UNITED STATES INTERNATIONAL TRADE COMMISSION
`WASHINGTON, D.C. 20436
`
`Before Honorable Charles E. Bullock
`Administrative Law Judge
`
`In the Matter of
`CERTAIN NOISE CANCELLING
`HEADPHONES
`
`Investigation No. 337-TA-626
`
`PHITEK SYSTEMS LIMITED’S (NZ), CREATIVE LABS, INC.’S, AND AUDIO
`TECHNICA US INC.’S OBJECTIONS TO COMPLAINANT BOSE CORPORATION’S
`REQUEST FOR RECEIPT OF EVIDENCE WITHOUT A SPONSORING WITNESS
`
`Pursuant to 19 C.F.R. §§ 210.28(h), 210.37(b) and (e), and Ground Rule 9.4.13
`
`Respondents Phitek Systems Limited (NZ) (“Phitek”), Creative Labs, Inc. (“Creative”) and
`
`Audio Technica US, Inc. (“AT”) (collectively “Respondents”), submit Objections to Bose
`
`Corporation’s (“Bose”) Request for Receipt of Evidence Without a Sponsoring Witness (the
`
`“Request”) on grounds that (i) the Request and declaration in support of the Request is wholly
`
`deficient pursuant to Ground Rule 9.4.13; (ii) some of the confidential exhibits that are third
`
`party witness deposition transcripts fail to meet the prerequisites for admissibility under 19
`
`C.F.R. § 210.28(h); and (iii) the wholesale designation of entire depositions transcripts is
`
`improper under 19 C.F.R. § 210.37(b) and prior rulings of this Commission’s Administrative
`
`Law Judges. Therefore, Respondents object to the admissibility of all of Bose’s Confidential
`
`Exhibits (CXs) set forth in Bose’s Request, and in further support of the Respondents’
`
`Objections to Bose’s Request for Receipt of Evidence without a Sponsoring Witness (“Resps.’
`
`Objections”), Respondents also submit (a) a Memorandum of Law, attached hereto as Exhibit
`
`“1,” and (b) a Certificate of Service as required by Commission Rule 201.16(c).
`
`Respondents object to admission of all of Bose’s CXs set forth in its Request because the
`
`Declaration that allegedly supports the exhibits that Bose seeks to admit into evidence without a
`
`dc-529071
`
`1
`
`

`
`sponsoring witness is wholly deficient and contrary to Ground Rule No. 9.4.13. In the
`
`Declaration of Steven Bowers (“Bowers Decl.”) supporting Bose’s Request, it is clear that the
`
`declarant did not prepare the exhibits Bose seeks to admit into evidence and not all CXs are
`
`noncontroversial. In the Bowers Decl., the declarant merely states that he caused certain copies
`
`of exhibits “to be included in a Joint Exhibit List,” and “to be submitted to the Administrative
`
`Law Judge as proposed exhibits.” However, Judge Bullock’s Ground Rule 9.4.13 requires an
`
`affidavit supporting such a Request to declare that the exhibits were either prepared by the
`
`declarant or by someone under the declarant’s direction. The affidavit supporting Bose’s
`
`Request is wholly deficient. Though clear on the face of the Bowers Decl., if Respondents must
`
`first cross-examine the declarant to establish that he did not “prepare” the exhibits in order to
`
`object to the admissibility of all of Bose’s CX’s set forth in the Request, Respondents seek a
`
`cross-examination of the declarant. In such a cross-examination, Respondents will be able to
`
`show that the declarant has no personal knowledge of the CXs Bose seeks to admit into evidence
`
`without a sponsoring witness and that the declarant did not prepare these CXs or have someone
`
`prepare them under his direction. If these exhibits are allowed into evidence through the
`
`deficient Bowers Decl., Respondents will be unable to cross-examine or engage in redirect
`
`examination of any witness with personal knowledge of the contents of the CXs.
`
`Additionally, Respondents object to the admissibility of the deposition transcripts of third
`
`party witnesses and their attached exhibits because Bose fails to set forth proper bases for
`
`admission of the depositions of third parties under 19 C.F.R. § 210.28(h). Bose has failed to
`
`show that it has attempted to subpoena or that the third parties are unavailable to testify before
`
`the Court during the hearing pursuant to Rule 210.28(h)(1) or (3).
`
`Moreover, Respondents object to Bose’s Request for receipt into evidence of entire
`
`dc-529071
`
`2
`
`

`
`deposition transcripts, which amount to over 2,500 pages of transcript, and their exhibits, since
`
`Bose has failed to segregate immaterial or irrelevant parts pursuant to 19 C.F.R. § 210.37(b) and
`
`failed to comply with prior rulings by Administrative Law Judges of this Commission. Bose
`
`completely failed to identify specific portions of the given testimony upon which it relies or the
`
`subject-matter and importance of any specific portions of entire deposition transcripts. Clearly,
`
`not every line, question, or answer of entire deposition transcripts can be relevant. In addition, in
`
`its Request, Bose asserts that many CXs are exhibits to designated deposition transcripts,
`
`however, many of these CXs are not identified as exhibits to the designated deposition
`
`transcripts. Thus, identification of a custodian to these CXs is impossible. Moreover,
`
`throughout all the depositions, Respondents made objections to the form of the question, and
`
`objections to questions made and answers given on grounds such as relevancy, materiality, or
`
`competency of the testimony. Without knowing what portions of the deposition transcripts Bose
`
`intends to use, Respondents cannot either agree to withdraw or waive, or reurge to the Judge any
`
`objections made to questions or testimony given. Indeed, because Bose did not specifically
`
`designate portions of testimony from deposition transcripts, if the Court accepts Bose’s Request,
`
`the Court will have to review every single objection made to questions posed in these 2,500
`
`pages of deposition transcripts in order to determine whether sustain or overrule said objections.
`
`In conclusion, Respondents object to the admissibility of all CXs set forth in Bose’s
`
`Request because the accompanying Bowers Decl. fails to comply with Ground Rule 9.4.13.
`
`Respondents also object to the admissibility of the third party witness deposition transcripts
`
`because Bose has failed to establish sufficient grounds for their admissibility under Rule
`
`210.28(h). Respondents also object to the wholesale designation of entire deposition transcripts
`
`as violating Rule 210.37(b) because every single word of a deposition transcript cannot possibly
`
`dc-529071
`
`3
`
`

`
`be relevant and not repetitive, and because many of the CXs Bose identifies as exhibits to the
`
`transcripts are unmarked and hearsay. Respondents request that the Court reject all CXs Bose
`
`seeks to admit into evidence; or in the alternative, that the Court require Bose to segregate and
`
`exclude from any CXs it seeks to enter into evidence any immaterial or irrelevant parts thereof
`
`and state the subject-matter and importance of the portions it seeks to admit into evidence.
`
`Dated: September 30, 2008
`
`Respectfully submitted,
`
`/s/ Mark Fassold
`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)
`(210) 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) 887-1500 (phone)
`(202) 887-0168 (fax)
`
`Counsel for Phitek Systems Limited (NZ)
`and Creative Labs, Inc.
`
`/s/ Aron Carnahan
`James P. White
`Gerald T. Shekleton
`J. Aron Carnahan
`Welsh & Katz Ltd.
`120 South Riverside Plaza, 22nd Floor
`Chicago, Illinois 60606
`
`Attorneys for Respondent Audio Technica,
`U.S. Inc.
`
`dc-529071
`
`4
`
`

`
`EXHIBIT “1”
`TO
`PHITEK SYSTEMS LIMITED’s (NZ), CREATIVE LABS, INC.’S, AND AUDIO
`TECHNICA US INC.’S OBJECTIONS TO COMPLAINANT BOSE CORPORATION’S
`REQUEST FOR RECEIPT OF EVIDENCE WITHOUT A SPONSORING WITNESS
`
`MEMORANDUM OF LAW IN SUPPORT OF PHITEK
`SYSTEMS LIMITED’s (NZ), CREATIVE LABS, InC.’S, and
`AUDIO TECHNICA US INC.’S OBJECTIONS TO
`COMPLAINANT BOSE CORPORATION’S REQUEST FOR
`RECEIPT OF EVIDENCE WITHOUT A SPONSORING
`WITNESS
`
`

`
`UNITED STATES INTERNATIONAL TRADE COMMISSION
`WASHINGTON, D.C. 20436
`
`Before Honorable Charles E. Bullock
`Administrative Law Judge
`
`In the Matter of
`CERTAIN NOISE CANCELLING
`HEADPHONES
`
`Investigation No. 337-TA-626
`
`PHITEK SYSTEMS LIMITED’S (NZ), CREATIVE LABS, INC.’S, AND AUDIO
`TECHNICA US INC.’S MEMORANDUM OF LAW IN SUPPORT OF THEIR
`OBJECTIONS TO COMPLAINANT BOSE CORPORATION’S REQUEST FOR
`RECEIPT OF EVIDENCE WITHOUT A SPONSORING WITNESS
`
`In support of their Objections to Bose Corporation’s (“Bose”) Request for Receipt of
`
`Evidence Without a Sponsoring Witness (“Request”), Respondents Phitek Systems Limited (NZ)
`
`(“Phitek”), Creative Labs, Inc. (“Creative”) and Audio Technica US, Inc. (“AT”) (collectively
`
`“Respondents”) submit the following Memorandum of Law in support.
`
`I.
`
`BOSE’S DECLARATION SUPPORTING REQUEST IS WHOLLY DEFICIENT
`AND FAILS TO MEET THE REQUIREMENTS OF GROUND RULE 9.4.13
`
`Bose’s Request to this Court to receive in evidence over 250 exhibits, without a
`
`sponsoring witness, is flawed and the Respondents object to the Request because (1) not all
`
`exhibits Bose seeks to enter into evidence without a sponsoring witness are necessarily non-
`
`controversial; and (2) the Declaration of Steven A. Bowers (“Bowers Decl.”) attached to the
`
`Request is wholly deficient under Ground Rule 9.4.13.
`
`Pursuant to Ground Rule 9.4.13, if evidence is non-controversial, a party may present
`
`with each such non-controversial piece of evidence a declaration that avers that the declarant
`
`prepared that non-controversial exhibit or had someone prepare that noncontroversial exhibit
`
`under the declarant’s direction. Cf. In re Video Graphics Display Controllers, Inv. No. 337-TA-
`
`dc-537091
`
`2
`
`

`
`412, Order No. 56 at p. 1 (Int’l Trade Comm’n Jun. 20, 1999). The Bowers Decl. merely states
`
`that he caused certain copies of exhibits “to be included in a Joint Exhibit List,” and “to be
`
`submitted to the Administrative Law Judge as proposed exhibits.” See Declaration of Steven A.
`
`Bowers, attached to Bose’s Request, at 1-2, ¶¶ 3-6 (emphases added). Bowers’ Decl. does not
`
`comply with Ground Rule 9.4.13 because it does not aver that Mr. Bowers prepared the exhibits
`
`or that someone under Mr. Bowers’ direction prepared the exhibits Bose seeks to enter into
`
`evidence without a supporting witness. Indeed, the majority of the exhibits that Bose seeks to
`
`enter into evidence without a sponsoring witness are controversial and hearsay, to which
`
`Respondents object. Thus, Respondents object to entry into evidence of all Confidential Exhibits
`
`(“CXs”) that Bose has requested be received without a sponsoring witness. Though Respondents
`
`believe that Bowers’ Decl. clearly states on its face that he has no personal knowledge of the
`
`Request’s CXs and that cross-examination of Mr. Bowers would not be an efficient use of time,
`
`if required in order to properly object to the CXs’ of Bose’s Request, Respondents wish to cross-
`
`examine Mr. Bowers to establish his lack of personal knowledge. Respondents also object and
`
`assert that if these CXs are allowed into evidence without a proper sponsoring witness,
`
`Respondents will unable to properly defend against or cross-examine a duly qualified witness
`
`regarding the substance, subject-matter and meaning of the CXs.
`
`II.
`
`BOSE’S REQUEST FAILS TO ESTABLISH THE THIRD PARTY WITNESSES
`MEET THE REQUIREMENTS OF RULE 210.28(h)
`
`Though under certain enumerated circumstances a deposition may be used as evidence
`
`against any party who was present or represented at the taking of the deposition, or who had
`
`reasonable notice thereof, this Rule does not apply to use of the depositions of third party
`
`witnesses that Bose seeks to enter into evidence without a sponsoring witness. See Bose’s
`
`Exhibits CX-105C and CX-148. Bose’s Request seeks to enter into evidence the depositions of
`
`dc-537091
`
`3
`
`

`
`third party witnesses, Michael Sanchez-Parodi (CX-105C) and Thomas Darbonne (CX-148).
`
`However, Bose has not shown, or even stated in its Request that it has been unable to procure the
`
`attendance of Mr. Parodi and Mr. Darbonne at the hearing, that either witness is dead, that either
`
`witness is outside of the United States, that either witness is unable to attend because of age,
`
`illness, infirmity, or imprisonment; or that there are exceptional circumstances that would allow
`
`the use of their deposition transcripts. The applicable rule states:
`
`(h) Use of depositions. A deposition may be used as evidence against any party
`who was present or represented at the taking of the deposition or who had
`reasonable notice thereof, in accordance with any of the following provisions:
`(1) Any deposition may be used by any party for the purpose of contradicting
`or impeaching the testimony of a deponent as a witness;
` (2) The deposition of a party may be used by an adverse party for any
`purpose;
` (3) The deposition of a witness, whether or not a party, may be used by any
`party for any purposes if the administrative law judge finds--
`(i) That the witness is dead; or
`(ii) That the witness is out of the United States, unless it appears that the
`absence of the witness was procured by the party offering the deposition;
`or
`(iii) That the witness is unable to attend or testify because of age, illness,
`infirmity, or imprisonment; or
`(iv) That the party offering the deposition has been unable to procure the
`attendance of the witness by subpoena; or
`(v) Upon application and notice, that such exceptional circumstances exist
`as to make it desirable in the interest of justice and with due regard to the
`importance of presenting the oral testimony of witnesses at a hearing, to
`allow the deposition to be used.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`19 C.F.R. § 210.28(h)(1)-(3) (emphases added). In applying the precursor to Rule 210.28(h),
`
`Judge Saxon refused to accept into evidence the depositions of third party witnesses who were
`
`located in California, Texas, Minnesota, and New Jersey because none of the bases set forth in
`
`Rule 210.31(h) (the precursor to 210.28(h)) or exceptional circumstances were shown by the
`
`party offering the third party witness depositions into evidence. In re Single In-Line Memory
`
`Modules, Inv. No. 337-TA-336, Order No. 18 at 1-2 (Int’l Trade Comm’n Apr. 20, 1992)
`
`dc-537091
`
`4
`
`

`
`(“Single In-Line Memory Modules”); see also In re Cigarrettes and Packaging Thereof, Inv. No.
`
`337-TA-424, Order No. 65 at 2-4 (Int’l Trade Comm’n Mar. 15, 2000). So, likewise, in this
`
`case, Bose has merely stated that admission of the depositions and their exhibits is “not
`
`prejudicial to any party, removes the burden of appearing at trial from third parties, and is
`
`necessary to create a more complete record. . . . .” See Bose Response at p. 3. Thus, Bose has
`
`not stated any of the grounds set forth in Rule 210.28(h)(3) or even attempted to subpoena these
`
`witnesses that are both located in California. Bose’s reasons for requesting entry of the Mr.
`
`Parodi’s and Mr. Darbonne’s depositions are insufficient and fail to comply with Rule
`
`210.28(h)(1)-(3). As a result, Respondents object to entry into evidence the deposition
`
`transcripts of Mr. Parodi and Mr. Darbonne, and any exhibits to said depositions.
`
`III.
`
`BOSE’S WHOLESALE DESIGNATION OF ENTIRE TRANSCRIPTS
`VIOLATES RULE 210.37(b) AND PRIOR ALJ RULINGS
`
`Furthermore, Respondents object to Bose’s wholesale designation of entire deposition
`
`transcripts, and their purported exhibits, without any explanation of the subject-matter for which
`
`the entire deposition transcripts are being designated or their importance. Bose seeks to enter
`
`into evidence in excess of 2,500 pages of deposition transcripts, and this 2,500 page total does
`
`not include what Bose has represented are deposition exhibits to these 2,500 pages of transcript.
`
`Indeed, though Bose represents certain CXs as deposition exhibits, many of the designated CXs
`
`are not identified as exhibits to any particular deposition. See e.g., Nos. CX-1258C, CX-1260C,
`
`CX-1264C, CX-1271C, CX-1272C, CX-1274C, CX-1276C, CX-1281C, CX-1283C, CX-1284C,
`
`CX-1288C, CX-1295, CX-1296. Some CXs even contain text in foreign language(s), which is
`
`clearly improper. See No. CX-1276C.
`
`As the presiding Administrative Law Judge pointed out in rejecting a party’s attempt to
`
`enter third party witness deposition transcripts into evidence in another investigation:
`
`dc-537091
`
`5
`
`

`
`Neither the subject matter of the testimony nor its importance to any issue in the
`case has been discussed by any of the parties. If the witnesses are needed to
`testify that certain events took place, the other parties may be willing to stipulate
`either that these events took place or that these witnesses would testify that these
`events took place, as they testified in their depositions. If, however, there is a
`serious dispute as to whether the events actually took place, and whether these
`events occurred is critical to an issue in this case, I would like to have the
`witnesses testify at the hearing.
`
`Single In-Line Memory Modules, Order No. 18 at 2 (emphasis added). There are serious
`
`disputes as to many events. However, because Bose fails to identify the purposes for which it
`
`has designated entire deposition transcripts, Respondents cannot determine whether or not
`
`portions of such depositions are relevant, and thus cannot formulate a proper response.
`
`Respondents can only object to the entry into evidence of the CXs that are deposition transcripts
`
`and their purported exhibits.
`
`Moreover, it is not possible that every single deposition question and answer is relevant
`
`information to this investigation. At a minimum, Bose must be required to designate discrete
`
`portions of the depositions transcripts, and not be allowed to make wholesale designations of
`
`entire deposition transcripts. Rule 210.37(b) is instructive:
`
`(b) Admissibility. Relevant, material, and reliable evidence shall be admitted.
`Irrelevant, immaterial, unreliable, or unduly repetitious evidence shall be
`excluded. Immaterial or irrelevant parts of an admissible document shall be
`segregated and excluded as far as practicable.
`
`19 C.F.R. 210.37(b) (emphases added). Bose has an obligation to segregate and exclude
`
`immaterial or irrelevant portions of the deposition transcripts that are admissible under Rule
`
`210.28(h)(1)-(3) and parts of documents that it can show are authentic, not hearsay, or meet a
`
`hearsay exception. Additionally, Respondents should then be afforded an opportunity to
`
`counter-designate portions of the deposition transcripts.
`
`dc-537091
`
`6
`
`

`
`Furthermore, in the CXs that are deposition transcripts, Respondents made numerous
`
`objections as to form, relevance, materiality, and/or competency of the witnesses to give
`
`testimony on particular subject-matters on which they were examined. It would take days to go
`
`through every single page of each of these deposition transcripts during the hearing to determine
`
`whether objections that were made on the record at the time of the taking of the depositions
`
`should be sustained or overruled. As previously ruled by another presiding Administrative Law
`
`Judge in excluding the recording of a statement from evidence:
`
`I cannot rule at this time on the question of whether the tape recording and the
`entire transcript including all of the statements made at the press conference
`would be admissible in evidence. I might be able to make this ruling before the
`prehearing conference if I had more information. The entire tape recording of the
`press conference may be received as an exhibit, but perhaps only parts of it could
`be used as evidence. Before ruling, I would need to know what particular
`statements were being relied upon by respondents, and whether any other
`objections were going to be made. If second level hearsay objections were going
`to be made, I would need to know whether the particular statement was offered to
`prove the truth of what was stated therein, or was offered to prove something else.
`If offered only to prove the truth of what the speaker had heard, I would give a
`limiting instruction to the parties not to use this particular statement as evidence.
`
`Single In-Line Memory Modules, Inv. No. 337-TA-336, Order No. 24 at 4 (Int’l Trade Comm’n
`
`Apr. 30, 1992). Because of the excessive number of pages of deposition transcripts and because
`
`many of the purported exhibits to these deposition transcripts are unmarked as such, Respondents
`
`object to their admission, and request the presiding Administrative Law Judge to require Bose to
`
`designate specific portions of these deposition transcripts, which Bose can establish are
`
`admissible under Rule 210.28(h)(1)-(3), so that the parties can reduce the number of objections
`
`made on the record at the time of the depositions on which the Court will have to rule prior to
`
`their admission, if any.
`
`In conclusion, Respondents object to the admissibility of all exhibits set forth in Bose’s
`
`Request because the accompanying Bowers Decl. fails to comply with Ground Rule 9.4.13.
`
`dc-537091
`
`7
`
`

`
`Respondents also object to the admissibility of the CXs that are third party witness deposition
`
`transcripts and their exhibits because Bose has failed to establish sufficient grounds for their
`
`admissibility under Rule 210.28(h). Respondents also object to the wholesale designation of
`
`entire deposition transcripts as violating Rule 210.37(b) because entire deposition transcripts
`
`cannot possibly be entirely relevant and not repetitive, and because many of the CXs Bose
`
`identifies as exhibits to these deposition transcripts are unmarked and hearsay. Respondents
`
`request that the Court reject all CXs that Bose seeks to admit into evidence; or in the alternative,
`
`that the Court require Bose to segregate and exclude from any CXs it seeks to enter into evidence
`
`any immaterial or irrelevant parts thereof and state the subject-matter and importance of the
`
`portions it seeks to admit into evidence.
`
`Dated: September 30, 2008
`
`Respectfully submitted,
`
`/s/ Mark Fassold
`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)
`(210) 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) 887-1500 (phone)
`(202) 887-0168 (fax)
`
`Counsel for Phitek Systems Limited (NZ)
`and Creative Labs, Inc.
`
`dc-537091
`
`8
`
`

`
`/s/ Aron Carnahan
`James P. White
`Gerald T. Shekleton
`J. Aron Carnahan
`Welsh & Katz Ltd.
`120 South Riverside Plaza, 22nd Floor
`Chicago, Illinois 60606
`
`Attorneys for Respondent Audio Technica,
`U.S. Inc.
`
`dc-537091
`
`9
`
`

`
`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
`
`I hereby certify that copies of:
`
`PHITEK SYSTEMS LIMITED’S (NZ), CREATIVE LABS, INC.’S, AND AUDIO TECHNICA US
`INC.’S OBJECTIONS TO COMPLAINANT BOSE CORPORATION’S REQUEST FOR
`RECEIPT OF EVIDENCE WITHOUT A SPONSORING WITNESS AND RESPONDENTS’
`MEMORANDUM IN SUPPORT OF OBJECTIONS
`
`have been served on September 30, 2008, as indicated, on the following
`
`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
`
`Christopher G. Paulraj, Esq.
`Office of Unfair Import Investigations
`U.S. International Trade Commission
`500 E. Street, S.W. Room 401-F
`Washington, DC 20436
`
`* Via First Class Mail
`* Via Hand Delivery
`* Via Overnight Delivery
`* Via Facsimile
`T Via Electronic Mail
`
`* Via First Class Mail
`* Via Hand Delivery
`T Via Overnight Delivery
`* Via Facsimile
`* Via Electronic Mail
`
`* Via First Class Mail
`* Via Hand Delivery
`* Via Overnight Delivery
`* Via Facsimile
`T Via Electronic Mail
`
`dc-529071
`
`5
`
`

`
`Jennifer Whang
`Administrative Law Judge Attorney-Advisor
`
`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 1 10
`Attorneys for Complainant Bose Corporation
`
`James P. White
`Gerald T. Shekleton
`J. Aron Carnahan
`Welsh & Katz Ltd.
`120 South Riverside Plaza, 22nd Floor
`Chicago, Illinois 60606
`
`Attorneys for Respondent Audio Technica, U.S. Inc.
`
`Arthur Wineburg
`Daniel E. Yonan
`Akin Gump Strauss Hauer & Feld, LLP
`1333 New Hampshire Avenue, N.W.
`Washington, DC 20036
`
`Attorneys for Respondent Audio Technica, U.S. Inc.
`
`* Via First Class Mail
`* Via Hand Delivery
`* Via Overnight Delivery
`* Via Facsimile
`T Via Electronic Mail
`
`* Via First Class Mail
`* Via Hand Delivery
`* Via Overnight Delivery
`* Via Facsimile
`S Via Electronic Mail
`
`* Via First Class Mail
`* Via Hand Delivery
`* Via Overnight Delivery
`* Via Facsimile
`S Via Electronic Mail
`
`* Via First Class Mail
`* Via Hand Delivery
`* Via Overnight Delivery
`* Via Facsimile
`S Via Electronic Mail
`
`* Via First Class Mail
`* Via Hand Delivery
`* Via Overnight Delivery
`* Via Facsimile
`S Via Electronic Mail
`
`dc-529071
`
`6
`
`

`
`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 10016
`
`Attorneys for Panasonic Corporation of North
`America
`
`* Via First Class Mail
`* Via Hand Delivery
`* Via Overnight Delivery
`* Via Facsimile
`S Via Electronic Mail
`
`* Via First Class Mail
`* Via Hand Delivery
`* Via Overnight Delivery
`* Via Facsimile
`S Via Electronic Mail
`
`/s/ Laura Santana
`Laura Santana
`
`
`
`dc-529071
`
`7