`WASHINGTON, D.C. 20436
`
`Before The Honorable Clark S. Cheney
`Administrative Law Judge
`
`
`In the Matter of
`
`CERTAIN MULTI-DOMAIN TEST AND
`MEASUREMENT INSTRUMENTS
`
`Investigation No. 337-TA-1104
`
`RESPONDENTS’ RESPONSE TO TEKTRONIX’S MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE A
`CLAIM CONSTRUCTION SUR-REPLY AND SUPPLEMENTAL CLAIM
`CONSTRUCTION DECLARATION
`
`Respondents Rohde & Schwarz GmbH & Co. KG, Rohde & Schwarz Vertriebs GmbH,
`
`and Rohde & Schwarz USA, Inc. (collectively, “R&S” or “Respondents”), through their
`
`undersigned counsel, respectfully respond to Complainant Tektronix, Inc.’s (“Complainant” or
`
`“Tektronix”) Motion for Leave to File a Claim Construction Sur-Reply and Supplemental Claim
`
`Construction Declaration (EDIS No. 652855) to clarify the parties’ discussion pursuant to
`
`Ground Rule 5.1.
`
`Tektronix’s counsel approached R&S arguing that the declaration of Respondents’ expert
`
`Dr. Jonathan Wells attached to R&S’s Responsive Claim Construction brief was inappropriate.
`
`Tektronix indicated that the declaration should be stricken. R&S responded with its position that
`
`the declaration was a proper rebuttal to the declaration of Dr. Travis Blalock that was included
`
`with Tektronix’s opening claim construction brief. After some discussion, Tektronix stated it
`
`would not move to strike the declaration if R&S would not oppose Tektronix’s motion for leave
`
`to file a sur-reply and a responsive declaration. R&S agreed not to oppose Tektronix’s motion
`
`for leave to file a responsive declaration and a short, limited sur-reply for the purpose of giving
`
`context to the responsive declaration.
`
`
`
`At no time prior to filing its papers did Tektronix suggest in the alternative that, if the
`
`ALJ denied Tektronix’s motion for leave, then the Wells declaration should be stricken. See
`
`EDIS No. 651285, R&S Reply Br., Exh. 9 Wells Decl. For the sake of clarity, R&S did not
`
`consent and has not consented to such alternative relief should the ALJ deny Tektronix’s motion
`
`for leave.
`
`
`Dated: August 21, 2018
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Respectfully submitted,
`
`
` /s/ Joseph V. Colaianni, Jr.
`Joseph V. Colaianni, Jr.
`Thomas S. Fusco
`Zachary Loney
`FISH & RICHARDSON P.C.
`1000 Maine Avenue
`Washington, DC 20024
`
`Kevin Su
`Elizabeth G.H. Ranks
`Alexander Pechette
`FISH & RICHARDSON P.C.
`One Marina Park Drive
`Boston, MA 02210
`
`Christopher S. Marchese
`FISH & RICHARDSON P.C.
`12390 El Camino Real
`San Diego, CA 92130
`
`Counsel for Respondents Rohde & Schwarz
`GmbH & Co., Rohde & Schwarz Vertriebs
`GmbH, and Rohde & Schwarz USA, Inc.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`2
`
`
`
`CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
`
`I hereby certify that true and correct copies of the foregoing RESPONDENTS’ RESPONSE
`TO TEKTRONIX’S MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE A CLAIM CONSTRUCTION
`SUR-REPLY AND SUPPLEMENTAL CLAIM CONSTRUCTION DECLARATION have
`been filed and served on this 21st day of August, 2018, on the following:
`
`
`The Honorable Lisa R. Barton
`Secretary
`U.S. International Trade Commission
`500 E Street SW
`Washington D.C. 20436
`
`
`The Honorable Clark S. Cheney
`Administrative Law Judge
`U.S. International Trade Commission
`500 E Street, S.W.
`Washington, D.C. 20436
`Benjamin.Richards@usitc.gov
`William.Slaven@usitc.gov
`Cheney337@usitc.gov
`
`Michael A. Oblon
`James B. Coughlan
`PERKINS COIE LLP
`700 13th St., NW, Suite 600
`Washington DC 20005
`TektronixITCService@perkinscoie.com
`
`Counsel for Complainant Tektronix, Inc.
`
` Via First Class Mail
`
` Via Hand Delivery
`
` Via Overnight Delivery
`
` Via EDIS
`
` Via First Class Mail
`
` Via Hand Delivery
`
` Via Overnight Delivery
`
` Via Electronic Mail
`
` Via First Class Mail
`
` Via Hand Delivery
`
` Via Federal Express
`
` Via Electronic Mail
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`/s/ Ashley Cox
`Ashley Cox
`
`
`
`
`
`
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
