UNITED STATES INTERNATIONAL TRADE COMMI
`WASHINGTON, D.C. 20436
`
`Before Honorable Charles E. Bullock
`Administrative Law Judge
`
`In the Matter of
`
`CERTAIN NOISE CANCELLING
`HEADPHONES
`
`COMPLAINANT BOSE CORPORATION’S MOTION IN LIMINE TO PRECLUDE
`RESPONDENTS FROM INTRODUCING TESTIMONY, EVIDENCE, OR ATTORNEY
`ARGUMENT REGARDING FOREIGN PATENT PROCEEDINGS
`
`Complainant Bose Corporation (“Bose”) respectfully submits this motion in limine, 3
`pursuant to 19 C.F.R. 3 210.37, to preclude Respondents from introducing testimony, evidencb,
`v
`or attorney argument concerning the foreign counterparts to the patents-in-suit.
`3
`Pursuant to 19 C.F.R. 0 210.37(b), “[i]rrelevant, immaterial, unreliable, or unduly h;) ..
`repetitious evidence shall be excluded.” This investigation concerns United States Patent MI. LJ
`
`“ ’3
`-7
`
`,
`
`5,181,252 (“the ’252 patent”) and Unites States Patent No. 6,597,792 (“the ’792 patent”), not
`
`counterpart patents that Bose owns or owned in Europe and other foreign jurisdictions. Foreign
`
`determinations of validity for a foreign counterpart application are irrelevant to validity of a
`
`United States Patent. See, e.g., Heidelberger Druckmaschinen AG v. Hantscho Commercial
`
`Prods., 21 F.3d 1068, 1072 (Fed. Cir. 1994) (holding that district court placed too much reliance
`
`on a foreign patent office’s decision and explaining that because United States laws are applied
`
`to determine whether a U.S. patent is valid, foreign prosecution has no relevance to the ultimate
`
`issue of validity); Medtronic, Inc. v. Daig Corp., 789 F.2d 903, 907-908 (Fed. Cir. 1986) (“Daig
`
`urges this court to adopt the conclusion of a [foreign] tribunal holding the [foreign] counterpart
`
`
`WASHINGTON, D.C. 20436
`
`Before Honorable Charles E. Bullock
`Administrative Law Judge
`
`In the Matter of
`
`CERTAIN NOISE CANCELLING
`HEADPHONES
`
`COMPLAINANT BOSE CORPORATION’S MOTION IN LIMINE TO PRECLUDE
`RESPONDENTS FROM INTRODUCING TESTIMONY, EVIDENCE, OR ATTORNEY
`ARGUMENT REGARDING FOREIGN PATENT PROCEEDINGS
`
`Complainant Bose Corporation (“Bose”) respectfully submits this motion in limine, 3
`pursuant to 19 C.F.R. 3 210.37, to preclude Respondents from introducing testimony, evidencb,
`v
`or attorney argument concerning the foreign counterparts to the patents-in-suit.
`3
`Pursuant to 19 C.F.R. 0 210.37(b), “[i]rrelevant, immaterial, unreliable, or unduly h;) ..
`repetitious evidence shall be excluded.” This investigation concerns United States Patent MI. LJ
`
`“ ’3
`-7
`
`,
`
`5,181,252 (“the ’252 patent”) and Unites States Patent No. 6,597,792 (“the ’792 patent”), not
`
`counterpart patents that Bose owns or owned in Europe and other foreign jurisdictions. Foreign
`
`determinations of validity for a foreign counterpart application are irrelevant to validity of a
`
`United States Patent. See, e.g., Heidelberger Druckmaschinen AG v. Hantscho Commercial
`
`Prods., 21 F.3d 1068, 1072 (Fed. Cir. 1994) (holding that district court placed too much reliance
`
`on a foreign patent office’s decision and explaining that because United States laws are applied
`
`to determine whether a U.S. patent is valid, foreign prosecution has no relevance to the ultimate
`
`issue of validity); Medtronic, Inc. v. Daig Corp., 789 F.2d 903, 907-908 (Fed. Cir. 1986) (“Daig
`
`urges this court to adopt the conclusion of a [foreign] tribunal holding the [foreign] counterpart
`
`
`
`patent obvious. This argument is specious.”); In re Dulberg, 472 F.2d 1394, 1398 (C.C.P.A.
`
`1973) (“we need not even consider the actions taken in foreign countries with regard to the
`
`patentability of this application under our law.”); Oki Am., Inc. v. Advanced Micro Devices, Inc.,
`
`2006 WL 3290577, at “8 n.2 (N.D. Cal. Nov. 13,2006) (“[c]ourts in the United States do not
`
`defer to decisions in foreign courts or patent offices on questions of validity); Pharmastem
`
`Therapeutics, Inc. v. Viacell Inc., 2003 WL 22244704 (D. Del. Sept. 30,2003) (granting
`
`plaintiffs motion in limine to exclude as irrelevant an EPO rejection of a counterpart patent
`
`because “the EPO Decision’s probative value [was] substantially outweighed by the risk of
`
`unfair prejudice to Pharmastem.”).
`
`In particular, Respondents should be prohibited from asserting that the decision of the
`
`European Patent Office to revoke EP0414479 has any weight in this proceeding. EP0414479
`
`was the European counterpart of the ’252 patent and was examined under European patent law,
`
`not under United States patent laws that apply in this Investigation. The decisions of foreign
`
`tribunals have no bearing on the validity of U.S. patents under U.S. patent law and, therefore,
`
`should not be admitted as evidence. See Pharmastem, 2003 WL 22244704; Heidelberger, 2 1
`
`F.3d at 1072.
`
`Admission of any evidence of the EP0414479 into this proceeding would be not only
`
`irrelevant and immaterial, but is also extremely prejudicial. Although EP0414479 was revoked
`
`by the European Patent Office, it nether contains the same claim language as the ’252 patent, nor
`
`was it evaluated under United States patent laws. Permitting the Respondents to use a decision
`
`by the European Patent Office evaluating a different patent under a different set of laws and
`
`different standard of proof to create an inference that the ’252 patent is invalid under United
`
`States patent law would be improper and highly prejudicial. Moreover, it would improperly shift
`
`2
`
`
`
`the burden of proving invalidity from the Respondents to Bose to prove validity, which is not
`
`permitted. See, e.g., American Hoist & Derrick Co. v. Sowa & Sons, Inc., 725 F.2d 1350 (Fed.
`
`Cir. 1984) (holding that the burden of proving invalidity on attacker of patent is constant and
`
`never changes).
`For at least these reasons, Respondents should be precluded under 19 C.F.R. 6 2 10.37
`
`from introducing any testimony, evidence, or attorney argument regarding proceedings
`
`concerning foreign patents and patent applications.
`
`Dated: October 17,2008
`
`Respecthlly submitted,
`
`FISH & RICHARDSON P.C.
`
`I
`
`Andrew R. Kopsidas
`Jeffrey R. Whieldon
`Autumn J.S. Hwang
`Steven A. Bowers
`FISH & RICHARDSON P.C.
`1425 K Street, N.W.
`1 1 th Floor
`Washington, D.C. 20005
`Telephone: (202) 783-5070
`Facsimile: (202) 783-2331
`
`Charles Hieken
`Gregory A. Madera
`Stephen A. Marshall
`FISH & RICHARDSON P.C.
`225 Franklin Street
`Boston, MA 02 1 10
`Telephone: (617) 542-5070
`Facsimile: (617) 542-8906
`
`Jordan T. Fowles
`FISH & RICHARDSON P.C.
`1717 Main Street
`Suite 5000
`3
`
`
`
`Dallas, TX 75201
`Telephone: (214) 747-5070
`Facsimile: (214) 747-2091
`
`Attorneys for Complainant
`Bose Corporation
`
`4
`
`
`
`CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
`
`I hereby certify that on October 17,2008, a copy of
`
`COMPLAINANT BOSE’S MOTION IN LIMINE TO PRECLUDE RESPONDENTS
`FROM INTRODUCING TESTIMONY, EVIDENCE, OR ATTORNEY ARGUMENT
`REGARDING FOREIGN PATENT PROCEEDINGS
`
`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
`
`[XI Via Hand Delivery
`ViaU.S. Mail
`0 Via Overnight Delivery
`Via Electronic Mail
`[7 Via Facsimile
`[7 Via Electronic Docket Filing
`Notserved
`
`Via Hand Delivery
`0 ViaU.S. Mail
`[7 Via Overnight Delivery
`0 Via Electronic Mail
`0 Via Facsimile
`0 Via Electronic Docket Filing
`0 Notserved
`
`Via Hand Delivery
`0 ViaU.S. Mail
`Via Overnight Delivery
`Via Electronic Mail
`[7 Via Facsimile
`[7 Via Electronic Docket Filing
`[7 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 Straws Hauer & Feld LLP
`1333 New Hampshire Ave., N.W.
`Washington, DC 20036
`
`Counsel for Respondent Audio Technica US.,
`Inc.
`
`2 Via Hand Delivery
`2 Via U.S. Mail
`2 Via Overnight Delivery
`Via Electronic Mail
`3 Via Facsimile
`3 Via Electronic Docket Filing
`3 NotServed
`
`3 Via Hand Delivery
`a ViaU.S. Mail
`0 Via Overnight Delivery
`Via Electronic Mail
`0 Via Facsimile
`Via Electronic Docket Filing
`Not Served
`
`[7 Via Hand Delivery
`ViaU.S. Mail
`Via Overnight Delivery
`Via Electronic Mail
`0 Via Facsimile
`0 Via Electronic Docket Filing
`0 NotServed
`
`0 Via Hand Delivery
`0 Via U.S. Mail
`0 Via Overnight Delivery
`Via Electronic Mail
`0 Via Facsimile
`Via Electronic Docket Filing
`0 Not Served
`
`
`
`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
`
`0 Via Hand Delivery
`0 Via U.S. Mail
`0 Via overnight Delivery
`IXI Via Electronic Mail
`0 Via Facsimile
`0 Via Electronic Docket Filing
`0 Notserved
`
`0 Via Hand Delivery
`Via U.S. Mail
`0 Via Overnight Delivery
`IXI Via Electronic Mail
`0 Via Facsimile
`Via Electronic Docket Filing
`0 Notserved
`
`I
`
`,f
`
`
`
`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 CORPORATION’S MOTION IN LIMINE TO
`PRECLUDE RESPONDENTS FROM INTRODUCING TESTIMONY, EVIDENCE,
`OR ATTORNEY ARGUMENT REGARDING FOREIGN PATENT PROCEEDINGS
`
`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
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
