UNITED STATES INTERNATIONAL TRADE COMMISSION
`WASHINGTON, D.C. 20436
`
`%,V!Eii r
`
`---
`U”’ i, .) -4 -4E’
`
`Before Honorable Charles E. Bullock
`Administrative Law Judge
`
`I
`I Investigation No. 3 7-TA-6ggflC‘ Of the
`P
`I
`I
`
`In the Matter of
`
`CERTAIN NOISE CANCELLING
`HEADPHONES
`
`Secretary
`Int’l Trade Curnmlwon
`
`I
`
`I
`
`COMPLAINANT BOSE CORPORATION’S MOTION IN LZMZNE
`TO EXCLUDE EVIDENCE RELATING TO
`THE REISSUE PATENT APPLICATION 10/754,094
`
`Complainant Bose Corporation (“Bose”) respectfully submits this motion in limin&/
`:-?
`-. -
`pursuant to 19 C.F.R. 0 210.37, to preclude Respondents from introducing any testimony;+
`-u
`- -z
`evidence or attorney argument related to reissue patent application 10/754,094. Such ev$ence is
`-*
`4 2 - ,
`wholly irrelevant and prejudicial, and the law is clear that the reissue proceeding has no b2aring ,
`’
`. ”&-
`
`on the validity or enforceability of any presently asserted claim in this Investigation.
`
`
`
`On January 4,2004, Bose Corporation (“Bose”) filed a broadening reissue patent
`
`application for U.S. Patent No. 6,597,792 (the “’792 patent”). The reissue patent application was
`
`assigned serial number 10/754,094 (“the ‘094 Reissue Application”). Prosecution of that reissue
`
`application is currently pending.
`
`Pursuant to 19 C.F.R. fj 210.37(b), “[i]rrelevant, immaterial, unreliable, or unduly
`
`repetitious evidence shall be excluded.” This Investigation concerns the ’ 792 patent, as issued
`
`by the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office on July 22,2003. Until prosecution of the ‘094
`
`Reissue Application is finally concluded, the scope, content, validity and enforceability of the
`
`presently asserted ‘792 patent claims remain unaffected. The law is exceedingly clear on this
`
`

`
`point: “The surrender of the original patent shall take effect upon the issue of the reissued patent
`. . . .” 35 U.S.C. 0 252 (emphasis added). Consequently, any testimony, evidence or attorney
`
`argument regarding the on-going reissue application can only be speculative and irrelevant with
`
`respect to the question of ‘792 patent validity or enforceability, would be a needless and time-
`
`consuming distraction from the key issues requiring resolution by the Court, and would
`
`undoubtedly be prejudicial to Bose.
`
`Reflecting the current state of the law, the Federal Regulations governing the U.S. Patent
`
`and Trademark Office could not be more clear about the continuing validity of a patent that is
`
`subject to a pending reissue application:
`
`The application for reissue of a patent shall constitute an offer to surrender that
`patent, and the surrender shall take effect upon reissue of the patent. Until a
`reissue application is granted, the original patent shall remain in effect.
`
`37 C.F.R. fj 1.178(a) (emphasis added).
`
`The Federal Circuit has explained further that, “A patent is born valid. It remains valid
`
`until a challenger proves it was stillborn or had birth defects, or it is no longer viable as an
`
`enforceable right.” Roper Corp. v. Litton Sys., Inc., 757 F.2d 1266, 1270 (Fed. Cir. 1985) (citing
`35 U.S.C. 4 282). This holding applies squarely to the ‘792 patent asserted in this Investigation.
`
`Pointing to the U.S. statute on this issue, district courts consistently have held that pending
`
`reissue applications do not affect the validity or enforceability of the original patent:
`
`[Tlhe time for surrendering an original patent in reissue proceedings occurs when
`the reissue patent is granted. There is no surrender of the original patent if the
`reissue patent is rejected. Rather, the original patent stands as if no application
`had ever been made for a reissue. It is true that the reissue statue as well as the
`Patent Office Rules require surrender of the original patent before a reissue patent
`may be granted. However, 35 U.S.C. 0 252, entitled “Effect of Reissue,”
`specifically states that the surrender of the original patent does not take effect
`until the issuance of the reissue patent.
`
`2
`
`

`
`Nat’l Bus. Sys, Inc. v. AMInt’l, Inc., 546 F. Supp. 340, 351 (N. D. Ill. 1982). See also Samsung
`
`SDICo., Ltd. v. Matsushita Elec. Indus. Co., Ltd., 2007 WL4302723, *1 (C.D. Cal. Jul. 9,2007)
`
`(“Under 35 U.S.C. section 252, when a patent is reissued, the original patent must be surrendered
`
`and can no longer be infringed. But until the reissue application is granted, the original patent is
`
`not surrendered.”) (citations omitted). See also Summagraphics Corp. v. Sanders Assoc., Inc.,
`
`1991 WL 322234, “1 (D. Conn. Mar. 13,1991).
`
`Furthermore, the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office and the courts are required to apply
`
`different standards of proof to issues of validity and therefore, the proceedings in the Patent
`
`Office and litigation in the courts are not duplicative. See Nut ’1 Bus. Sys., Inc. v. AM Int ’1, Inc.,
`
`743 F.2d 1227, 1232 (7th Cir. 1984) (“[Lless deference is appropriate for a patent office finding
`
`of invalidity in a reissue proceeding because . . .patent validity is a question of law reserved
`
`exclusively to the federal courts in de novo proceedings.”) (citation omitted). See Ethicon, Inc.
`v. J. Quiqq, 849 F.2d 1422, 1427 (Fed. Cir. 1988); see also Yates-American Mach. Co., Inc. v.
`
`Newman Mach. Co., Inc., 694 F. Supp. 155, 158 (M. D. N.C. 1988) (“Although there may be
`
`some duplication between the reissue proceeding and the instant lawsuit, several factors render
`
`this fact not dispositive. . . . [tlhe results of the PTO proceeding are not binding on this Court.”)
`
`Thus, any rejections of the re-issue claims during this on-going reissue application proceeding do
`
`not pertain to the validity of the issued claims of the ‘792 patent validity.
`For at least these reasons, Respondents should be precluded under 19 C.F.R. 0 210.37
`
`from introducing any testimony, evidence, or attorney argument regarding the on-going reissue
`
`patent application 10/754,094.
`
`3
`
`

`
`Dated: October 17,2008
`
`Respectfully submitted,
`
`FISH & RICHARDSON P.C.
`
`Andrew R. Kopsidas
`Jeffrey R. Whieldon
`Autumn J.S. Hwang
`Steven A. Bowers
`FISH & RICHARDSON P.C.
`1425 K Street, N.W.
`1 lth Floor
`Washington, D.C. 20005
`Telephone: (202) 783-5070
`Facsimile: (202) 783-233 1
`
`Charles Hieken
`Gregory A. Madera
`Stephen A. Marshall
`FISH & RICHARDSON P.C.
`225 Franklin Street
`Boston, MA 021 10
`Telephone: (617) 542-5070
`Facsimile: (617) 542-8906
`
`Jordan T. Fowles
`FISH & RICHARDSON P.C.
`17 17 Main Street
`Suite 5000
`Dallas, TX 75201
`Telephone: (214) 747-5070
`Facsimile: (2 14) 747-209 1
`
`Attorneys for Complainant
`Bose Corporation
`
`4
`
`

`
`CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
`
`I hereby certify that on October 17,2008 a copy of
`
`COMPLAINANT BOSE CORPORATION’S MOTION IN LIMINE
`TO EXCLUDE EVIDENCE RELATING TO
`THE REISSUE PATENT APPLICATION 10/754,094
`
`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 317-1
`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 404-1
`Washington, DC 20436
`
`Via Hand Delivery
`0 Via U.S. Mail
`0 Via Overnight Delivery
`0 Via Electronic Mail
`Via Facsimile
`0 Via Electronic Docket Filing
`NotServed
`
`Via Hand Delivery
`0 Via U.S. Mail
`0 Via Overnight Delivery
`0 Via Electronic Mail
`0 Via Facsimile
`0 Via Electronic Docket Filing
`0 Notserved
`
`[XI Via Hand Delivery
`0 Via U.S. Mail
`0 Via Overnight Delivery
`Via Electronic Mail
`0 Via Facsimile
`0 Via Electronic Docket Filing
`NotServed
`
`

`
`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 20006-1 888
`
`Counsel for Respondents Phitek Systems
`Limited, GN Netcom, Inc., Creative Labs, Inc.,
`and Logitech Inc.
`
`James P. White, Esq.
`J. Aron Camahan, Esq.
`Welsh & Katz, Ltd.
`120 South Riverside Plaza, 22"d Floor
`Chicago, IL. 60606
`
`Counsel for Respondent Audio Technica US.,
`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 US.,
`Inc.
`
`2 Via Hand Delivery
`2 ViaU.S. Mail
`2 Via Overnight Delivery
`Via Electronic Mail
`2 Via Facsimile
`3 Via Electronic Docket Filing
`3 NotServed
`
`2 Via Hand Delivery
`3 ViaU.S. Mail
`2 Via Overnight Delivery
`a Via Facsimile
`Via Electronic Mail
`Via Electronic Docket Filing
`0 Not Served
`
`0 Via Hand Delivery
`0 ViaU.S. Mail
`0 Via Overnight Delivery
`Via Electronic Mail
`0 Via Facsimile
`Via Electronic Docket Filing
`0 NotServed
`
`0 Via Hand Delivery
`0 Via U.S. Mail
`0 Via Overnight Delivery
`Via Electronic Mail
`Via Facsimile
`0 Via Electronic Docket Filing
`0 NotServed
`
`

`
`Daniel Ebenstein, Esq.
`Abraham Kasdan, Esq.
`Joseph Casino, Esq.
`Amster, Rothstein & Ebenstein LLP
`90 Park Avenue
`New York, NY 100 16
`
`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
`
`[7 Via Hand Delivery
`0 ViaU.S. Mail
`0 Via Overnight Delivery
`Via Electronic Mail
`0 Via Facsimile
`0 Via Electronic Docket Filing
`Notserved
`
`0 Via Hand Delivery
`0 ViaU.S. Mail
`Via Overnight Delivery
`Via Electronic Mail
`0 Via Facsimile
`0 Via Electronic Docket Filing
`0 Notserved
`
`PatrickE. Ede (?"
`
`

`
`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
`
`JPROPOSEDl ORDER NO.:
`GRANTING COMPLAINANT BOSE’S MOTION IN LIMINE TO EXCLUDE
`EVIDENCE RELATING TO THE REISSUE PATENT APPLICATION 10/754,094
`
`Having considered Complainant Bose Corporation’s Motion In Limine to preclude
`
`Respondents from Introducing Testimony, Evidence, or Attorney Argument Regarding Foreign
`
`Patent Proceedings and determining that good cause has been show, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED
`
`that the Motion is GRANTED.
`
`Respondents are precluded from introducing any testimony, evidence, or attorney
`
`argument regarding proceedings concerning foreign patents and patent applications.
`
`So ORDERED this
`
`day of
`
`,2008.
`
`Hon. Charles E. Bullock
`Administrative Law Judge