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’S RESPONSES TO
`RESPONDENTS’ JOINT OBJECTIONS TO BOSE’S PROPOSED REBUTTAL
`TRIAL EXHIBITS
`
`
`
`Pursuant to Order No. 12, Complainant Bose Corporation (“Bose”) hereby submits its
`
`
`
`Responses to Respondents’ Joint Objections to Bose’s Proposed Rebuttal Trial Exhibits.
`
`Bose reserves the right to supplement and/or amend its responses to Respondents’ joint
`
`objections.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`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
`
`
`
`
`
`Dated: November 10, 2008
`
`
`
`

`
`Charles Hieken
`Gregory A. Madera
`Stephen A. Marshall
`FISH & RICHARDSON P.C.
`225 Franklin Street
`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 November 10, 2008, a copy of
`
`COMPLAINANT BOSE CORPORATION’S RESPONSES TO RESPONDENTS’ JOINT
`OBJECTIONS TO BOSE’S PROPOSED REBUTTAL
`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
`
` 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
`
`
`
`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.
`
`
`
`
`

`
` 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
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`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.
`
`
`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
`
`
`
`
`

`
`
`
`
`
` 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.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`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
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`

`
`COMPLAINANT BOSE CORPORATION’S RESPONSES TO
`RESPONDENTS’ JOINT OBJECTIONS TO BOSE’S PROPOSED REBUTTAL TRIAL EXHIBITS
`
`
`
`Key to Code for Respondents’ Objections:
`
` = “Authentication Lacking: The exhibit is objectionable because the exhibit has not been properly authenticated. Fed. R. Evid. 901.” as well as
`“901”
`
` A
`
` 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”
`
` 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.”
`
`EU = “Undisclosed Expert Opinion: The testimony is objectionable because the witness failed to disclose the testimony in the witness’s expert
`report. Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(a)(2).”
`
` F
`
` = “No Foundation: The testimony given lacks foundation.” as well as “Lack of foundation.” as well as “Question Lacks Foundation: The question
`is objectionable because it lacks foundation because th question assumes facts not in evidence.”
`
` 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”
`
`BOSE’S RESPONSES TO RESPONDENTS’ JOINT OBJECTIONS TO BOSE’S PROPOSED REBUTTAL TRIAL EXHIBITS - PAGE 1
`
`

`
` 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;”
`
`ND = “Not Produced During Discvoery: The testimony or exhibit is objectionable because it was not produced during discovery or disclose din
`response to a discovery request.”
`
`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.”
`
` 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);”
`
`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”
`
`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.”
`
`
`
`BOSE’S RESPONSES TO RESPONDENTS’ JOINT OBJECTIONS TO BOSE’S PROPOSED REBUTTAL TRIAL EXHIBITS - PAGE 2
`
`

`
`Bose’s Responses
`
`This exhibit is not being offered for the truth of
`the matter asserted, but rather is offered to show
`that the statement was made. This 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).
`The exhibit is authenticated through the testimony
`of the sponsoring witness, Dan Guager. This
`exhibit is relative to at least validity, particularly
`secondary factors that the asserted patents were
`not obvious. This exhibit clarifies the issues, is
`not prejudicial, and is not a waste of time. This
`document is "relevant, material, and reliable
`evidence shall be admitted" as provided by 19
`CFR 210.37(b).
`The exhibit is authenticated through the testimony
`of the sponsoring witness, Dan Guager. This
`exhibit is relative to at least validity, particularly
`secondary factors that the asserted patents were
`not obvious. This exhibit clarifies the issues, is
`not prejudicial, and is not a waste of time. This
`document is "relevant, material, and reliable
`evidence shall be admitted" as provided by 19
`CFR 210.37(b).
`
`Sponsoring
`Witness
`Garrett, S.
`
`Purpose
`
`Validity
`
`Respondents’
`Objections
`H
`
`Gauger, D.
`
`Validity
`
`A, R, C
`
`Gauger, D.
`
`Validity
`
`A, R, C
`
`Exhibit
`Description
`The New York
`Times article
`titled
`"Headphones to
`Eliminate Travel
`Noise"
`
`Letter from Dan
`Gauger to
`Voyager Aircraft
`regarding
`corrected design
`
`Letter from Dan
`Gauger to EAA
`Aviation
`Foundation
`regarding model
`headsets for
`Voyager exhibit
`
`Exhibit
`No.
`CX-798C
`
`
`
`CX-1474
`
`CX-1475
`
`BOSE’S RESPONSES TO RESPONDENTS’ JOINT OBJECTIONS TO BOSE’S PROPOSED REBUTTAL TRIAL EXHIBITS - PAGE 3
`
`

`
`Sponsoring
`Witness
`Gauger, D.
`
`Purpose
`
`Validity
`
`Respondents’
`Objections
`A, R, C
`
`Exhibit
`No.
`CX-1476
`
`Exhibit
`Description
`Letter from Dan
`Gauger to
`National Air &
`Space Museum -
`Smithsonian
`Institute regarding
`offer to donate
`'round-the-world
`flight' headphones
`
`CX-1477C The Bose
`Aviation Headset
`background
`
`Gauger, D.
`
`Validity
`
`A, R, C
`
`CX-1478C Rebuttal Witness
`Statement of
`Durand Begault
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Begault, D.
`
`Infringement
`Validity
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Q&A No. 4
`Q&A No. 5
`
`L
`F, E, EU, O, ED, LC
`
`Bose’s Responses
`
`The exhibit is authenticated through the testimony
`of the sponsoring witness, Dan Guager. This
`exhibit is relative to at least validity, particularly
`secondary factors that the asserted patents were
`not obvious. This exhibit clarifies the issues, is
`not prejudicial, and is not a waste of time. This
`document is "relevant, material, and reliable
`evidence shall be admitted" as provided by 19
`CFR 210.37(b).
`The exhibit is authenticated through the testimony
`of the sponsoring witness, Dan Guager. This
`exhibit is relative to at least validity, particularly
`secondary factors that the asserted patents were
`not obvious. This exhibit clarifies the issues, is
`not prejudicial, and is not a waste of time. This
`document is "relevant, material, and reliable
`evidence shall be admitted" as provided by 19
`CFR 210.37(b).
`
`
`The question is not a leading question.
`The question does not lack foundation.
`
`Qualified Expert Testimony: The testimony is
`admissible because (1) the witness is a qualified
`expert, (2) the testimony is based upon sufficient
`facts or data, (3) the testimony is the product of
`reliable principles and methods, (4) the witness
`has applied the principles and methods reliably to
`the facts of the case, and (5) the testimony does
`
`BOSE’S RESPONSES TO RESPONDENTS’ JOINT OBJECTIONS TO BOSE’S PROPOSED REBUTTAL TRIAL EXHIBITS - PAGE 4
`
`

`
`Exhibit
`No.
`
`Exhibit
`Description
`
`Sponsoring
`Witness
`
`Purpose
`
`Respondents’
`Objections
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Q&A No. 6
`
`L, F, E, EU, O, ED,
`LC
`
`Bose’s Responses
`
`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.
`
`Disclosed Expert Opinion: The witness did
`disclose the testimony in the witness’ expert
`report. See, e.g., CX-45C, pp. 6 – 36.
`
`Not Inadmissible Lay Opinion: The witness is a
`qualified expert.
`
`Dr. Begault was designated as an expert witness
`by Complainant and his expert opinions were
`disclosed in expert reports and at his deposition.
`
`Not Legal Conclusion: The testimony or exhibit
`embraces an ultimate issue to be decided by the
`trier of fact; the expert witness is not rendering a
`legal opinion.
`
`Respondents’ objections (1) are premised entirely
`on attorney argument, (2) are not based on any
`admissible evidence, and (3) go to the weight, not
`the admissibility of the evidence.
`The question is not a leading question.
`
`The question does not lack foundation.
`
`Qualified Expert Testimony: The testimony is
`admissible because (1) the witness is a qualified
`
`BOSE’S RESPONSES TO RESPONDENTS’ JOINT OBJECTIONS TO BOSE’S PROPOSED REBUTTAL TRIAL EXHIBITS - PAGE 5
`
`

`
`Exhibit
`No.
`
`Exhibit
`Description
`
`Sponsoring
`Witness
`
`Purpose
`
`Respondents’
`Objections
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Q&A No. 7
`
`F, E, EU, O, ED, LC
`
`Bose’s Responses
`
`expert, (2) the testimony is based upon sufficient
`facts or data, (3) the testimony is the product of
`reliable principles and methods, (4) the witness
`has applied the principles and methods reliably to
`the facts of the case, and (5) the testimony does
`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.
`
`Disclosed Expert Opinion: The witness is merely
`confirming that his previously disclosed opinions
`have not changed. See, e.g., CX-45C, pp. 6 – 36.
`
`Not Inadmissible Lay Opinion: The witness is a
`qualified expert.
`
`Dr. Begault was designated as an expert witness
`by Complainant and his expert opinions were
`disclosed in expert reports and at his deposition.
`
`Not Legal Conclusion: The testimony or exhibit
`embraces an ultimate issue to be decided by the
`trier of fact; the expert witness is not rendering a
`legal opinion.
`
`Respondents’ objections (1) are premised entirely
`on attorney argument, (2) are not based on any
`admissible evidence, and (3) go to the weight, not
`the admissibility of the evidence.
`The question does not lack foundation.
`
`BOSE’S RESPONSES TO RESPONDENTS’ JOINT OBJECTIONS TO BOSE’S PROPOSED REBUTTAL TRIAL EXHIBITS - PAGE 6
`
`

`
`Exhibit
`No.
`
`Exhibit
`Description
`
`Sponsoring
`Witness
`
`Purpose
`
`Respondents’
`Objections
`
`Bose’s Responses
`
`
`Qualified Expert Testimony: The testimony is
`admissible because (1) the witness is a qualified
`expert, (2) the testimony is based upon sufficient
`facts or data, (3) the testimony is the product of
`reliable principles and methods, (4) the witness
`has applied the principles and methods reliably to
`the facts of the case, and (5) the testimony does
`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.
`
`Disclosed Expert Opinion: The witness did
`disclose the testimony in the witness’ expert
`report. See, e.g., CX-45C, pp. 37 – 51.
`
`Not Inadmissible Lay Opinion: The witness is a
`qualified expert.
`
`Dr. Begault was designated as an expert witness
`by Complainant and his expert opinions were
`disclosed in expert reports and at his deposition.
`
`Not Legal Conclusion: The testimony or exhibit
`embraces an ultimate issue to be decided by the
`trier of fact; the expert witness is not rendering a
`legal opinion.
`
`Respondents’ objections (1) are premised entirely
`on attorney argument, (2) are not based on any
`
`BOSE’S RESPONSES TO RESPONDENTS’ JOINT OBJECTIONS TO BOSE’S PROPOSED REBUTTAL TRIAL EXHIBITS - PAGE 7
`
`

`
`Exhibit
`No.
`
`Exhibit
`Description
`
`Sponsoring
`Witness
`
`Purpose
`
`Respondents’
`Objections
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Q&A No. 8
`
`L, F, E, EU, O, ED,
`LC
`
`Bose’s Responses
`
`admissible evidence, and (3) go to the weight, not
`the admissibility of the evidence.
`The question is not a leading question.
`
`The question does not lack foundation.
`
`Qualified Expert Testimony: The testimony is
`admissible because (1) the witness is a qualified
`expert, (2) the testimony is based upon sufficient
`facts or data, (3) the testimony is the product of
`reliable principles and methods, (4) the witness
`has applied the principles and methods reliably to
`the facts of the case, and (5) the testimony does
`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.
`
`Disclosed Expert Opinion: The witness is merely
`confirming that his previously disclosed opinions
`have not changed. See, e.g., CX-45C, pp. 37 –
`51.
`
`Not Inadmissible Lay Opinion: The witness is a
`qualified expert.
`
`Dr. Begault was designated as an expert witness
`by Complainant and his expert opinions were
`disclosed in expert reports and at his deposition.
`
`Not Legal Conclusion: The testimony or exhibit
`
`BOSE’S RESPONSES TO RESPONDENTS’ JOINT OBJECTIONS TO BOSE’S PROPOSED REBUTTAL TRIAL EXHIBITS - PAGE 8
`
`

`
`Exhibit
`No.
`
`Exhibit
`Description
`
`Sponsoring
`Witness
`
`Purpose
`
`Respondents’
`Objections
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Q&A No. 17
`
`H, E, EU, O, ED
`
`Bose’s Responses
`
`embraces an ultimate issue to be decided by the
`trier of fact; the expert witness is not rendering a
`legal opinion.
`
`Respondents’ objections (1) are premised entirely
`on attorney argument, (2) are not based on any
`admissible evidence, and (3) go to the weight, not
`the admissibility of the evidence.
`The question does not call for and the answer
`does not contain hearsay.
`
`Qualified Expert Testimony: The testimony is
`admissible because (1) the witness is a qualified
`expert, (2) the testimony is based upon sufficient
`facts or data, (3) the testimony is the product of
`reliable principles and methods, (4) the witness
`has applied the principles and methods reliably to
`the facts of the case, and (5) the testimony does
`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.
`
`Disclosed Expert Opinion: The witness did
`disclose the testimony in the witness’ expert
`report. See, e.g., CX-45C, pp. 9 – 11.
`
`Not Inadmissible Lay Opinion: The witness is a
`qualified expert.
`
`Dr. Begaault was designated as an expert witness
`
`BOSE’S RESPONSES TO RESPONDENTS’ JOINT OBJECTIONS TO BOSE’S PROPOSED REBUTTAL TRIAL EXHIBITS - PAGE 9
`
`

`
`Exhibit
`No.
`
`Exhibit
`Description
`
`Sponsoring
`Witness
`
`Purpose
`
`Respondents’
`Objections
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Q&A No. 18
`
`F, SW, E, EU, O, ED,
`LC
`
`Bose’s Responses
`
`by Complainant and his expert opinions were
`disclosed in expert reports and at his deposition.
`
`Respondents’ objections (1) are premised entirely
`on attorney argument, (2) are not based on any
`admissible evidence, and (3) go to the weight, not
`the admissibility of the evidence.
`The question does not lack foundation.
`
`Dr. Begault is the sponsoring witness for his
`testimony.
`
`Qualified Expert Testimony: The testimony is
`admissible because (1) the witness is a qualified
`expert, (2) the testimony is based upon sufficient
`facts or data, (3) the testimony is the product of
`reliable principles and methods, (4) the witness
`has applied the principles and methods reliably to
`the facts of the case, and (5) the testimony does
`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.
`
`Disclosed Expert Opinion: The witness did
`disclose the testimony in the witness’ expert
`report. See, e.g., CX-45C, pp. 6 – 36.
`
`Not Inadmissible Lay Opinion: The witness is a
`qualified expert.
`
`
`BOSE’S RESPONSES TO RESPONDENTS’ JOINT OBJECTIONS TO BOSE’S PROPOSED REBUTTAL TRIAL EXHIBITS - PAGE 10
`
`

`
`Exhibit
`No.
`
`Exhibit
`Description
`
`Sponsoring
`Witness
`
`Purpose
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Q&A No. 19
`
`Respondents’
`Objections
`
`Bose’s Responses
`
`Dr. Begault was designated as an expert witness
`by Complainant and his expert opinions were
`disclosed in expert reports and at his deposition.
`
`Not Legal Conclusion: The testimony or exhibit
`embraces an ultimate issue to be decided by the
`trier of fact; the expert witness is not rendering a
`legal opinion.
`
`Respondents’ objections (1) are premised entirely
`on attorney argument, (2) are not based on any
`admissible evidence, and (3) go to the weight, not
`the admissibility of the evidence.
`SW, E, EU, O, ED, LC Dr. Begault is the sponsoring witness for his
`testimony.
`
`Qualified Expert Testimony: The testimony is
`admissible because (1) the witness is a qualified
`expert, (2) the testimony is based upon sufficient
`facts or data, (3) the testimony is the product of
`reliable principles and methods, (4) the witness
`has applied the principles and methods reliably to
`the facts of the case, and (5) the testimony does
`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.
`
`Disclosed Expert Opinion: The witness did
`disclose the testimony in the witness’ expert
`report. See, e.g., CX-45C, pp. 6 – 36.
`
`BOSE’S RESPONSES TO RESPONDENTS’ JOINT OBJECTIONS TO BOSE’S PROPOSED REBUTTAL TRIAL EXHIBITS - PAGE 11
`
`

`
`Exhibit
`No.
`
`Exhibit
`Description
`
`Sponsoring
`Witness
`
`Purpose
`
`Respondents’
`Objections
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Q&A No. 20
`
`L, F
`
`Q&A No. 21
`
`B, L, F, QH, E, EU, O,
`ED
`
`Bose’s Responses
`
`
`Not Inadmissible Lay Opinion: The witness is a
`qualified expert.
`
`Dr. Begault was designated as an expert witness
`by Complainant and his expert opinions were
`disclosed in expert reports and at his deposition.
`
`Not Legal Conclusion: The testimony or exhibit
`embraces an ultimate issue to be decided by the
`trier of fact; the expert witness is not rendering a
`legal opinion.
`
`Respondents’ objections (1) are premised entirely
`on attorney argument, (2) are not based on any
`admissible evidence, and (3) go to the weight, not
`the admissibility of the evidence.
`The question is not a leading question.
`
`The question does not lack foundation.
`The witness clearly is summarizing his own
`independent understanding related to the
`Respondent experts’ opinons regarding the '252
`patent.
`
`The question is not a leading question.
`
`The question does not lack foundation.
`
`The question does not call for and the answer
`does not contain hearsay.
`
`BOSE’S RESPONSES TO RESPONDENTS’ JOINT OBJECTIONS TO BOSE’S PROPOSED REBUTTAL TRIAL EXHIBITS - PAGE 12
`
`

`
`Exhibit
`No.
`
`Exhibit
`Description
`
`Sponsoring
`Witness
`
`Purpose
`
`Respondents’
`Objections
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Q&A No. 22
`
`B, F, QH, E, EU, O,
`ED, LC
`
`Bose’s Responses
`
`
`Qualified Expert Testimony: The testimony is
`admissible because (1) the witness is a qualified
`expert, (2) the testimony is based upon sufficient
`facts or data, (3) the testimony is the product of
`reliable principles and methods, (4) the witness
`has applied the principles and methods reliably to
`the facts of the case, and (5) the testimony does
`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.
`
`Disclosed Expert Opinion: The witness did
`disclose the testimony in the witness’ expert
`report. See, e.g., CX-45C, pp. 7 – 11, see
`generally pp. 6 – 36.
`
`Not Inadmissible Lay Opinion: The witness is a
`qualified expert.
`
`Dr. Begault was designated as an expert witness
`by Complainant and his expert opinions were
`disclosed in expert reports and at his deposition.
`
`Respondents’ objections (1) are premised entirely
`on attorney argument, (2) are not based on any
`admissible evidence, and (3) go to the weight, not
`the admissibility of the evidence.
`The witness clearly is summarizing his own
`independent understanding related to the
`
`BOSE’S RESPONSES TO RESPONDENTS’ JOINT OBJECTIONS TO BOSE’S PROPOSED REBUTTAL TRIAL EXHIBITS - PAGE 13
`
`

`
`Exhibit
`No.
`
`Exhibit
`Description
`
`Sponsoring
`Witness
`
`Purpose
`
`Respondents’
`Objections
`
`Bose’s Responses
`
`Respondent experts’ opinons regarding the '252
`patent.
`
`The question does not lack foundation.
`
`The question does not call for and the answer
`does not contain hearsay.
`
`Qualified Expert Testimony: The testimony is
`admissible because (1) the witness is a qualified
`expert, (2) the testimony is based upon sufficient
`facts or data, (3) the testimony is the product of
`reliable principles and methods, (4) the witness
`has applied the principles and methods reliably to
`the facts of the case, and (5) the testimony does
`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.
`
`Disclosed Expert Opinion: The witness did
`disclose the testimony in the witness’ expert
`report. See, e.g., CX-45C, pp. 7 – 11, see
`generally pp. 6 – 36.
`
`Not Inadmissible Lay Opinion: The witness is a
`qualified expert.
`
`Dr. Begault was designated as an expert witness
`by Complainant and his expert opinions were
`disclosed in expert reports and at his deposition.
`
`BOSE’S RESPONSES TO RESPONDENTS’ JOINT OBJECTIONS TO BOSE’S PROPOSED REBUTTAL TRIAL EXHIBITS - PAGE 14
`
`

`
`Exhibit
`No.
`
`Exhibit
`Description
`
`Sponsoring
`Witness
`
`Purpose
`
`Respondents’
`Objections
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Q&A No. 23
`
`L, F, E, EU, O, ED,
`LC
`
`Bose’s Responses
`
`
`Not Legal Conclusion: The testimony or exhibit
`embraces an ultimate issue to be decided by the
`trier of fact; the expert witness is not rendering a
`legal opinion.
`
`Respondents’ objections (1) are premised entirely
`on attorney argument, (2) are not based on any
`admissible evidence, and (3) go to the weight, not
`the admissibility of the evidence.
`The question is not a leading question.
`
`The question does not lack foundation.
`
`Qualified Expert Testimony: The testimony is
`admissible because (1) the witness is a qualified
`expert, (2) the testimony is based upon sufficient
`facts or data, (3) the testimony is the product of
`reliable principles and methods, (4) the witness
`has applied the principles and methods reliably to
`the facts of the case, and (5) the testimony does
`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.
`
`Disclosed Expert Opinion: The witness did
`disclose the testimony in the witness’ expert
`report. See, e.g., CX-45C, p. 7, see generally pp.
`6 – 36.
`
`
`BOSE’S RESPONSES TO RESPONDENTS’ JOINT OBJECTIONS TO BOSE’S PROPOSED REBUTTAL TRIAL EXHIBITS - PAGE 15
`
`

`
`Exhibit
`No.
`
`Exhibit
`Description
`
`Sponsoring
`Witness
`
`Purpose
`
`Respondents’
`Objections
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Q&A No. 24
`
`F, E, EU, O, ED, LC
`
`Bose’s Responses
`
`Not Inadmissible Lay Opinion: The witness is a
`qualified expert.
`
`Dr. Begault was designated as an expert witness
`by Complainant and his expert opinions were
`disclosed in expert reports and at his deposition.
`
`Not Legal Conclusion: The testimony or exhibit
`embraces an ultimate issue to be decided by the
`trier of fact; the expert witness is not rendering a
`legal opinion.
`
`Respondents’ objections (1) are premised entirely
`on attorney argument, (2) are not based on any
`admissible evidence, and (3) go to the weight, not
`the admissibility of the evidence.
`The question does not lack foundation.
`
`Qualified Expert Testimony: The testimony is
`admissible because (1) the witness is a qualified
`expert, (2) the testimony is based upon sufficient
`facts or data, (3) the testimony is the product of
`reliable principles and methods, (4) the witness
`has applied the principles and methods reliably to
`the facts of the case, and (5) the testimony does
`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.
`
`Disclosed Expert Opinion: The witness did
`
`BOSE’S RESPONSES TO RESPONDENTS’ JOINT OBJECTIONS TO BOSE’S PROPOSED REBUTTAL TRIAL EXHIBITS - PAGE 16
`
`

`
`Exhibit
`No.
`
`Exhibit
`Description
`
`Sponsoring
`Witness
`
`Purpose
`
`Respondents’
`Objections
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Q&A No. 25
`
`F, E, EU, O, ED, LC
`
`Bose’s Responses
`
`disclose the testimony in the witness’ expert
`report. See, e.g., CX-45C, p. 7, see generally pp.
`6 – 36.
`
`Not Inadmissible Lay Opinion: The witness is a
`qualified expert.
`
`Not Legal Conclusion: The testimony or exhibit
`embraces an ultimate issue to be decided by the
`trier of fact; the expert witness is not rendering a
`legal opinion.
`
`Respondents’ objections (1) are premised entirely
`on attorney argument, (2) are not based on any
`admissible evidence, and (3) go to the weight, not
`the admissibility of the evidence.
`The question does not lack foundation.
`
`Qualified Expert Testimony: The testimony is
`admissible because (1) the witness is a qualified
`expert, (2) the testimony is based upon sufficient
`facts or data, (3) the testimony is the product of
`reliable principles and methods, (4) the witness
`has applied the principles and methods reliably to
`the facts of the case, and (5) the testimony does
`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.
`
`Disclosed Expert Opinion: The witness did
`
`BOSE’S RESPONSES TO RESPONDENTS’ JOINT OBJECTIONS TO BOSE’S PROPOSED REBUTTAL TRIAL EXHIBITS - PAGE 17
`
`

`
`Exhibit
`No.
`
`Exhibit
`Description
`
`Sponsoring
`Witness
`
`Purpose
`
`Respondents’
`Objections
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Q&A No. 26
`
`L, F, E, EU, O, ED,
`LC
`
`Bose’s Responses
`
`disclose the testimony in the witness’ expert
`report. See, e.g., CX-45C, pp. 7 – 8, see
`generally pp. 6 – 36.
`
`Not Inadmissible Lay Opinion: The witness is a
`qualified expert.
`
`Dr. Begault was designated as an expert witness
`by Complainant and his exper