
`if needed)
`Roman Sapiejewski
`(Complainant Bose’s
`rebuttal fact witness—
`if needed)
`
`Dr. Keith Holland
`(Respondents’ rebuttal
`expert witness)
`Dr. Marshall Buck
`(Respondents’ rebuttal
`expert witness)
`Dr. Douglas Winker
`(Respondents’ rebuttal
`expert witness)
`Jackie Green
`(Respondent Audio-
`Technica’s rebuttal
`witness)
`
`
`Dec. 12
`
`Respondents’ Rebuttal Case
`1 hour
`1 hour
`
`30 min.
`
`Dec. 12
`
`30 min.
`
`40 min.
`
`10 min.
`
`Dec. 12
`
`30 min.
`
`40 min.
`
`10 min.
`
`Dec. 12
`
`10 min.
`
`15 min.
`
`10 min.
`
`
`Complainant’s
`Time
`
`Respondents’
`Time
`
`Staff’s
`Time
`
`Total
`Time
`
`10 min.
`
`40 min.
`
`10 min.
`
`60 min.
`
`20 min.
`
`50 min.
`
`10 min.
`
`1 hour
`20 min.
`
`2 hours
`30 min.
`
`1 hour
`20 min.
`
`1 hour
`20 min.
`
`35
`minutes
`
`Based on the record, Bose does not believe that six days of trial are necessary. Bose
`
`proposes that Complainant and Respondents get equal time to present their case and that time for
`
`the Staff be taken equally from each side. The trial is scheduled to be conducted over seven
`
`days, December 4 – 12, 2008, with approximately 5 hours and 45 minutes of proceeding per day
`
`in accordance with Ground Rule 10.3. Subtracting the times allotted for opening statements per
`
`Ground Rule 10.1, there is approximately 37 hours and 15 minutes available for witness
`
`testimony. Therefore, Bose proposes 16 hours and 30 minutes for Complainant, 16 hours and 30
`
`minutes for Respondents, and 5 hours 15 minutes for the Staff.
`
`
`
`COMPLAINANT BOSE CORPORATION’S PRE-TRIAL STATEMENT
`
`PAGE 6
`
`
`
`VI. CERTIFICATION OF GOOD FAITH EFFORTS TO SETTLE
`Pursuant to Ground Rule 8.1(f), Bose and Respondents have engaged in good faith efforts
`
`to settle, but no settlement has been reached.
`
`
`
`
`
`Dated: September 18, 2008
`
`
`
`Respectfully submitted,
`
`
`
`FISH & RICHARDSON P.C.
`
`
`
`_/s/ Autumn J.S. Hwang______________
`Ruffin B. Cordell
`Andrew R. Kopsidas
`Jeffrey R. Whieldon
`Steven A. Bowers
`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
`
`COMPLAINANT BOSE CORPORATION’S PRE-TRIAL STATEMENT
`
`PAGE 7
`
`
`
`CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
`
`I hereby certify that on September 18, 2008, a copy of
`
`COMPLAINANT BOSE CORPORATION’S PRE-TRIAL STATEMENT
`__________________________________
`
`was served on the following as indicated:
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Marilyn R. Abbott
`Secretary
`U.S. International Trade Commission
`500 E. Street, S.W., Room 112-F
`Washington, DC 20436
`
`
`The Honorable Charles E. Bullock
`Administrative Law Judge
`U.S. International Trade Commission
`500 E Street, S.W., Room 317-I
`Washington, DC 20436
`
`
`
`Christopher Paulraj, Esq.
`T. Spence Chubb, Esq.
`Office of Unfair Import Investigations
`U.S. International Trade Commission
`500 E Street, S.W., Room 404-I
`Washington, DC 20436
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
` Via Hand Delivery
` Via U.S. Mail
` Via Overnight Delivery
` Via Electronic Mail
` Via Facsimile
` Via Electronic Docket Filing
` Not Served
`
` Via Hand Delivery
` Via U.S. Mail
` Via Overnight Delivery
` Via Electronic Mail
` Via Facsimile
` Via Electronic Docket Filing
` Not Served
`
` Via Hand Delivery
` Via U.S. Mail
` Via Overnight Delivery
` Via Electronic Mail
` Via Facsimile
` Via Electronic Docket Filing
` Not Served
`
`
`
`
`William B. Nash, Esq.
`Daniel D. Chapman, Esq.
`Mark Fassold, Esq.
`Jackson Walker L.L.P.
`112 E. Pecan Street., Suite 2400
`San Antonio, TX 78209
`
`Counsel for Respondents Phitek Systems
`Limited, GN Netcom, Inc., Creative Labs, Inc.,
`and Logitech Inc.
`
`
`Alan Cope Johnston, Esq.
`G. Brian Busey, Esq.
`Cynthia Lopez Beverage, Esq.
`Morrison & Foerster LLP
`2000 Pennsylvania Ave., N.W., Suite 5500
`Washington, DC 20006-1888
`
`Counsel for Respondents Phitek Systems
`Limited, GN Netcom, Inc., Creative Labs, Inc.,
`and Logitech Inc.
`
`
`James P. White, Esq.
`J. Aron Carnahan, Esq.
`Welsh & Katz, Ltd.
`120 South Riverside Plaza, 22nd Floor
`Chicago, IL. 60606
`
`Counsel for Respondent Audio Technica U.S.,
`Inc.
`
`
`Arthur Wineburg, Esq.
`Daniel E. Yonan, Esq.
`Akin Gump Strauss Hauer & Feld LLP
`1333 New Hampshire Ave., N.W.
`Washington, DC 20036
`
`Counsel for Respondent Audio Technica U.S.,
`Inc.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
` Via Hand Delivery
` Via U.S. Mail
` Via Overnight Delivery
` Via Electronic Mail
` Via Facsimile
` Via Electronic Docket Filing
` Not Served
`
` Via Hand Delivery
` Via U.S. Mail
` Via Overnight Delivery
` Via Electronic Mail
` Via Facsimile
` Via Electronic Docket Filing
` Not Served
`
` Via Hand Delivery
` Via U.S. Mail
` Via Overnight Delivery
` Via Electronic Mail
` Via Facsimile
` Via Electronic Docket Filing
` Not Served
`
` Via Hand Delivery
` Via U.S. Mail
` Via Overnight Delivery
` Via Electronic Mail
` Via Facsimile
` Via Electronic Docket Filing
` Not Served
`
`
`
` Via Hand Delivery
` Via U.S. Mail
` Via Overnight Delivery
` Via Electronic Mail
` Via Facsimile
` Via Electronic Docket Filing
` Not Served
`
` Via Hand Delivery
` Via U.S. Mail
` Via Overnight Delivery
` Via Electronic Mail
` Via Facsimile
` Via Electronic Docket Filing
` Not Served
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`_/s/ Patrick E. Edelin, Jr.
`Patrick E. Edelin, Jr.
`
`
`Daniel Ebenstein, Esq.
`Abraham Kasdan, Esq.
`Joseph Casino, Esq.
`Amster, Rothstein & Ebenstein LLP
`90 Park Avenue
`New York, NY 10016
`
`Counsel for Respondent Panasonic
`Corporation of North America
`
`
`Tom M. Schaumberg, Esq.
`Jamie D. Underwood, Esq.
`Adduci, Mastriani & Schaumberg, LLP
`1200 Seventh Street, N.W., Fifth Floor
`Washington, DC 20036
`
`Counsel for Respondent Panasonic
`Corporation of North America
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
