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
`
`
`
`
`
`COMPLAINANT BOSE CORPORATION’S RESPONSES TO
`RESPONDENTS’ JOINT OBJECTIONS TO BOSE’S
`PROPOSED DIRECT TRIAL EXHIBITS
`
`Pursuant to Order No. 12, Complainant Bose Corporation (“Bose”) hereby submits its
`
`Responses to Respondents’ Joint Objections to Bose’s Proposed Direct Trial Exhibits.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Respectfully submitted,
`
`
`
`FISH & RICHARDSON P.C.
`
`/s/ Autumn J.S. Hwang
`
`Ruffin B. Cordell
`Andrew R. Kopsidas
`Jeffrey R. Whieldon
`Autumn J.S. Hwang
`Steven A. Bowers
`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
`Stephen A. Marshall
`FISH & RICHARDSON P.C.
`225 Franklin Street
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Dated: October 22, 2008
`
`

`
`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
`
`
`
` 2
`
`

`
`CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
`
`I hereby certify that on October 22, 2008, a copy of
`
`COMPLAINANT BOSE CORPORATION’S RESPONSES TO
`RESPONDENTS’ JOINT OBJECTIONS TO BOSE’S
`PROPOSED DIRECT TRIAL EXHIBITS
`__________________________________
`
`was served on the following as indicated:
`
`
` 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
`
`
`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
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
` 3
`
`

`
`
`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.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
` 4
`
` 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 Edelin, Jr.
`
`Patrick 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
`
`
`
`
`
`
` 5
`
`

`
`
`
`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
`
`COMPLAINANT BOSE CORPORATION’S RESPONSES TO
`RESPONDENTS’ JOINT OBJECTIONS TO BOSE’S PROPOSED DIRECT TRIAL EXHIBITS
`
`
`
`Key to Code for Respondents’ Objections:
`
` A
`
` = “Authentication Lacking: The exhibit is objectionable because the exhibit has not been properly authenticated. Fed. R. Evid. 901.” AS WELL
`AS “901”
`
`AQ = “Argumentative Question: The question is objectionable because it is argumentative. Fed. R. Evid. 611.”
`
` B
`
` = “Not Best Evidence: The testimony or exhibit is objectionable because it is vague and ambiguous as to whether the witness is summarizing
`his/her/its own independent understandings related to the document or the contents of a document. If the latter, the testimony constitutes an
`impermissible attempt to prove the content of a document with secondary evidence. Fed. R. Evid. 1001 - 1004.”
`
` C
`
` = “Misleading/Confusion of Issues/Waste of Time: The testimony or exhibit is objectionable because its probative value is substantially
`outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice, confusion of the issues, or by considerations of undue delay, waste of time, or needless presentation of
`cumulative evidence. Fed. R. Evid. 403.” AS WELL AS “403”
`
`
`BOSE’S RESPONSES TO RESPONDENTS’ JOINT OBJECTIONS TO BOSE’S PROPOSED DIRECT TRIAL EXHIBITS - PAGE 1
`
`

`
`COM = “Fed R. Evid. 408.” AS WELL AS “Improper evidence of compromise/offer to compromise (408);” AS WELL AS “improper evidence of
`compromise 408”
`
`CQ = “Compound Question: The question is objectionable because it contains two or more questions within a single question.”
`
` D
`
` = “Failure to Designate Excerpts: Bose has failed to designate the portions of the transcript it intends to use at trial. Respondents reserve the right
`to tender objections to the designated testimony.”
`
`DO = “Objections Made During Depositions: Respondents incorporate by reference the objections made by Respondents during the deposition.”
`
` E
`
` = “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, (2) 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.” AS WELL AS “contains improper expert
`opinions”
`
`ED = “No Expert Designation: The testimony or exhibit is objectionable because it constitutes attempted to offer expert testimony from a person who
`was not been designated as an expert and/or who did not submit an expert report. Fed. R. Civ. P. 26.”
`
`EG = “Furthermore, Respondents object globally to the tender of Dr. Begault as an expert witness. Dr. Begault's testimony is inadmissible because
`(1) Dr. Begault is not a qualified expert, (2) his testimony is not based upon sufficient facts or data, (3) his testimony is not the product of reliable
`principles and methods, (4) Dr. Begault has failed to apply the principles and methods reliably to the facts of the case, and (5) Dr. Begault 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.
`See Fed. R. Evid. 702.”
`
`EU = “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.”
`
` = “No Foundation: The testimony given lacks foundation.” AS WELL AS “Lack of foundation;”
`
`BOSE’S RESPONSES TO RESPONDENTS’ JOINT OBJECTIONS TO BOSE’S PROPOSED DIRECT TRIAL EXHIBITS - PAGE 2
`
` F
`
`
`
`

`
`G = “Respondents object because Bose has violated Ground Rule of Judge Charles E. Bullock 9.3 which requires in pertinent part: "A witness
`statement shall be in the form of numbered questions from counsel, with each question followed by the witness's own answer to that question, and
`with the final question from counsel asking the witness whether or not the witness' statement contains the witness's answers to the questions from
`counsel, followed by the witness's answer to this question and the witness's signature." First, the answers are not the witness's own answers to the
`questions. Second, Begault was not truthful in answering the question "whether or not the witness' statement contains the witness's answers to the
`questions from counsel." Instead,
`one need only superficially compare Begault's witness statement to Begault's expert reports to determine that what Bose did is merely insert questions
`into the body of Begault's expert reports and left the language in Begault's expert report largely unchanged. That is, Begault did not respond to the
`questions listed in the witness statement. Moreover, Begault's "witness' statement [did not] contain[ ] the witness's answers" but instead contained the
`answers of Bose's attorneys. (E.g., Begault Dep. Vol. I. 123:24 - 125:5, Vol. I. 127:3-19, Vol II. 475:22-477.4.)”
`
` H
`
` = “Hearsay in Exhibit or Testimony: The testimony or exhibit contains, is the result of, or is based upon hearsay. Fed. R. Evid. 801-802.” AS
`WELL AS “Hearsay in testimony 801-802;” AS WELL AS “802”
`
` I
`
` = Incomplete Exhibit: The exhibit is objectionable because it is incomplete and the introduction of the remaining poetions ought, in fairness, to be
`considered contemporaneously with it. Fed. R. Evid. 106. Respondents reserve all other objections.” AS WELL AS “and is incomplete 106”
`
`IC = “Improper incorporation of chart within testimony:”
`
`IF = “Incomplete Exhibt (Financial Summaries and Appendices Not Included)”
`
` K
`
` = “Witness Lacks Personal Knowledge: The testimony or exhibit is objectionable because it contains statements made by a person on a matter on
`which the person lacks personal knowledge. Fed. R. Evid. 602.” AS WELL AS “Lack of personal knowledge 602”
`
` L
`
` = “Leading Question: The question is objectionable because it is leading in that the question suggests the desired answer. Fed. R. Evid. 611.”
`
`
`LC = “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).” AS WELL AS “Question call for and
`answer contains improper legal conclusion;”
`
`MD = “Multiple Document Exhibit: This exhibit is objectionable because it contains multiple documents that have no apparent relationship to one
`another.”
`
`BOSE’S RESPONSES TO RESPONDENTS’ JOINT OBJECTIONS TO BOSE’S PROPOSED DIRECT TRIAL EXHIBITS - PAGE 3
`
`

`
`
`NR = “Non-Responsive Answer: The testimony fails to address the subject matter of the question or the answer exceeds the scope of the question and
`constitutes a volunteered statement by the witness.” AS WELL AS “Nonresponsive answer.”
`
`NP = “Bose has not yet produced this exhibit to Respondents. Respondents reserve the right to object to the exhibit after receipt of same.”
`
` O
`
` = “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.” AS WELL AS “Inadmissible lay opinion (701);”
`
` P
`
` = “Privileged Communication: The testimony or exhibit is objectionable because it is a privileged communication. Fed. R. Civ. P. 501 (sic.).”
`
`
`QH = “Question Calls for Hearsay: The question is objectionable because the questions asks the witness to state hearsay. Fed. R. Evid. 801-802.” AS
`WELL AS “Calls for hearsay 801-802;”
`
` R
`
` = “Lacks Relevance: The testimony or exhibit is objectionable because it is not relevant. Fed. R. Evid. 402.” AS WELL AS “Irrelevant 401-402;”
`AS WELL AS “402”
`
` = “Calls for speculation;”
`
` S
`
`
`SUM = “Fed R. Evid. 1006.” AS WELL AS “1006”
`
`SW = “The Exhibit Lacks a Sponsoring Witness: The exhibit it 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.”
`
` = “Missing Translation: This exhibit is objectionable because it is missing a translation.”
`
` T
`
` = “Unreadable Exhibit: This exhibit is objectionable because the quality of the produced document is poor. Respondents reserve all other
`objections.”
`
` V
`
` = “Vague and Ambiguous Question: This exhibit is objectionable because it is vague and ambiguous, argumentative, constitutes harassment or is
`unduly embarrassing to the witness, or the question is leading. Fed. R. Evid. 611.” AS WELL AS “Vague and ambiguous question 611;”
`
`BOSE’S RESPONSES TO RESPONDENTS’ JOINT OBJECTIONS TO BOSE’S PROPOSED DIRECT TRIAL EXHIBITS - PAGE 4
`
` U
`
`

`
`
`VS = “constitutes a volunteered statement by the witness.”
`
`
`Exhibit
`No.
`CX-4
`
`Exhibit
`Description
`Certified
`Assignment for
`U.S. Patent No.
`5,181,252
`
`Sponsoring
`Witness
`Sapiejewski, R.
`Garrett, S.
`
`Purpose
`
`Infringement
`Validity
`Enforcement
`
`Respondents'
`Objections*
`A, H, I, SW
`
`Bose Response to Respondents' Objections
`
`The document is deemed authentic under Ground
`Rule 9.4.12, which categorically states that “[a]ll
`documents that appear to be regular on their face
`shall be deemed authentic, unless it is shown by
`particularized evidence that the document is a
`forgery or is not what it purports to be.”
`Document is not hearsay pursuant to FRE 803. It
`is reliable and should be admitted because the
`nature of the information and the record makes it
`useful. Matter of Reclosable Plastic Bags, ITC
`Inv. No. 337-TA-22, Commission Memorandum
`Opinion at 13 (1977). Document is complete.
`Document will be sponsored by listed witness.
`The document is deemed authentic under Ground
`Rule 9.4.12, which categorically states that “[a]ll
`documents that appear to be regular on their face
`shall be deemed authentic, unless it is shown by
`particularized evidence that the document is a
`forgery or is not what it purports to be.”
`Document is not hearsay pursuant to FRE 803. It
`is reliable and should be admitted because the
`nature of the information and the record makes it
`useful. Matter of Reclosable Plastic Bags, ITC
`Inv. No. 337-TA-22, Commission Memorandum
`Opinion at 13 (1977). Document is complete.
`Document will be sponsored by listed witness.
`
`CX-5
`
`Certified
`Assignment for
`U.S. Patent No.
`6,597,792
`
`Sapiejewski, R.
`Monahan, M.
`Garrett, S.
`
`Infringement
`Validity
`Enforcement
`
`A, H, I, SW
`
`BOSE’S RESPONSES TO RESPONDENTS’ JOINT OBJECTIONS TO BOSE’S PROPOSED DIRECT TRIAL EXHIBITS - PAGE 5
`
`

`
`Exhibit
`No.
`CX-6
`
`Exhibit
`Description
`Certified
`Assignment for
`U.S. Patent No.
`4,922,542
`
`Sponsoring
`Witness
`Sapiejewski, R.
`Garrett, S.
`
`Purpose
`
`Infringement
`Validity
`Enforcement
`
`Respondents'
`Objections*
`A, H, I, SW
`
`CX-9
`
`Certified File
`History for U.S.
`Patent No.
`4,922,542
`
`Sapiejewski, R.
`Garrett, S.
`
`Infringement
`Validity
`Enforcement
`
`A, H, SW
`
`CX-10
`
`U.S. Patent No.
`1,807,225
`
`Begault, D.
`
`Infringement
`Validity
`Enforcement
`
`A, H, I, SW
`
`Bose Response to Respondents' Objections
`
`The document is deemed authentic under Ground
`Rule 9.4.12, which categorically states that “[a]ll
`documents that appear to be regular on their face
`shall be deemed authentic, unless it is shown by
`particularized evidence that the document is a
`forgery or is not what it purports to be.”
`Document is not hearsay pursuant to FRE 803.
`Document is complete.
`Document will be sponsored by listed witness.
`The document is deemed authentic under Ground
`Rule 9.4.12, which categorically states that “[a]ll
`documents that appear to be regular on their face
`shall be deemed authentic, unless it is shown by
`particularized evidence that the document is a
`forgery or is not what it purports to be.”
`Document is not hearsay under FRE 803. It is
`reliable and should be admitted because the
`nature of the information and the record makes it
`useful. Matter of Reclosable Plastic Bags, ITC
`Inv. No. 337-TA-22, Commission Memorandum
`Opinion at 13 (1977). Document will be
`sponsored by listed witness.
`The document is deemed authentic under Ground
`Rule 9.4.12, which categorically states that “[a]ll
`documents that appear to be regular on their face
`shall be deemed authentic, unless it is shown by
`particularized evidence that the document is a
`forgery or is not what it purports to be.”
`Document is not hearsay pursuant to FRE 803. It
`is reliable and should be admitted because the
`nature of the information and the record makes it
`
`BOSE’S RESPONSES TO RESPONDENTS’ JOINT OBJECTIONS TO BOSE’S PROPOSED DIRECT TRIAL EXHIBITS - PAGE 6
`
`

`
`Exhibit
`No.
`
`Exhibit
`Description
`
`Sponsoring
`Witness
`
`Purpose
`
`Respondents'
`Objections*
`
`CX-18
`
`U.S. Patent No.
`4,922,542
`
`Sapiejewski, R.
`Begault, D.
`
`Infringement
`Validity
`Enforcement
`
`A, H, I, SW
`
`CX-22
`
`NL1122453
`
`Begault, D.
`
`Infringement
`Validity
`Enforcement
`
`A, H, I, SW
`
`Bose Response to Respondents' Objections
`
`useful. Matter of Reclosable Plastic Bags, ITC
`Inv. No. 337-TA-22, Commission Memorandum
`Opinion at 13 (1977). Document is complete.
`Document will be sponsored by listed witness.
`
`The document is deemed authentic under Ground
`Rule 9.4.12, which categorically states that “[a]ll
`documents that appear to be regular on their face
`shall be deemed authentic, unless it is shown by
`particularized evidence that the document is a
`forgery or is not what it purports to be.”
`Document is not hearsay pursuant to FRE 803. It
`is reliable and should be admitted because the
`nature of the information and the record makes it
`useful. Matter of Reclosable Plastic Bags, ITC
`Inv. No. 337-TA-22, Commission Memorandum
`Opinion at 13 (1977). Document is complete.
`Document will be sponsored by listed witness.
`The document is deemed authentic under Ground
`Rule 9.4.12, which categorically states that “[a]ll
`documents that appear to be regular on their face
`shall be deemed authentic, unless it is shown by
`particularized evidence that the document is a
`forgery or is not what it purports to be.”
`Document is not hearsay pursuant to FRE 803. It
`is reliable and should be admitted because the
`nature of the information and the record makes it
`useful. Matter of Reclosable Plastic Bags, ITC
`Inv. No. 337-TA-22, Commission Memorandum
`
`BOSE’S RESPONSES TO RESPONDENTS’ JOINT OBJECTIONS TO BOSE’S PROPOSED DIRECT TRIAL EXHIBITS - PAGE 7
`
`

`
`Exhibit
`No.
`
`Exhibit
`Description
`
`Sponsoring
`Witness
`
`Purpose
`
`Respondents'
`Objections*
`
`Bose Response to Respondents' Objections
`
`Opinion at 13 (1977). Document is complete.
`Document will be sponsored by listed witness.
`
`CX-24
`
`GB2187631 (A)
`
`Begault, D.
`
`Infringement
`Validity
`Enforcement
`
`A, H, I, SW
`
`CX-25
`
`U.S. Patent No.
`1,368,307
`
`Begault, D.
`
`Infringement
`Validity
`Enforcement
`
`A, H, I, SW
`
`The document is deemed authentic under Ground
`Rule 9.4.12, which categorically states that “[a]ll
`documents that appear to be regular on their face
`shall be deemed authentic, unless it is shown by
`particularized evidence that the document is a
`forgery or is not what it purports to be.”
`Document is not hearsay pursuant to FRE 803. It
`is reliable and should be admitted because the
`nature of the information and the record makes it
`useful. Matter of Reclosable Plastic Bags, ITC
`Inv. No. 337-TA-22, Commission Memorandum
`Opinion at 13 (1977). Document is complete.
`Document will be sponsored by listed witness.
`The document is deemed authentic under Ground
`Rule 9.4.12, which categorically states that “[a]ll
`documents that appear to be regular on their face
`shall be deemed authentic, unless it is shown by
`particularized evidence that the document is a
`forgery or is not what it purports to be.”
`Document is not hearsay pursuant to FRE 803. It
`is reliable and should be admitted because the
`nature of the information and the record makes it
`useful. Matter of Reclosable Plastic Bags, ITC
`Inv. No. 337-TA-22, Commission Memorandum
`
`BOSE’S RESPONSES TO RESPONDENTS’ JOINT OBJECTIONS TO BOSE’S PROPOSED DIRECT TRIAL EXHIBITS - PAGE 8
`
`

`
`Exhibit
`No.
`
`Exhibit
`Description
`
`Sponsoring
`Witness
`
`Purpose
`
`Respondents'
`Objections*
`
`Bose Response to Respondents' Objections
`
`Opinion at 13 (1977). Document is complete.
`Document will be sponsored by listed witness.
`
`CX-30
`
`U.S. Patent No.
`3,220,505
`
`Begault, D.
`
`Infringement
`Validity
`Enforcement
`
`A, H, I, SW
`
`CX-34
`
`U.S. Patent No.
`4,441,576
`
`Begault, D.
`
`Infringement
`Validity
`Enforcement
`
`A, H, SW, I, T
`
`The document is deemed authentic under Ground
`Rule 9.4.12, which categorically states that “[a]ll
`documents that appear to be regular on their face
`shall be deemed authentic, unless it is shown by
`particularized evidence that the document is a
`forgery or is not what it purports to be.”
`Document is not hearsay pursuant to FRE 803.
`Document is complete.
`Document will be sponsored by listed witness.
`The document is deemed authentic under Ground
`Rule 9.4.12, which categorically states that “[a]ll
`documents that appear to be regular on their face
`shall be deemed authentic, unless it is shown by
`particularized evidence that the document is a
`forgery or is not what it purports to be.”
`Document is not hearsay pursuant to FRE 803. It
`is reliable and should be admitted because the
`nature of the information and the record makes it
`useful. Matter of Reclosable Plastic Bags, ITC
`Inv. No. 337-TA-22, Commission Memorandum
`Opinion at 13 (1977). Document is complete.
`Document will be sponsored by listed witness.
`Translation issues are being negotiated by the
`parties.
`
`BOSE’S RESPONSES TO RESPONDENTS’ JOINT OBJECTIONS TO BOSE’S PROPOSED DIRECT TRIAL EXHIBITS - PAGE 9
`
`

`
`Exhibit
`No.
`CX-40
`
`Exhibit
`Description
`JP60217793
`
`Sponsoring
`Witness
`Begault, D.
`
`Purpose
`
`Infringement
`Validity
`Enforcement
`
`Respondents'
`Objections*
`A, H, SW
`
`CX-42
`
`Initial Expert
`Report of Durand
`R. Begault
`
`Begault, D.
`
`Infringement
`Validity
`Enforcement
`
`H, E, O, LC
`
`CX-
`42.A
`
`See Joint Exhibit
`List (JX-1)
`
`Begault, D.
`
`Infringement
`Validity
`Enforcement
`
`H, E, O, LC
`
`Bose Response to Respondents' Objections
`
`The document is deemed authentic under Ground
`Rule 9.4.12, which categorically states that “[a]ll
`documents that appear to be regular on their face
`shall be deemed authentic, unless it is shown by
`particularized evidence that the document is a
`forgery or is not what it purports to be.”
`Document is not hearsay pursuant to FRE 803. It
`is reliable and should be admitted because the
`nature of the information and the record makes it
`useful. Matter of Reclosable Plastic Bags, ITC
`Inv. No. 337-TA-22, Commission Memorandum
`Opinion at 13 (1977). Document will be
`sponsored by listed witness.
`Exhibit is reliable and should be admitted because
`the nature of the information and the record
`makes it useful. Matter of Reclosable Plastic
`Bags, ITC Inv. No. 337-TA-22, Commission
`Memorandum Opinion at 13 (1977). See Specific
`Responses to Begault Testimony.
`Exhibit is appropriate under FRE 704.
`Document is not hearsay pursuant to FRE 803. It
`is reliable and should be admitted because the
`nature of the information and the record makes it
`useful. Matter of Reclosable Plastic Bags, ITC
`Inv. No. 337-TA-22, Commission Memorandum
`Opinion at 13 (1977). See Specific Responses to
`Begault Testimony. This is a copy of a U.S.
`Patent, not a legal conclusion.
`
`BOSE’S RESPONSES TO RESPONDENTS’ JOINT OBJECTIONS TO BOSE’S PROPOSED DIRECT TRIAL EXHIBITS - PAGE 10
`
`

`
`Exhibit
`Exhibit
`Description
`No.
`CX-42.B See Joint Exhibit
`List (JX-2)
`
`Sponsoring
`Witness
`Begault, D.
`
`Purpose
`
`Infringement
`Validity
`Enforcement
`
`Respondents'
`Objections*
`H, E, O, LC
`
`CX-42.C Exhibit C to Initial
`Expert Report of
`Durand R. Begault
`- Durand Begault
`Curriculum Vitae
`
`CX-
`42.D
`
`Exhibit D to Initial
`Expert Report of
`Durand R. Begault
`-Infringement
`Chart for U.S.
`Patent No.
`5,181,252
`CX-42.E Exhibit E to Initial
`Expert Report of
`Durand R. Begault
`
`Begault, D.
`
`Infringement
`Validity
`Enforcement
`
`H, E, O, LC
`
`Begault, D.
`
`Infringement
`Validity
`Enforcement
`
`H, E, O, LC
`
`Begault, D.
`
`Infringement
`Validity
`Enforcement
`
`H, E, O, LC
`
`Bose Response to Respondents' Objections
`
`Document is not hearsay pursuant to FRE 803. It
`is reliable and should be admitted because the
`nature of the information and the record makes it
`useful. Matter of Reclosable Plastic Bags, ITC
`Inv. No. 337-TA-22, Commission Memorandum
`Opinion at 13 (1977). See Specific Responses to
`Begault Testimony. This is a copy of a U.S.
`Patent, not a legal conclusion.
`Exhibit is reliable and should be admitted because
`the nature of the information and the record
`makes it useful. Matter of Reclosable Plastic
`Bags, ITC Inv. No. 337-TA-22, Commission
`Memorandum Opinion at 13 (1977). See Specific
`Responses to Begault Testimony. This is a
`copy of a resume, not a legal conclusion.
`Exhibit is reliable and should be admitted because
`the nature of the information and the record
`makes it useful. Matter of Reclosable Plastic
`Bags, ITC Inv. No. 337-TA-22, Commission
`Memorandum Opinion at 13 (1977). See Specific
`Responses to Begault Testimony. Exhibit is
`appropriate under FRE 704.
`Exhibit is reliable and should be admitted because
`the nature of the information and the record
`makes it useful. Matter of Reclosable Plastic
`Bags, ITC Inv. No. 337-TA-22, Commission
`Memorandum Opinion at 13 (1977). See Specific
`Responses to Begault Testimony. Exhibit is
`appropriate under FRE 704.
`
`BOSE’S RESPONSES TO RESPONDENTS’ JOINT OBJECTIONS TO BOSE’S PROPOSED DIRECT TRIAL EXHIBITS - PAGE 11
`
`

`
`Sponsoring
`Witness
`Begault, D.
`
`Purpose
`
`Infringement
`Validity
`Enforcement
`
`Respondents'
`Objections*
`H, E, O, LC
`
`Begault, D.
`
`Infringement
`Validity
`Enforcement
`
`H, E, O, LC
`
`Begault, D.
`
`Infringement
`Validity
`Enforcement
`
`H, E, O, LC
`
`Begault, D.
`
`Infringement
`Validity
`Enforcement
`
`H, E, O, LC
`
`Exhibit
`Exhibit
`Description
`No.
`CX-42.F Exhibit F to Initial
`Expert Report of
`Durand R. Begault
`-Bose Technical
`Domestic Industry
`Claim Chart for
`U.S. Patent No.
`5,181,252
`Exhibit G to Initial
`Expert Report of
`Durand R. Begault
`
`CX-
`42.G
`
`CX-
`42.H
`
`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
`
`Bose Response to Respondents' Objections
`
`Exhibit is reliable and should be admitted because
`the nature of the information and the record
`makes it useful. Matter of Reclosable Plastic
`Bags, ITC Inv. No. 337-TA-22, Commission
`Memorandum Opinion at 13 (1977). See Specific
`Responses to Begault Testimony. Exhibit is
`appropriate under FRE 704.
`
`Exhibit is reliable and should be admitted because
`the nature of the information and the record
`makes it useful. Matter of Reclosable Plastic
`Bags, ITC Inv. No. 337-TA-22, Commission
`Memorandum Opinion at 13 (1977). See
`Specific Responses to Begault Testimony.
`Exhibit is appropriate under FRE 704.
`Exhibit is reliable and should be admitted because
`the nature of the information and the record
`makes it useful. Matter of Reclosable Plastic
`Bags, ITC Inv. No. 337-TA-22, Commission
`Memorandum Opinion at 13 (1977). See Specific
`Responses to Begault Testimony. Exhibit is
`appropriate under FRE 704.
`Exhibit is reliable and should be admitted because
`the nature of the information and the record
`makes it useful. Matter of Reclosable Plastic
`Bags, ITC Inv. No. 337-TA-22, Commission
`Memorandum Opinion at 13 (1977). See Specific
`Responses to Begault Testimony. Exhibit is
`appropriate under FRE 704.
`
`BOSE’S RESPONSES TO RESPONDENTS’ JOINT OBJECTIONS TO BOSE’S PROPOSED DIRECT TRIAL EXHIBITS - PAGE 12
`
`

`
`Exhibit
`Exhibit
`Description
`No.
`CX-45C Rebuttal Expert
`Report of Durand
`R. Begault
`
`Sponsoring
`Witness
`Begault, D.
`
`Purpose
`
`Infringement
`Validity
`Enforcement
`
`Respondents'
`Objections*
`H, E, O, LC
`
`CX-47C E-mail regarding
`QuietPoint ANC7
`Fun Facts
`CX-48C Analysis of U.S.
`Portable and Home
`Headphones
`Market, 2003-2008
`Executive
`Summary
`
`Edwards, M.
`Green, J.
`Cajka, P.
`Edwards, M.
`Green, J.
`Cajka, P.
`
`Infringement
`Importation
`Remedy
`Infringement
`Importation
`Remedy
`
`H, E, O, LC
`
`H, MD, P, R, C
`
`Bose Response to Respondents' Objections
`
`The exhibit is reliable and should be admitted
`because the nature of the information and the
`record makes it useful. Matter of Reclosable
`Plastic Bags, ITC Inv. No. 337-TA-22,
`Commission Memorandum Opinion at 13 (1977).
`See Specific Responses to Begault Testimony.
`Exhibit is appropriate under FRE 704.
`Withdrawn
`
`Document is not hearsay pursuant to FRE 803. It
`is reliable and should be admitted because the
`nature of the information and the record makes it
`useful. Matter of Reclosable Plastic Bags, ITC
`Inv. No. 337-TA-22, Commission Memorandum
`Opinion at 13 (1977). The exhibit reflects a
`distinct part of a document and reflects document
`boundaries of Respondents' own productions.
`The document contains neither attorney-client
`communication nor was it prepared in anticipation
`of litigation. To the extent the privilege objection
`is raised regarding exhibits taken from
`Respondents’ own document productions, such
`objection is waived by virtue of their having
`produced it to Bose. The document is relevant to
`the corresponding purpose stated on the exhibit
`list. The exhibit is probative and not prejudicial,
`and the ALJ can properly determine the weight to
`afford the exhibit.
`
`BOSE’S RESPONSES TO RESPONDENTS’ JOINT OBJECTIONS TO BOSE’S PROPOSED DIRECT TRIAL EXHIBITS - PAGE 13
`
`

`
`Exhibit
`Exhibit
`Description
`No.
`CX-49C E-mail regarding
`noise cancelling
`explanation
`
`Sponsoring
`Witness
`Edwards, M.
`Green, J.
`Cajka, P.
`
`Purpose
`
`Infringement
`
`Respondents'
`Objections*
`H, P
`
`CX-50C E-mail regarding
`NERAC
`
`Edwards, M.
`Green, J.
`Cajka, P.
`
`Infringement
`Validity
`
`H, P
`
`CX-52C Advertising ATH-
`ANC7 & ATH-
`ANC3 & new QP
`mode