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
`
`RESPONDENTS’ OBJECTIONS TO COMPLAINANT’S EXHIBITS
`
`Respondents Phitek Systems Limited, Creative Labs, Inc., Audio-Technica U.S., Inc.,
`
`and Panasonic of North America (collectively “the Respondents”) hereby submit their
`
`Objections to Complainant Bose Corporation’s exhibits. Respondents reserve the right to
`
`supplement, modify or withdraw any of the objections made. In addition, Respondents reserve
`
`the right to object to the limited admissibility of any exhibits and to interpose objections to
`
`exhibits that may have previously been identified as exhibits by Complainant based on pre-
`
`hearing rulings and rulings during the course of hearing and to object to any exhibit not
`
`identified by witness at trial.
`
`Dated: September 30, 2008
`
`5305990v.1 128214/00004
`
`
`
`
`
`RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED,
`
`/s/ William B. Nash
`William B. Nash
`Daniel Chapman
`Mark A. J. Fassold
`JACKSON WALKER LLP
`112 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.
`1
`
`

`
`2000 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W.
`Washington, D.C. 20006
`ATTORNEYS FOR PHITEK SYSTEMS LIMITED
`
`/s/ Daniel S. Ebenstien
`Daniel S. Ebenstien
`Abraham Kasdan
`Joseph M. Casino
`David A. Boag
`AMSTER, ROTHSTEIN & EBENSTEIN LLP
`90 Park Avenue
`New York, NY 10016
`(212) 336-8000
`
`Tom M. Schaumberg
`Jamie D. Underwood
`ADDUCI MASTRIANI & SCHAUMBERG
`LLP
`1200 Seventeenth Street, N.W., Fifth Floor
`Washington, D.C. 20036
`ATTORNEYS FOR PANASONIC CORPORATION
`OF NORTH AMERICA
`
`
`
`/s/ James P. White
`James P. White
`J. Aron Carnanhan
`HUSCH BLACKWELL SANDERS LLP
`120 South Riverside Plaza, 22nd Floor
`Chicago, Illinois 60606
`(312) 665-1500
`ATTORNEYS FOR AUDIO-TECHNICA U.S.
`
`5305990v.1 128214/00004
`
`2
`
`

`
`CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
`
`I hereby certify that a copy of RESPONDENTS’ OBJECTIONS TO COMPLAINANTS’
`EXHIBITS has been served on September 30, 2008, as indicated, on the following:
`
`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
`
`Via Electronic Mail
`
`Not Served
`
`Via First Class Mail
`
`Via Hand Delivery
`
`Via Overnight Delivery
`
`Via Facsimile
`
`Via Electronic Mail
`
`Not Served
`
`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
`
`Christopher Paulraj
`Office of Unfair Import Investigations
`U.S. International Trade Commission
`500 E. Street, S.W. Room 401-F
`Washington, DC 20436
`
`5305990v.1 128214/00004
`
`3
`
`

`
`Andrew R. Kopsidas
`Ruffin B. Cordell
`Jeffrey R. Whieldon
`FISH & RICHARDSON P.C.
`1425 K Street, N.W.
`Washington, DC 20005
`
`Via First Class Mail
`
`Via Hand Delivery
`
`Via Overnight Delivery
`
`Via Facsimile
`
`Attorneys for Complainant Bose Corporation
`
`Via Electronic Mail
`
`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
`
`Via First Class Mail
`
`Via Hand Delivery
`
`Via Overnight Delivery
`
`Via Facsimile
`
`Via Electronic Mail
`
`James P. White
`Gerald T. Shekleton
`J. Aron Carnahan
`HUSCH BLACKWELL SANDERS, LLP
`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.
`
`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
`
`5305990v.1 128214/00004
`
`4
`
`

`
`Daniel Ebenstein
`Abraham Kasdan
`Joseph Casino
`Amster, Rothstein & Ebenstein LLP
`90 Park Avenue
`New York, NY 10016
`
`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. 20006-1888
`
`Attorneys for Phitek Systems Limited and
`Creative Labs, Inc.
`
`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
`
`/s/ William B. Nash
`William B. Nash
`
`_
`
`5305990v.1 128214/00004
`
`5
`
`

`
`In the Matter of Certain Noise Cancelling Headphones
`Inv. No. 337-TA-626
`
`Respondents’ Objections to Complainant Exhibits
`
`Exhibit
`No.
`CX-4
`
`Exhibit
`Description
`Certified
`Assignment
`for U.S. Patent
`No. 5,181,252
`
`Bates Range
`
`BOSITC000340-
`BOSITC000341
`
`Sponsoring
`Witness
`Sapiejewski
`, R. Garrett,
`S.
`
`Purpose
`
`Infringement
`Validity
`Enforcement
`
`Respondents'
`Objections
`Authentication Lacking: The exhibit is objectionable because the exhibit has not been properly authenticated.
`Fed. R. Evid. 901.
`
`Hearsay in Exhibit or Testimony: The testimony or exhibit contains, is the result of, or is based upon hearsay.
`Fed. R. Evid. 801-802.
`
`CX-5
`
`Certified
`Assignment
`for U.S. Patent
`No. 6,597,792
`
`BOSITC000344-
`BOSITC000346
`
`Sapiejewski
`, R.
`
`Infringement
`
`CX-6
`
`Certified
`Assignment
`for U.S. Patent
`No. 4,922,542
`
`BOSITC000342-
`BOSITC000343
`
`Sapiejewski
`, R. Garrett,
`S.
`
`Infringement
`Validity
`Enforcement
`
`Incomplete Exhibit: The exhibit is objectionable because it is incomplete and the introduction of the
`remaining portions ought, in fairness, to be considered contemporaneously with it. Fed. R. Evid. 106.
`Respondents reserve all other objections.
`
`The Exhibit Lacks a Sponsoring Witness: The exhibit is objectionable because it is not mentioned in the
`testimony or report of the sponsoring witness. Respondents reserve the right to object to the exhibit as lacking
`a sponsoring witness if no witness sponsors the exhibit through live testimony.
`Authentication Lacking: The exhibit is objectionable because the exhibit has not been properly authenticated.
`Fed. R. Evid. 901.
`
`Hearsay in Exhibit or Testimony: The testimony or exhibit contains, is the result of, or is based upon hearsay.
`Fed. R. Evid. 801-802.
`
`Incomplete Exhibit: The exhibit is objectionable because it is incomplete and the introduction of the
`remaining portions ought, in fairness, to be considered contemporaneously with it. Fed. R. Evid. 106.
`Respondents reserve all other objections.
`
`The Exhibit Lacks a Sponsoring Witness: The exhibit is objectionable because it is not mentioned in the
`testimony or report of the sponsoring witness. Respondents reserve the right to object to the exhibit as lacking
`a sponsoring witness if no witness sponsors the exhibit through live testimony.
`Authentication Lacking: The exhibit is objectionable because the exhibit has not been properly authenticated.
`Fed. R. Evid. 901.
`
`Hearsay in Exhibit or Testimony: The testimony or exhibit contains, is the result of, or is based upon hearsay.
`Fed. R. Evid. 801-802.
`
`Incomplete Exhibit: The exhibit is objectionable because it is incomplete and the introduction of the
`remaining portions ought, in fairness, to be considered contemporaneously with it. Fed. R. Evid. 106.
`Respondents reserve all other objections.
`
`The Exhibit Lacks a Sponsoring Witness: The exhibit is objectionable because it is not mentioned in the
`testimony or report of the sponsoring witness. Respondents reserve the right to object to the exhibit as lacking
`a sponsoring witness if no witness sponsors the exhibit through live testimony.
`
`

`
`In the Matter of Certain Noise Cancelling Headphones
`Inv. No. 337-TA-626
`
`Respondents’ Objections to Complainant Exhibits
`
`Exhibit
`No.
`CX-9
`
`Exhibit
`Description
`Certified File
`History for
`U.S. Patent
`No. 4,922,542
`
`Bates Range
`
`BOSITC000657-
`BOSITC000889
`
`Sponsoring
`Witness
`Sapiejewski
`, R. Garrett,
`S.
`
`Purpose
`
`Infringement
`Validity
`Enforcement
`
`CX-10
`
`U.S. Patent
`No. 1,807,225
`
`BOSITC001967-
`BOSITC001970
`
`Begault, D.
`
`Infringement
`Validity
`Enforcement
`
`CX-18
`
`U.S. Patent
`No. 4,922,542
`
`BOSITC002110-
`BOSITC002115
`
`Sapiejewski
`, R. Begault,
`D.
`
`Infringement
`Validity
`Enforcement
`
`Respondents'
`Objections
`Authentication Lacking: The exhibit is objectionable because the exhibit has not been properly authenticated.
`Fed. R. Evid. 901.
`
`Hearsay in Exhibit or Testimony: The testimony or exhibit contains, is the result of, or is based upon hearsay.
`Fed. R. Evid. 801-802.
`
`The Exhibit Lacks a Sponsoring Witness: The exhibit is objectionable because it is not mentioned in the
`testimony or report of the sponsoring witness. Respondents reserve the right to object to the exhibit as lacking
`a sponsoring witness if no witness sponsors the exhibit through live testimony.
`Authentication Lacking: The exhibit is objectionable because the exhibit has not been properly authenticated.
`Fed. R. Evid. 901.
`
`Hearsay in Exhibit or Testimony: The testimony or exhibit contains, is the result of, or is based upon hearsay.
`Fed. R. Evid. 801-802.
`
`Incomplete Exhibit: The exhibit is objectionable because it is incomplete and the introduction of the
`remaining portions ought, in fairness, to be considered contemporaneously with it. Fed. R. Evid. 106.
`Respondents reserve all other objections.
`
`The Exhibit Lacks a Sponsoring Witness: The exhibit is objectionable because it is not mentioned in the
`testimony or report of the sponsoring witness. Respondents reserve the right to object to the exhibit as lacking
`a sponsoring witness if no witness sponsors the exhibit through live testimony.
`Authentication Lacking: The exhibit is objectionable because the exhibit has not been properly authenticated.
`Fed. R. Evid. 901.
`
`Hearsay in Exhibit or Testimony: The testimony or exhibit contains, is the result of, or is based upon hearsay.
`Fed. R. Evid. 801-802.
`
`Incomplete Exhibit: The exhibit is objectionable because it is incomplete and the introduction of the
`remaining portions ought, in fairness, to be considered contemporaneously with it. Fed. R. Evid. 106.
`Respondents reserve all other objections.
`
`The Exhibit Lacks a Sponsoring Witness: The exhibit is objectionable because it is not mentioned in the
`testimony or report of the sponsoring witness. Respondents reserve the right to object to the exhibit as lacking
`a sponsoring witness if no witness sponsors the exhibit through live testimony.
`
`

`
`In the Matter of Certain Noise Cancelling Headphones
`Inv. No. 337-TA-626
`
`Respondents’ Objections to Complainant Exhibits
`
`Exhibit
`No.
`CX-22
`
`Exhibit
`Description
`NL1122453
`
`Bates Range
`
`BOSITC001913-
`BOXITC001915
`
`Sponsoring
`Witness
`Begault, D.
`
`Purpose
`
`Infringement
`Validity
`Enforcement
`
`CX-24
`
`GB2187631
`(A)
`
`BOSITC001926-
`BOSITC001929
`
`Begault, D.
`
`Infringement
`Validity
`Enforcement
`
`CX-25
`
`U.S. Patent
`No. 1,368,307
`
`BOSITC001960-
`BOSITC001962
`
`Begault, D.
`
`Infringement
`Validity
`Enforcement
`
`Respondents'
`Objections
`Authentication Lacking: The exhibit is objectionable because the exhibit has not been properly authenticated.
`Fed. R. Evid. 901.
`
`Hearsay in Exhibit or Testimony: The testimony or exhibit contains, is the result of, or is based upon hearsay.
`Fed. R. Evid. 801-802.
`
`Incomplete Exhibit: The exhibit is objectionable because it is incomplete and the introduction of the
`remaining portions ought, in fairness, to be considered contemporaneously with it. Fed. R. Evid. 106.
`Respondents reserve all other objections.
`
`The Exhibit Lacks a Sponsoring Witness: The exhibit is objectionable because it is not mentioned in the
`testimony or report of the sponsoring witness. Respondents reserve the right to object to the exhibit as lacking
`a sponsoring witness if no witness sponsors the exhibit through live testimony.
`Authentication Lacking: The exhibit is objectionable because the exhibit has not been properly authenticated.
`Fed. R. Evid. 901.
`
`Hearsay in Exhibit or Testimony: The testimony or exhibit contains, is the result of, or is based upon hearsay.
`Fed. R. Evid. 801-802.
`
`Incomplete Exhibit: The exhibit is objectionable because it is incomplete and the introduction of the
`remaining portions ought, in fairness, to be considered contemporaneously with it. Fed. R. Evid. 106.
`Respondents reserve all other objections.
`
`The Exhibit Lacks a Sponsoring Witness: The exhibit is objectionable because it is not mentioned in the
`testimony or report of the sponsoring witness. Respondents reserve the right to object to the exhibit as lacking
`a sponsoring witness if no witness sponsors the exhibit through live testimony.
`Authentication Lacking: The exhibit is objectionable because the exhibit has not been properly authenticated.
`Fed. R. Evid. 901.
`
`Hearsay in Exhibit or Testimony: The testimony or exhibit contains, is the result of, or is based upon hearsay.
`Fed. R. Evid. 801-802.
`
`Incomplete Exhibit: The exhibit is objectionable because it is incomplete and the introduction of the
`remaining portions ought, in fairness, to be considered contemporaneously with it. Fed. R. Evid. 106.
`Respondents reserve all other objections.
`
`The Exhibit Lacks a Sponsoring Witness: The exhibit is objectionable because it is not mentioned in the
`testimony or report of the sponsoring witness. Respondents reserve the right to object to the exhibit as lacking
`a sponsoring witness if no witness sponsors the exhibit through live testimony.
`
`

`
`In the Matter of Certain Noise Cancelling Headphones
`Inv. No. 337-TA-626
`
`Respondents’ Objections to Complainant Exhibits
`
`Exhibit
`No.
`CX-30
`
`Exhibit
`Description
`U.S. Patent
`No. 3,220,505
`
`Bates Range
`
`BOSITC002011-
`BOSITC002018
`
`Sponsoring
`Witness
`Begault, D.
`
`Purpose
`
`Infringement
`Validity
`Enforcement
`
`CX-34
`
`U.S. Patent
`No. 4,441,576
`
`BOSITC002062-
`BOSITC002082
`
`Begault, D.
`
`Infringement
`Validity
`Enforcement
`
`CX-40
`
`JP60217793
`
`BOSITC001941-
`BOSITC001943
`
`Begault, D.
`
`Infringement
`Validity
`Enforcement
`
`Respondents'
`Objections
`Authentication Lacking: The exhibit is objectionable because the exhibit has not been properly authenticated.
`Fed. R. Evid. 901.
`
`Hearsay in Exhibit or Testimony: The testimony or exhibit contains, is the result of, or is based upon hearsay.
`Fed. R. Evid. 801-802.
`
`The Exhibit Lacks a Sponsoring Witness: The exhibit is objectionable because it is not mentioned in the
`testimony or report of the sponsoring witness. Respondents reserve the right to object to the exhibit as lacking
`a sponsoring witness if no witness sponsors the exhibit through live testimony.
`
`Incomplete Exhibit: The exhibit is objectionable because it is incomplete and the introduction of the
`remaining portions ought, in fairness, to be considered contemporaneously with it. Fed. R. Evid. 106.
`Respondents reserve all other objections.
`Authentication Lacking: The exhibit is objectionable because the exhibit has not been properly authenticated.
`Fed. R. Evid. 901.
`
`Hearsay in Exhibit or Testimony: The testimony or exhibit contains, is the result of, or is based upon hearsay.
`Fed. R. Evid. 801-802.
`
`The Exhibit Lacks a Sponsoring Witness: The exhibit is objectionable because it is not mentioned in the
`testimony or report of the sponsoring witness. Respondents reserve the right to object to the exhibit as lacking
`a sponsoring witness if no witness sponsors the exhibit through live testimony.
`
`Incomplete Exhibit: The exhibit is objectionable because it is incomplete and the introduction of the
`remaining portions ought, in fairness, to be considered contemporaneously with it. Fed. R. Evid. 106.
`Respondents reserve all other objections.
`
`Missing Translation: This exhibit is objectionable because it is missing a translation.
`Authentication Lacking: The exhibit is objectionable because the exhibit has not been properly authenticated.
`Fed. R. Evid. 901.
`
`Hearsay in Exhibit or Testimony: The testimony or exhibit contains, is the result of, or is based upon hearsay.
`Fed. R. Evid. 801-802.
`
`The Exhibit Lacks a Sponsoring Witness: The exhibit is objectionable because it is not mentioned in the
`testimony or report of the sponsoring witness. Respondents reserve the right to object to the exhibit as lacking
`a sponsoring witness if no witness sponsors the exhibit through live testimony.
`
`

`
`In the Matter of Certain Noise Cancelling Headphones
`Inv. No. 337-TA-626
`
`Respondents’ Objections to Complainant Exhibits
`
`Bates Range
`
`Exhibit
`No.
`CX-42
`
`Exhibit
`Description
`Initial Expert
`Report of
`Durand R.
`Begault
`
`Sponsoring
`Witness
`Begault, D.
`
`Purpose
`
`Infringement
`Validity
`Enforcement
`
`CX-42.A
`
`See Joint
`Exhibit List
`(JX-1)
`
`Begault, D.
`
`Infringement
`Validity
`Enforcement
`
`Respondents'
`Objections
`Hearsay in Exhibit or Testimony: The testimony or exhibit contains, is the result of, or is based upon hearsay.
`Fed. R. Evid. 801-802.
`
`Unqualified Expert Testimony: The testimony is inadmissible because (1) the witness is not a qualified expert,
`(2) the testimony is not based upon sufficient facts or data, (3) the testimony is not the product of reliable
`principles and methods, (4) the witness has failed to apply the principles and methods reliably to the facts of
`the case, and (5) the testimony does not provide scientific, technical, or other specialized knowledge that will
`assist the trier of fact to understand the evidence or to determine a fact in issue. Fed. R. Evid. 702.
`
`Inadmissible Lay Opinion: The testimony is objectionable because the testimony constitutes an opinion or
`inference which is (a) not rationally based on the perception of the witness, (b) not helpful to a clear
`understanding of the witness’ testimony or the determination of a fact in issue, or (c) based on scientific,
`technical, or other specialized knowledge. Fed. R. Evid. 701.
`
`Legal Conclusion: The testimony or exhibit is objectionable because it constitutes a legal conclusion.
`“Although Federal Rule of Evidence 704 permits an expert witness to give expert testimony that ‘embraces an
`ultimate issue to be decided by the trier of fact,’ an expert witness is prohibited from rendering a legal
`opinion.” See e.g., Berckeley Inv. Group v. Colkitt, 455 F.3d 195, 217 (3d Cir. 2006).
`Hearsay in Exhibit or Testimony: The testimony or exhibit contains, is the result of, or is based upon hearsay.
`Fed. R. Evid. 801-802.
`
`Unqualified Expert Testimony: The testimony is inadmissible because (1) the witness is not a qualified expert,
`(2) the testimony is not based upon sufficient facts or data, (3) the testimony is not the product of reliable
`principles and methods, (4) the witness has failed to apply the principles and methods reliably to the facts of
`the case, and (5) the testimony does not provide scientific, technical, or other specialized knowledge that will
`assist the trier of fact to understand the evidence or to determine a fact in issue. Fed. R. Evid. 702.
`
`Inadmissible Lay Opinion: The testimony is objectionable because the testimony constitutes an opinion or
`inference which is (a) not rationally based on the perception of the witness, (b) not helpful to a clear
`understanding of the witness’ testimony or the determination of a fact in issue, or (c) based on scientific,
`technical, or other specialized knowledge. Fed. R. Evid. 701.
`
`Legal Conclusion: The testimony or exhibit is objectionable because it constitutes a legal conclusion.
`“Although Federal Rule of Evidence 704 permits an expert witness to give expert testimony that ‘embraces an
`ultimate issue to be decided by the trier of fact,’ an expert witness is prohibited from rendering a legal
`opinion.” See e.g., Berckeley Inv. Group v. Colkitt, 455 F.3d 195, 217 (3d Cir. 2006).
`
`

`
`In the Matter of Certain Noise Cancelling Headphones
`Inv. No. 337-TA-626
`
`Respondents’ Objections to Complainant Exhibits
`
`Bates Range
`
`Exhibit
`No.
`CX-42.B
`
`Exhibit
`Description
`See Joint
`Exhibit List
`(JX-2)
`
`Sponsoring
`Witness
`Begault, D.
`
`Purpose
`
`Infringement
`Validity
`Enforcement
`
`CX-42.C
`
`Exhibit C to
`Initial Report
`of Durand R.
`Begault -
`Durand
`Begault
`Cirriculum
`Vitae
`
`Begault, D.
`
`Infringement
`Validity
`Enforcement
`
`Respondents'
`Objections
`Hearsay in Exhibit or Testimony: The testimony or exhibit contains, is the result of, or is based upon hearsay.
`Fed. R. Evid. 801-802.
`
`Unqualified Expert Testimony: The testimony is inadmissible because (1) the witness is not a qualified expert,
`(2) the testimony is not based upon sufficient facts or data, (3) the testimony is not the product of reliable
`principles and methods, (4) the witness has failed to apply the principles and methods reliably to the facts of
`the case, and (5) the testimony does not provide scientific, technical, or other specialized knowledge that will
`assist the trier of fact to understand the evidence or to determine a fact in issue. Fed. R. Evid. 702.
`
`Inadmissible Lay Opinion: The testimony is objectionable because the testimony constitutes an opinion or
`inference which is (a) not rationally based on the perception of the witness, (b) not helpful to a clear
`understanding of the witness’ testimony or the determination of a fact in issue, or (c) based on scientific,
`technical, technical, or other specialized knowledge. Fed. R. Evid. 701.
`
`Legal Conclusion: The testimony or exhibit is objectionable because it constitutes a legal conclusion.
`“Although Federal Rule of Evidence 704 permits an expert witness to give expert testimony that ‘embraces an
`ultimate issue to be decided by the trier of fact,’ an expert witness is prohibited from rendering a legal
`opinion.” See e.g., Berckeley Inv. Group v. Colkitt, 455 F.3d 195, 217 (3d Cir. 2006).
`Hearsay in Exhibit or Testimony: The testimony or exhibit contains, is the result of, or is based upon hearsay.
`Fed. R. Evid. 801-802.
`
`Unqualified Expert Testimony: The testimony is inadmissible because (1) the witness is not a qualified expert,
`(2) the testimony is not based upon sufficient facts or data, (3) the testimony is not the product of reliable
`principles and methods, (4) the witness has failed to apply the principles and methods reliably to the facts of
`the case, and (5) the testimony does not provide scientific, technical, or other specialized knowledge that will
`assist the trier of fact to understand the evidence or to determine a fact in issue. Fed. R. Evid. 702.
`
`Inadmissible Lay Opinion: The testimony is objectionable because the testimony constitutes an opinion or
`inference which is (a) not rationally based on the perception of the witness, (b) not helpful to a clear
`understanding of the witness’ testimony or the determination of a fact in issue, or (c) based on scientific,
`technical, technical, or other specialized knowledge. Fed. R. Evid. 701.
`
`Legal Conclusion: The testimony or exhibit is objectionable because it constitutes a legal conclusion.
`“Although Federal Rule of Evidence 704 permits an expert witness to give expert testimony that ‘embraces an
`ultimate issue to be decided by the trier of fact,’ an expert witness is prohibited from rendering a legal
`opinion.” See e.g., Berckeley Inv. Group v. Colkitt, 455 F.3d 195, 217 (3d Cir. 2006).
`
`

`
`In the Matter of Certain Noise Cancelling Headphones
`Inv. No. 337-TA-626
`
`Respondents’ Objections to Complainant Exhibits
`
`Bates Range
`
`Sponsoring
`Witness
`Begault, D.
`
`Purpose
`
`Infringement
`Validity
`Enforcement
`
`Exhibit
`No.
`CX-42.D
`
`Exhibit
`Description
`Exhibit D to
`Initial Report
`of Durand R.
`Begault -
`Infringement
`Chart for U.S.
`Patent No.
`5,181,252
`
`CX-42.E
`
`Exhibit E to
`Initial Report
`of Durand R.
`Begault
`
`Begault, D.
`
`Infringement
`Validity
`Enforcement
`
`Respondents'
`Objections
`Hearsay in Exhibit or Testimony: The testimony or exhibit contains, is the result of, or is based upon hearsay.
`Fed. R. Evid. 801-802.
`
`Unqualified Expert Testimony: The testimony is inadmissible because (1) the witness is not a qualified expert,
`(2) the testimony is not based upon sufficient facts or data, (3) the testimony is not the product of reliable
`principles and methods, (4) the witness has failed to apply the principles and methods reliably to the facts of
`the case, and (5) the testimony does not provide scientific, technical, or other specialized knowledge that will
`assist the trier of fact to understand the evidence or to determine a fact in issue. Fed. R. Evid. 702.
`
`Inadmissible Lay Opinion: The testimony is objectionable because the testimony constitutes an opinion or
`inference which is (a) not rationally based on the perception of the witness, (b) not helpful to a clear
`understanding of the witness’ testimony or the determination of a fact in issue, or (c) based on scientific,
`technical, technical, or other specialized knowledge. Fed. R. Evid. 701.
`
`Legal Conclusion: The testimony or exhibit is objectionable because it constitutes a legal conclusion.
`“Although Federal Rule of Evidence 704 permits an expert witness to give expert testimony that ‘embraces an
`ultimate issue to be decided by the trier of fact,’ an expert witness is prohibited from rendering a legal
`opinion.” See e.g., Berckeley Inv. Group v. Colkitt, 455 F.3d 195, 217 (3d Cir. 2006).
`Hearsay in Exhibit or Testimony: The testimony or exhibit contains, is the result of, or is based upon hearsay.
`Fed. R. Evid. 801-802.
`
`Unqualified Expert Testimony: The testimony is inadmissible because (1) the witness is not a qualified expert,
`(2) the testimony is not based upon sufficient facts or data, (3) the testimony is not the product of reliable
`principles and methods, (4) the witness has failed to apply the principles and methods reliably to the facts of
`the case, and (5) the testimony does not provide scientific, technical, or other specialized knowledge that will
`assist the trier of fact to understand the evidence or to determine a fact in issue. Fed. R. Evid. 702.
`
`Inadmissible Lay Opinion: The testimony is objectionable because the testimony constitutes an opinion or
`inference which is (a) not rationally based on the perception of the witness, (b) not helpful to a clear
`understanding of the witness’ testimony or the determination of a fact in issue, or (c) based on scientific,
`technical, technical, or other specialized knowledge. Fed. R. Evid. 701.
`
`Legal Conclusion: The testimony or exhibit is objectionable because it constitutes a legal conclusion.
`“Although Federal Rule of Evidence 704 permits an expert witness to give expert testimony that ‘embraces an
`ultimate issue to be decided by the trier of fact,’ an expert witness is prohibited from rendering a legal
`opinion.” See e.g., Berckeley Inv. Group v. Colkitt, 455 F.3d 195, 217 (3d Cir. 2006).
`
`

`
`In the Matter of Certain Noise Cancelling Headphones
`Inv. No. 337-TA-626
`
`Respondents’ Objections to Complainant Exhibits
`
`Bates Range
`
`Sponsoring
`Witness
`Begault, D.
`
`Purpose
`
`Infringement
`Validity
`Enforcement
`
`Exhibit
`No.
`CX-42.F
`
`Exhibit
`Description
`Exhibit F to
`Initial Report
`of Durand R.
`Begault - Bose
`Technical
`Domestic
`Industry Claim
`Chart for U.S.
`Patent No.
`5,181.252
`
`CX-42.G
`
`Exhibit G to
`Initial Expert
`Report of
`Durand R.
`Begault
`
`Begault, D.
`
`Infringement
`Validity
`Enforcement
`
`Respondents'
`Objections
`Hearsay in Exhibit or Testimony: The testimony or exhibit contains, is the result of, or is based upon hearsay.
`Fed. R. Evid. 801-802.
`
`Unqualified Expert Testimony: The testimony is inadmissible because (1) the witness is not a qualified expert,
`(2) the testimony is not based upon sufficient facts or data, (3) the testimony is not the product of reliable
`principles and methods, (4) the witness has failed to apply the principles and methods reliably to the facts of
`the case, and (5) the testimony does not provide scientific, technical, or other specialized knowledge that will
`assist the trier of fact to understand the evidence or to determine a fact in issue. Fed. R. Evid. 702.
`
`Inadmissible Lay Opinion: The testimony is objectionable because the testimony constitutes an opinion or
`inference which is (a) not rationally based on the perception of the witness, (b) not helpful to a clear
`understanding of the witness’ testimony or the determination of a fact in issue, or (c) based on scientific,
`technical, technical, or other specialized knowledge. Fed. R. Evid. 701.
`
`Legal Conclusion: The testimony or exhibit is objectionable because it constitutes a legal conclusion.
`“Although Federal Rule of Evidence 704 permits an expert witness to give expert testimony that ‘embraces an
`ultimate issue to be decided by the trier of fact,’ an expert witness is prohibited from rendering a legal
`opinion.” See e.g., Berckeley Inv. Group v. Colkitt, 455 F.3d 195, 217 (3d Cir. 2006).
`Hearsay in Exhibit or Testimony: The testimony or exhibit contains, is the result of, or is based upon hearsay.
`Fed. R. Evid. 801-802.
`
`Unqualified Expert Testimony: The testimony is inadmissible because (1) the witness is not a qualified expert,
`(2) the testimony is not based upon sufficient facts or data, (3) the testimony is not the product of reliable
`principles and methods, (4) the witness has failed to apply the principles and methods reliably to the facts of
`the case, and (5) the testimony does not provide scientific, technical, or other specialized knowledge that will
`assist the trier of fact to understand the evidence or to determine a fact in issue. Fed. R. Evid. 702.
`
`Inadmissible Lay Opinion: The testimony is objectionable because the testimony constitutes an opinion or
`inference which is (a) not rationally based on the perception of the witness, (b) not helpful to a clear
`understanding of the witness’ testimony or the determination of a fact in issue, or (c) based on scientific,
`technical, technical, or other specialized knowledge. Fed. R. Evid. 701.
`
`Legal Conclusion: The testimony or exhibit is objectionable because it constitutes a legal conclusion.
`“Although Federal Rule of Evidence 704 permits an expert witness to give expert testimony that ‘embraces an
`ultimate issue to be decided by the trier of fact,’ an expert witness is prohibited from rendering a legal
`opinion.” See e.g., Berckeley Inv. Group v. Colkitt, 455 F.3d 195, 217 (3d Cir. 2006).
`
`

`
`In the Matter of Certain Noise Cancelling Headphones
`Inv. No. 337-TA-626
`
`Respondents’ Objections to Complainant Exhibits
`
`Bates Range
`
`Sponsoring
`Witness
`Begault, D.
`
`Purpose
`
`Infringement
`Validity
`Enforcement
`
`Begault, D.
`
`Infringement
`Validity
`Enforcement
`
`Exhibit
`No.
`CX-42.H
`
`Exhibit
`Description
`Exhibit H to
`Initial Expert
`Report of
`Durand R.
`Begault -
`Infringement
`Chart for U.S.
`Patent No.
`6,597,792
`
`CX-42.I
`
`Exhibit I to
`Initial Expert
`Report of
`Durand R.
`Begault - Bose
`Technical
`Domestic
`Industry Claim
`Chart for U.S.
`Patent No.
`6,597,792
`
`Respondents'
`Objections
`Hearsay in Exhibit or Testimony: The testimony or exhibit contains, is the result of, or is based upon hearsay.
`Fed. R. Evid. 801-802.
`
`Unqualified Expert Testimony: The testimony is inadmissible because (1) the witness is not a qualified expert,
`(2) the testimony is not based upon sufficient facts or data, (3) the testimony is not the product of reliable
`principles and methods, (4) the witness has failed to apply the principles and methods reliably to the facts of
`the case, and (5) the testimony does not provide scientific, technical, or other specialized knowledge that will
`assist the trier of fact to understand the evidence or to determine a fact in issue. Fed. R. Evid. 702.
`
`Inadmissible Lay Opinion: The testimony is objectionable because the testimony constitutes an opinion or
`inference which is (a) not rationally based on the perception of the witness, (b) not helpful to a clear
`understanding of the witness’ testimony or the determination of a fact in issue, or (c) based on scientific,
`technical, technical, or other specialized knowledge. Fed. R. Evid. 701.
`
`Legal Conclusion: The testimony or exhibit is objectionable because it constitutes a legal conclusion.
`“Although Federal Rule of Evidence 704 permits an expert witness to give expert testimony that ‘embraces an
`ultimate issue to be decided