UNITED STATES INTERNATIONAL TRADE COMMISSION
`
`Washington, D.C.
`
`In the Matter of
`
`CERTAIN WIPE
`
`R BLADE
`
`S
`
`Inv. No. 337-TA-816
`
`ORDER NO. 94:
`
`DENYING COMPLAINANT’S MOTION IN LIMINE NO. 7
`
`(September 26, 2013)
`
`On September 16, 2013, Complainant Robert Bosch LLC (“Bosch”) filed a motion in
`
`limine (816-086) to exclude from the hearing all testimony, evidence and arguments offered by
`
`Respondents regarding the indefiniteness of certain claim terms of U.S. Patent Nos. 6,553,607;
`
`6,836,926; 6,973,698; and 6,611,988. Specifically, Bosch requests that questions and answers 28
`
`and 55 from Dr. Davis’ supplemented direct witness statement, question and answer 138 from
`
`Dr. Davis’ supplemental rebuttal witness statement, questions and answers 35 and 39 from Mr.
`
`Angi’s supplemented direct witness statement, and questions and answers 24 and 29 from Mr.
`
`Angi’s supplemented rebuttal witness statement be excluded from the record. (Mot. at 1.) Bosch
`
`also requests that certain paragraphs from Respondents’ Supplemented Pre-Hearing Brief be
`
`stricken. (Id) Bosch claims that “[i]n the witness statements and pre-hearing brief at issue . . .,
`
`Respondents do not merely preserve their arguments for appeal, but . . . inappropriately continue
`
`to argue and attempt to present testimony that certain claim terms are indefinite despite the
`
`Commission’s ruling to the contrary.” (Mem. at 2.)
`
`Respondents oppose Bosch’s motion. Respondents state that they have no intention to
`
`advance arguments that the undersigned or the Commission declined to adopt. (Opp. at 1.)
`
`Respondents insist that the testimony in the witness statements and the brief references to that
`
`testimony in the pre-hearing brief was included for two limited and appropriate purposes. First,
`
`Robert Bosch Exhibit 2011 - Page 1
`COSTCO (Petitioner) v. ROBERT BOSCH (Patent Owner)
`IPR2016-00034; IPR2016-00036; IPR2016-00038;
`IPR2016-00039; IPR2016-00040; IPR2016-00041
`
`
`
`Washington, D.C.
`
`In the Matter of
`
`CERTAIN WIPE
`
`R BLADE
`
`S
`
`Inv. No. 337-TA-816
`
`ORDER NO. 94:
`
`DENYING COMPLAINANT’S MOTION IN LIMINE NO. 7
`
`(September 26, 2013)
`
`On September 16, 2013, Complainant Robert Bosch LLC (“Bosch”) filed a motion in
`
`limine (816-086) to exclude from the hearing all testimony, evidence and arguments offered by
`
`Respondents regarding the indefiniteness of certain claim terms of U.S. Patent Nos. 6,553,607;
`
`6,836,926; 6,973,698; and 6,611,988. Specifically, Bosch requests that questions and answers 28
`
`and 55 from Dr. Davis’ supplemented direct witness statement, question and answer 138 from
`
`Dr. Davis’ supplemental rebuttal witness statement, questions and answers 35 and 39 from Mr.
`
`Angi’s supplemented direct witness statement, and questions and answers 24 and 29 from Mr.
`
`Angi’s supplemented rebuttal witness statement be excluded from the record. (Mot. at 1.) Bosch
`
`also requests that certain paragraphs from Respondents’ Supplemented Pre-Hearing Brief be
`
`stricken. (Id) Bosch claims that “[i]n the witness statements and pre-hearing brief at issue . . .,
`
`Respondents do not merely preserve their arguments for appeal, but . . . inappropriately continue
`
`to argue and attempt to present testimony that certain claim terms are indefinite despite the
`
`Commission’s ruling to the contrary.” (Mem. at 2.)
`
`Respondents oppose Bosch’s motion. Respondents state that they have no intention to
`
`advance arguments that the undersigned or the Commission declined to adopt. (Opp. at 1.)
`
`Respondents insist that the testimony in the witness statements and the brief references to that
`
`testimony in the pre-hearing brief was included for two limited and appropriate purposes. First,
`
`Robert Bosch Exhibit 2011 - Page 1
`COSTCO (Petitioner) v. ROBERT BOSCH (Patent Owner)
`IPR2016-00034; IPR2016-00036; IPR2016-00038;
`IPR2016-00039; IPR2016-00040; IPR2016-00041
`
`
`
`Respondents state that they “seek to ensure that their experts’ witness statements do not hurt
`
`Respondents’ ability to appeal issues related to indefiniteness to the Commission and/or the
`
`United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit.” (Id. at 3.) Second, Respondents
`
`contend that “their experts make brief mention of the experts’ initial opinions concerning
`
`indefiniteness to provide necessary context and clarity for opinions offered for the first time in
`
`the experts’ supplemental expert reports and witness statements.” (Id)
`
`In addition, Respondents
`
`note that the undersigned is well aware of the procedural history of the Investigation and thus, is
`
`more than capable of giving the appropriate consideration to the arguments and evidence
`
`presented.
`
`(Id. at 4.)
`
`Staff asserts that the Commission’s decision regarding indefiniteness governs this
`
`Investigation. (Staff Resp. at 7.) Staff therefore supports Bosch’s motion.
`
`Having reviewed the pleadings and arguments contained therein, as Wellas the allegedly
`
`objectionable testimony and paragraphs in Respondents’ pre-hearing brief, the undersigned finds
`
`Respondents’ arguments persuasive. Accordingly, Bosch’s motion in limine no. 7 (816-O86)is
`
`hereby denied.
`
`SO ORDERED.
`
`0/oz5Z/z/
`
`Charles E. Bullock
`Chief Administrative Law Judge
`
`_2_
`
`Robert Bosch Exhibit 2011 - Page 2
`COSTCO (Petitioner) v. ROBERT BOSCH (Patent Owner)
`IPR2016-00034; IPR2016-00036; IPR2016-00038;
`IPR2016-00039; IPR2016-00040; IPR2016-00041
`
`
`
`CERTAIN WIPER BLADES
`
`337—TA-816
`
`CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
`
`I, Lisa R. Barton, hereby certify that the attached ORDER NO. 94 has been served by hand upon
`the Commission Investigative Attorney, Andrew Beverina, Esq., and the following patties as
`lI1CllC3.tCd, On
`2 6
`.
`
`Lisa R. Barton, Acting Secretary
`U.S. International Trade Commission
`500 E Street, SW
`Washington, DC 20436
`
`Complainant Robert Bosch LLC:
`John Bateman, Esq.
`Kenyon & Kenyon LLP
`1500 K. Street, NW
`Washington, DC 20005
`P-202-220-4200
`F-202-220-4201
`
`For Respondents ADM21 Co., Ltd., ADM21 Co., (NORTH
`AMERICA) Ltd., Cequent Consumer Products, Inc., and
`RainEater, LLC, DaewooInternational Corp.:
`Russell E. Levine, P.C.
`Kirkland & Ellis LLP
`300 N. LaSalle Street
`Chicago, IL 60654
`P-312-862-2000
`F-312-862-2200
`
`For Respondents Corea Autoparts Producing Corporation
`d/b/a CAP America and PIAA Corporation USA:
`V. James Adduci, II, Esq.
`Adduci, Mastriani & Schaumberg, L.L.P.
`1133 Connecticut Avenue, NW, 12‘ Floor
`Washington, DC 20036
`P-202-467-6300
`F-202-466-2006
`
`) Via Hand Delivery
`(
`(up) Via Express Delivery
`(
`) Via First Class Mail
`(
`) Other:
`
`Via Hand Delivery
`Hi Via ExpressDelivery
`(
`) Via First Class Mail
`(
`) Other:
`
`) Via Hand Delivery
`(
`(vi) Via Express Delivery
`(
`) Via First Class Mail
`(
`) Other:
`
`Robert Bosch Exhibit 2011 - Page 3
`COSTCO (Petitioner) v. ROBERT BOSCH (Patent Owner)
`IPR2016-00034; IPR2016-00036; IPR2016-00038;
`IPR2016-00039; IPR2016-00040; IPR2016-00041
`
`
`
`PUBLIC MAILING LIST
`
`Lori Hofer, Library Services
`LEXIS-NEXIS
`9473 Springboro Pike
`Miamisburg, OH 45342
`
`Kenneth Clair
`Thomson West
`1100 Thirteen Street, NW, Suite 200
`Washington, DC 20005
`
`) Via Hand Delivery
`(
`) Via Express Delivery
`(
`(flVia FirstClassMail
`(
`) Other:
`
`(
`(
`
`) Via Hand Delivery
`) Via Express Delivery
`
`4-6 Via First Class Mail
`
`
`
`( )Other:i
`
`Robert Bosch Exhibit 2011 - Page 4
`COSTCO (Petitioner) v. ROBERT BOSCH (Patent Owner)
`IPR2016-00034; IPR2016-00036; IPR2016-00038;
`IPR2016-00039; IPR2016-00040; IPR2016-00041
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
