UNITED STATES INTERNATIONAL TRADE COMMISSION
`
`Washington, D.C.
`
`Before The Honorable Clark S. Cheney
`
`Administrative Law Judge
`
`In the Matter of
`
`CERTAIN VARIABLE SPEED WIND
`
`TURBINE GENERATORS AND
`
`COMPONENTS THEREOF
`
`
`
`Inv. N0. 337-TA-1218
`
`COMPLAINANT GENERAL ELECTRIC ’8 MOTION IN LIMINE NO. 2 TO
`
`PRECLUDE THE WOODS DECLARATION (RX—0730C) AND ANY TESTIMONY
`BASED ON THE WOODS DECLARATION
`
`

`

`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`INTRODUCTION .............................................................................................................. 1
`
`BACKGROUND ................................................................................................................ 2
`
`E!
`
`ARGUMENT ...................................................................................................................... 3
`
`2
`
`CONCLUSION ................................................................................................................... 7
`
`

`

`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`
`Page(s)
`
`Cases
`
`Certain Electronic Devices, Including Mobile Phones and Tablet Computers, and
`Components Iltereof,
`Inv. No. 337—TA-847, Order No. 21 (May 29, 2013) ............................................................4, 5
`
`Certain RF Capable Integrated Circuits and Products Containing the Same.
`Inv. No. 337-TA-982, Order No. 23 (Mar. 9, 2017) ..........................................................4, 6, 7
`
`Other Authorities
`
`Fed. R. Evid. 7035
`
`Fed. R. Evid. 807(a)(1)’5 6
`
`Fed. R. Evid. 807(a)(4)5
`
`ii
`
`

`

`Pursuant to Commission Rule 210.18 and Ground Rules 5 and 11.3, Complainant
`
`General Electric Company (“GE”) respectfiilly moves in Iimine to preclude Respondents
`
`Siemens Gamesa Renewable Energy Inc., Siemens Gamesa Renewable Energy A/S, and Gamesa
`
`Electric, S.A.U. (collectively, “SGRE”) to exclude the declaration of Mark Woods (RX-0730C)
`
`from evidence and preclude any testimony based on the Woods declaration at the hearing. In
`
`accordance with Ground Rule 11.3.1, RX—0730C is included as Attachment A to this Motion.
`
`Ground Rule 5.1 Certification
`
`GE hereby certifies that it made reasonable, good-faith efforts to resolve this issue with
`
`SGRE prior to filing this motion. The parties met and confeired on May 17 and 18, 2021, and
`
`counsel for SGRE refused to consent to the relief requested in this Motion.
`
`1.
`
`INTRODUCTION
`
`Mark Woods is a former Sales Manager at Converteam, and a paid consultant retained by
`
`Baker Hostetler on behalf of SGRE.l SGRE included Mr. Woods on its January 15, 2021
`
`Tentative List of Witnesses (see EDIS Doc ID. 730860), and served a copy of a signed
`
`declaration by Mr. Woods on February 26, 2021 relating to prior art that SGRE is asserting in
`
`this Investigation. GE repeatedly requested that SGRE make Mr. Woods available for a
`
`deposition, but SGRE refused to do so. See Exhibit 1 (Feb. 16, 2021 email from GE to SGRE);
`
`Exhibit 2 (Feb. 23, 2021 email from GE to SGRE); Exhibit 3 Ovlar. 2, 2021 email from GE to
`
`SGRE). SGRE has included Mr. Woods’ declaration on its exhibit list, referenced the
`
`declaration in its Pre-hearing Brief, and its expert witness, Dr. Joshua Phinney, relied on the
`
`declaration in his expert report on the issue of invalidity. SGRE’s attempt to use its expert as a
`
`conduit for Mr. Woods’ testimony despite refusing to make Mr. Woods available for a deposition
`
`1 Mr. Woods’ declaration states that he is being compensated by SGRE at his regular consulting
`rate of £360 per day.
`
`

`

`should be disallowed, and SGRE should be precluded from entering the Woods declaration into
`
`evidence or presenting any testimony based on the Woods declaration at the hearing.
`
`H.
`
`BACKGROUND
`
`On January 15, 2021, SGRE identified Mark Woods on its list of potential witnesses. See
`
`EDIS Doc ID. 730860 at 3. Mr. Woods is a former Converteam employee who currently resides
`
`in the United Kingdom. GE made three separate requests for SGRE to make Mr. Woods
`
`available for a deposition before the close of fact discovery on March 5, 2021. First, on February
`
`16, 2021, GE asked SGRE if they would accept service of a subpoena on Mark Woods’ behalf,
`
`or alternatively inform GE that SGRE would not call Mr. Woods as a witness at the hearing. See
`
`Exhibit 1 (Feb. 16, 2021 email from GE to SGRE). On February 23, 2021, GE emailed SGRE a
`
`second time requesting that SGRE make Mr. Woods available for a deposition. Exhibit 2 Web.
`
`23, 2021 email from GE to SGRE). SGRE again chose to ignore GE’s request or provide any
`
`indication as to whether or not SGRE intended to call Mr. Woods as a witness as the hearing.
`
`On February 26, 2021 — one week before the March 5 close of fact discovery — SGRE
`
`served GE with a declaration from Mr. Woods regarding the MV3000 power converter that
`
`SGRE is asserting as prior art in this Investigation. Although SGRE had previously represented
`
`to GE that Mr. Woods was not under SGRE’s control, Mr. Woods’ declaration provides
`
`otherwise, noting that he was “retained by Baker & Hostetler LLP on behalf of Siemens Gamesa
`
`Renewable Energy to provide information relating to the Alstom MV3000 systems that were
`
`marketed and sold prior to October 2006” and was being compensated at a “rate of £360 [$500]
`
`per day.” See RX—0730C.0001. After receiving Mr. Woods’ declaration, GE requested for a third
`
`time on March 2, 2021, that SGRE make Mr. Woods available for a deposition since it was clear
`
`that Mr. Woods was under SGRE’s control despite SGRE’s assertions to the contrary. See
`
`

`

`Exhibit 3 (Mar. 2, 2021 email from GE to SGRE). Once again, SGRE refused to respond or
`
`provide Mr. Woods for a deposition.
`
`On March 16, 2021, SGRE submitted an expert report of Dr. Joshua Phinney in which
`
`Dr. Phinney opines about the MV3000. See JX—0020.00358-.00391 (included as Attachment B).
`
`In support of his argument, Dr. Phinney relies on the Woods declaration to make factual
`
`assertions that the MV3000 DFE and SFE configurations that were used or sold in the United
`
`States operated in a particular manner. Id., at 00245-00250. Dr. Phirmey, however, does not
`
`have any personal knowledge regarding the configuration of MV3000 DFE and SFE’s that were
`
`used or sold in the United States. On May 14, 2021, SGRE submitted its Pre-hearing Brief in
`
`which SGRE cites to Mr. Woods’ declaration to make factual assertions regarding the MV3000
`
`DFE and SFE configurations that were allegedly used or sold in the United States. See EDIS Doc
`
`ID. 742530 at 282-286.
`
`SGRE has not provided GE with any explanation for why SGRE refused to make Mr.
`
`Woods available for a deposition. See Exhibit 1 (Feb. 16, 2021 email from GE to SGRE);
`
`Exhibit 2 (Feb. 23, 2021 email from GE to SGRE); Exhibit 3 (Mar. 2, 2021 email from GE to
`
`SGRE).
`
`III.
`
`ARGUNIENT
`
`Ground Rule 13.7.1 (“Live Direct Testimony”) states that “[11]nless leave is otherwise
`
`granted, all direct testimony must be given by a live witness,” and Ground Rule 13.7.2 (“Scope
`
`of Ctoss-examination”) states that “[a]ll live direct testimony will be subject to cross-
`
`examination.” See Order No. 2. SGRE seeks to circumvent these Ground Rules by relying on the
`
`declaration of Mr. Woods, a paid consultant retained by Baker Hostetler on behalf of SGRE,
`
`while having refused to make Mr. Woods available for cross—examination in this Investigation.
`
`ALJs in prior investigations have granted motions to exclude a party from presenting and
`
`3
`
`

`

`relying on information contained in a declaration where the opposing party was unable to depose
`
`the declarant. See Certain Electronic Devices, Including Mobile Phones and Tablet Computers,
`
`and Components Illereof, Inv. No. 337-TA-847, Order No. 21 (May 29, 2013) (granting motion
`
`to preclude third party declaration and any testimony based on the declaration); Certain RF
`
`Capable Integrated Circuits and Products Containing the Same, Inv. No. 337—TA-982, Order
`
`No. 23 (Mar. 9, 2017) (same).
`
`In Certain Electronic Devices, Respondents filed a motion in limine to preclude
`
`Complainants from relying on the declaration of a third party or any testimony based upon the
`
`declaration at the hearing. In granting Respondents’ motion, the ALJ noted that the declarant was
`
`“essentially being used as a fact witness” for Complainants and that Complainants were therefore
`
`required to “include him on [their] witness list, depose [declarant], give [Respondents] an
`
`oppommity to cross—examine [declarant] at the deposition, provide a witness statement, and
`
`make [declarant] available to testify at the evidentiary hearing.” Inv. No. 337-TA-847, Order
`
`No. 21 at 2. Observing that Complainants bore “the burden of proof on infringement and
`
`domestic industry,” for which the declaration was offered in support, the ALJ explained that “it
`
`was [Complainants’] burden to comply with the Ground Rules in presenting evidence and
`
`witnesses in support of its primafacie case on these issues.” Id. Here too, SGRE is offering the
`
`declaration of Mr. Woods in support of its invalidity grounds, for which SGRE bears the burden
`
`of proof. SGRE has not included Mr. Woods on its witness list for the hearing and has repeatedly
`
`refused GE’s requests to cross-examine Mr. Woods at a deposition. Unlike Certain Electronic
`
`Devices, there is no Gr01md Rule in this investigation requiring that “any direct testimony, with
`
`the exception of that of an adverse witness, shall be made by witness statement in lieu of live
`
`testimony.” Id. However, by submitting a declaration without making Mr. Woods available for a
`
`

`

`deposition, SGRE has in effect circumvented Ground Rules 13.7.1 and 1372., which require all
`
`direct testimony to be presented live and subjected to cross-examination. Here, GE has not had
`
`the opportunity to cross-examine Mr. Woods, despite repeated requests to do so.
`
`The ALJ in Certain Electronic Devices also found that the declaration at issue was
`
`“inadmissible under Commission Rule 210.37 because it [was] not reliable.” Id. While
`
`acknowledging that “hearsay may be admitted in Commission proceedings even when otherwise
`
`inadmissible under the Federal Rules of Evidence,” the ALJ explained that Federal Rule of
`
`Evidence 807 was nonetheless “helpful in analyzing the admissibility of the . .. declaration.” Id.
`
`Specifically, the ALJ noted that “signing an oath under penalty of perjury cannot, alone, provide
`
`the necessary circumstantial guarantees of trustworthiness under Rule 807(a)(1).” Id (citations
`
`omitted). Observing that the declaration at issue “was given by [declarant] in a litigation where
`
`his employer was a party,” the ALJ cautioned that the relationship “raise[d] issues as to its
`
`trustworthiness” and formd “that there [were] simply not enough circumstantial guarantees of
`
`trustworthiness to meet the level required under Rule 807(a)(1).” Id. at 2—3. The same concerns
`
`are present here, too. Mr. Woods is a paid consultant for SGRE. Having refused GE the
`
`opportunity to depose Mr. Woods, it is impossible to weigh the trustworthiness of Mr. Woods’
`
`declaration or the foundation for his assertions. See id. at 3 (“[B]ecause [Respondent] did not
`
`depose [declarant] and will have no opportunity to do so, admitting the declaration would not be
`
`in the best interests ofjustice”) (citing Fed. R. Evid. 807(a)(4)).
`
`Dr. Phinney should also be precluded from relying on Mr. Woods’ declaration.
`
`“Although experts are permitted to rely on inadmissible evidence in forming their opinions, it
`
`generally must be the type of evidence that an expert in the field would ‘reasonably rely on.”’ Id.
`
`(citing Fed. R. Evid. 703). Just like in Certain Electronic Devices, here too SGRE will be unable
`
`

`

`“to show that an expert in” Dr. Phinney’s field “would reasonably rely on this type of evidence.”
`
`Id. Indeed, Dr. Phinney should not be able to rely on Mr. Woods’ declaration to circumvent the
`
`ALJ’s Ground Rules requiring that direct testimony be submitted live and subject to cross
`
`examination. See id. (finding “that it would be highly prejudicial to [Respondents] to allow
`
`[Respondents’ expert] to rely on inadmissible evidence in support of [Complainants’] case, when
`
`[Complainant] cannot cross-examine [declarant] or rebut any of his statements”).
`
`Certain RF Capable Integrated Circuits also supports GE’s argmnent that SGRE should
`
`be precluded from using the Woods declaration or adducing testimony that relies on it during the
`
`hearing. In Certain RF Capable Integrated Circuits, Respondent sought to admit certain third—
`
`party declarations as exhibits, or in the alternative, requested that Respondent’s experts be
`
`allowed to rely on the declarations even if the declarations were excluded from the record. See
`
`Inv. No. 337-TA—982, Order No. 23. In granting Complaint’s motion to exclude the third party
`
`declarations, the ALJ noted that its Ground Rules required “direct witness testimony to be
`
`provided live or in a witness statement” and further required “witnesses who submit a witness
`
`statement to be available for cross—examination.” Id. at 4. As previously discussed, here the
`
`ALJ’s Ground Rules also require direct testimony to be provided live and subject to cross-
`
`examination. SGRE should not be allowed to “present what is effectively direct witness
`
`testimony through a declaration without making the declarant available for cross-examination.”
`
`Id. at 4-5 (emphasis in original)(internal quotation marks omitted).
`
`The ALJ’s Order in Certain RF Capable Integrated Circuits also supports GE’s argument
`
`that Dr. Phinney should be precluded from relying on Mr. Woods’ declaration. Although the ALJ
`
`in Certain RF Capable Integrated Circuits noted that if “[Respondents’] experts relied on the
`
`[third-party] declarations in forming their opinions, they [could] testify to that effect,” the ALJ
`
`

`

`also cautioned that the experts’ “reliance on evidence that is not part of the record [might] be of
`
`little utility.” Id. at 5. Furthermore. the ALJ cautioned that the experts could not “‘characterize’
`
`the declarations, as that would simply amount to bringing the infonnation in the declarations in
`
`through the back door when they were denied entrance the front." Id. Here, SGRE seeks to do
`
`just that. By having Dr. Phirmey rely on Mr. Woods’ declaration as evidence regarding the
`
`MV3000 DFE and SFE configurations that were allegedly used or sold in the United States.
`
`SGRE is in effect using Dr. Phinney to proffer the direct testimony of Mr. Woods. Because
`
`SGRE repeatedly denied GE the opportunity to depose Mr. Woods, SGRE’s attempts to bring his
`
`testimony in “through the back door” should be precluded.
`
`IV.
`
`CONCLUSION
`
`For the foregoing reasons, GE respectfully requests that the ALJ exclude the Woods
`
`declaration and further preclude any testimony regarding the Woods declaration at the hearing.
`
`Dated: May 18, 2021
`
`Respectfully submitted:
`
`/s/ Anish R. Desai
`
`David J. Lender
`
`Anish R. Desai
`
`Sudip Kundu
`Ian A. Moore
`
`WEIL, GOTSHAL & MANGES LLP
`767 5th Avenue
`
`New York, NY 10153
`
`Telephone: (212) 310-8000
`david.lender@weil.com:
`anish.desai@weil.com;
`sudip.kundu@weil.com:
`ian.moore@weil.com
`
`Anne Cappella
`WEIL, GOTSHAL & MANGES LLP
`201 Redwood Shores Parkway
`Redwood Shores, CA 94065
`
`Telephone: (650) 802-3000
`anne.cappella@weil.com
`
`

`

`Roben Vlasis
`
`Daniel Musher
`
`Stephanie Adamakos
`WEIL, GOTSHAL & MANGES LLP
`
`2001 M Street. NW. Suite 600
`
`Washington, DC 20036
`Telephone: (202) 682-7000
`1‘0be11.vlasis@weil.com
`daniel.n1usher@weil.c0n1
`stephanje.adamakos@weil.com
`
`Counselfor Complainant General
`Electric Company
`
`

`

`UNITED STATES INTERNATIONAL TRADE COMMISSION
`Washington, D.C.
`Before the Honorable Clark S. Cheney
`Administrative Law Judge
`
`In the Matter of
`
`CERTAIN VARIABLE SPEED
`WIND TURBINE GENERATORS AND
`
`COMPONENTS THEREOF
`
`
`Inv. No. 337-TA-1218
`
`DECLARATION OF DANIEL MUSHER CONCERNING CONFIDENTIAL
`TREATMENT OF DOCUMENTS FILED IN COMPLAINANT GE’S MOTION IN
`LIMINE NO. 2 TO PRECLUDE THE WOODS DECLARATION (RX-0730C) AND ANY
`TESTIMONY BASED ON THE WOODS DECLARATION
`
`I, Daniel E. Musher, hereby declare as follows:
`
`1.
`
`I am an attorney at Weil, Gotshal & Manges, LLP, lead counsel for
`
`Complainant General Electric Company.
`
`2.
`
`I am a member in good standing of the state bars of Maryland and the District
`
`of Columbia.
`
`3.
`
`On May 18, 2021, GE filed COMPLAINANT GE’S MOTION IN LIMINE
`
`NO. 2 TO PRECLUDE THE WOODS DECLARATION (RX-0730C) AND ANY
`
`TESTIMONY BASED ON THE WOODS DECLARATION (MOTION NO. 1218-023).
`
`Motion No. 1218-023 includes four exhibits to Attachment A, of which Exhibit Nos. 1 and 3
`
`contain confidential information and have been redacted in their entirety.
`
`

`

`4.
`
`Pursuant to Ground Rule 5.2, redaction of the entirety of Exhibit Nos. 1 and 3 to
`
`Attachment A is justified because they contain confidential business information as defined by
`
`Commission Rule 201.6(a) of both parties to this Investigation and third parties.
`
`5.
`
`The information contained within these documents, if made public, would
`
`cause substantial harm to GE’s competitive positions and would allow competitors access to
`
`confidential and commercially valuable information. The prejudice GE would face if the
`
`information were disclosed outweighs the public interest in understanding the judicial process.
`
`I declare under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct.
`
`Dated: May 25, 2021
`
`/s/ Daniel E. Musher
`Daniel E. Musher
`
`

`

`CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
`
`I hereby certify the foregoing (PUBLIC) COMPLAINANT GENERAL
`ELECTRIC’S MOTION IN LIMINE NO. 2 TO PRECLUDE THE WOODS
`
`DECLARATION (RX-0730C) AND ANY TESTIMONY BASED ON THE WOODS
`DECLARATION was filed and served on this 25th day of May, 2021, by the indicated
`means, 11 on the followin -
`:
`
`The Honorable Lisa R. Barton
`
`Secretary to the Commission
`US. International Trade Connnission
`
`500 E Street, S.W., Suite 112
`
`Washington, DC. 20436
`
`The Honorable Clark S. Cheney
`Chief Administrative Law Judge
`US. International Trade Commission
`500 E Street, SW.
`
`Washington, DC. 20436
`
`Via Electronic Mail
`
`Cheney3 37@usitc.gov
`
`Facsimile: (312) 416-6201
`
`Via Electronic Mail
`
`SGRE-ITCGroupService@bakerlaw.com
`
`T. Cy Walker
`Robert Hails, Jr.
`Cassandra J. Simmons
`
`BAKER & HOSTETLER LLP
`
`1050 Connecticut Avenue, NW Suite 1100
`
`Washington, DC 20036-5403
`Telephone: (202) 861-1500
`Facsimile: (202) 816-1783
`
`Leif R. Sigrnond, Jr.
`Michael D. Gannon
`
`Justin R. Donoho
`BAKER & HOSTETLER LLP
`
`One North Wacker Drive, Suite 4500
`
`Chicago, IL 60606-2841
`Telephone: (312) 416—6200
`
`
`
`

`

`
`
`
`
`Theresa Weisenberger
`BAKER & HOSTETLER LLP
`
`1170 Peachtree Street, Suite 2400
`
`Atlanta, GA 30309
`
`Telephone: (404) 459—0050
`Facsimile: (404) 459 5734
`
`Counselfor Siemens Gamesa Renewable
`Energv Ina, Siemens Gamesa Renewable
`EnergyA/S, Gamesa Electric, S.A.U.
`
`Jeffery Totten
`Tyler Akagi
`Anthony Berlenbach
`FINNEGAN, HENDERSON, FARABOW,
`GARRETT & DUNNER LLP
`
`901 New York Avenue, NW
`
`Washington, DC 20001-4413
`Telephone: (202) 408-4000
`Fascimile: (202) 408—4400
`
`Counselfor Siemens Gamesa Renewable
`Energv Inc, Siemens Gamesa Renewable
`EnergyA/S, Gamesa Electric, S.A.U.
`
`Via Electronic Mail
`
`Sieniens-Gamesa-ITC@Fim1egan.con1
`
`ls/ Lauren McDuflie
`Lauren McDuffie
`
`IP Paralegal
`Weil, Gotshal & Manges LLP
`2001 M Street, N.W., Suite 600
`
`Washington, DC. 20036
`laiu‘en.mcduffie@weil.com
`202.682.7000
`
`

`

`EXHIBIT 1
`
`EXHIBIT 1
`
`

`

`From:
`To:
`Cc:
`
`Musher Daniel
`Siems—Gamesa-ITC; SGEE-ITC Groug Service
`G -Siemens-1TC
`
`337-1218 - Malt Woods
`Subject:
`Tuesday, February 16, 2021 7:03:56 PM
`Date:
`Rudiments Mam
`
`Counsel,
`
`Please let us know if you would accept service of a subpoena on Mark Wood‘s behalf, or
`
`alternatively, let us know if you do not intend to call Mr. Woods as a witness at the hearing.
`
`Best,
`Daniel
`
`l
`
`D
`
`Daniel Musher
`
`WeiL Gotshal & Manges LLP
`2001 M Street NW, Suite 600
`
`Washington. DC 20036
`daniel.musher@ygi| ggm
`+1 202 682 7126 Direct
`+1 202 857 0940 Fax
`
`

`

`EXHIBIT 2
`
`EXHIBIT 2
`
`

`

`From:
`To:
`Cc:
`Subject:
`Date:
`Attachments:
`
`Musher, Daniel
`Walker, T. Cy; GE-Siemens-ITC
`Siemens-Gamesa-ITC; SGRE-ITC Group Service
`RE: Respondents" Designated Witnesses and Availability
`Tuesday, February 23, 2021 10:52:54 PM
`image001.jpg
`image002.png
`image003.jpg
`image004.jpg
`
`Cy,
`
`Following today’s deposition we spoke briefly about our request to depose Mark Woods and you
`stated that SGRE was still determining whether or not it intended to call Mr. Woods to testify at the
`hearing. If SGRE wishes to reserve the right to call Mr. Woods as a witness then SGRE will need to
`make him available for a deposition before the close of fact discovery.
`
`GE also confirms that it will withdraw its deposition notices for the remaining witnesses that SGRE
`has represented it will not be relying on at the hearing (Jens Christian Kjeldsen, Jose Luis Rodriguez
`Izal, Juan Carlos Garcia Andujar, Xabier Ubieto Aranguren, and Brian Willum Solberg).
`
`Best,
`Daniel
`
`
`From: Walker, T. Cy <cwalker@bakerlaw.com>
`Sent: Tuesday, February 23, 2021 9:54 AM
`To: Musher, Daniel <Daniel.Musher@weil.com>; GE-Siemens-ITC <ge.siemens.itc@weil.com>
`Cc: Siemens-Gamesa-ITC <Siemens-Gamesa-ITC@finnegan.com>; SGRE-ITC Group Service <SGRE-
`ITCGroupService@bakerlaw.com>
`Subject: RE: Respondents' Designated Witnesses and Availability
`
`Daniel,
`
`Respondents do not intend to rely at hearing on any of the five persons identified in your email
`below and do not intend to designate any of them as a company witness for deposition. Based on
`our prior correspondence, we understand that GE will withdraw personal deposition notices of any
`individual who SGRE does not designate as a company witness for deposition and whom SGRE
`agrees not to rely on at hearing, but we ask that you confirm that to ensure both sides are on the
`same page.
`
`Best regards,
`Cy
`
`From: Musher, Daniel <Daniel.Musher@weil.com>
`Sent: Tuesday, February 16, 2021 3:42 PM
`To: Walker, T. Cy <cwalker@bakerlaw.com>; GE-Siemens-ITC <ge.siemens.itc@weil.com>
`
`

`

`Cc: Siemens—Gamesa—ITC <Siemens—Gamesa—ITC@finnegan.com>; SGRE—ITC Group Service (SGRE—
`
`ITCGroupServiceQbakerlaw.com>
`
`Subject: RE: Respondents' Designated Witnesses and Availability
`
`[External Email: Use caution when clicking on links or opening attachments.]
`
`Counsel,
`
`SGRE's list of tentative witnesses includes several individuals who were not accounted for in the
`
`discussion below: (1) Jens Christian Kjeldsen; (2) Jose Luis Rodriguez Izal; (3) Juan Carlos Garcia
`
`Andujar; (4) Xabier Ubieto Aranguren; and (5) Brian Willum Solberg. Please let us know whether
`
`SGRE intends to rely on these witnesses at the hearing or if the intent is that these witnesses would
`
`only be designated to fill in any potential gaps that arise during the depositions identified below.
`
`Thanks,
`Daniel
`
`From: Walker, T. Cy <cwa|ker bakerlaw.com>
`
`Sent: Wednesday, February 10, 2021 1:50 PM
`To: GE—Siemens—ITC < e.siemens.itc weil.com>
`
`Cc: Siemens-Gamesa-ITC <Siemens—Gamesa—ITC@finnegan.c0m>; SGRE—ITC Group Service <S£BE
`
`WW>
`
`Subject: Respondents' Designated \Mtnesses and Availability
`
`Counsel,
`
`Respondents' designated witnesses and their availability for deposition are set forth below. The
`
`designations are subject to Respondents’ objections to GE's notice of deposition.
`
`0 Philip Waite is designated to testify regarding prior art MV3000 converter systems
`
`manufactured and sold by Converteam/Alstom prior to October 20, 2006, relating to topic
`43. He will be made available on 2—15.
`
`0 Mogens Lund is designated to testify regarding technical aspects of accused full converter
`
`wind turbines relating to the following topics: 11—12, 14, 19—21, 24, 2642. He will be made
`available on 2-16.
`
`0 Donald Marcucci is designated to testify regarding topics 3—6, 9, 17, 23, 25. He will be made
`available on 2-17.
`
`0 Jesus Arellano Aguado is designated to testify regarding technical aspects of the accused DFIG
`
`wind turbines and their operation in low voltage events relating to the following topics: 11—
`
`12, 14, 19-21, 24, 2642. He will be made available on 2—18.
`
`0 Andres Agudo Araque is designated to testify regarding technical aspects of power converters
`
`and converter controllers in DFIG wind turbines and their operation in low voltage events
`
`relating to the following topics: 11-12, 14, 19-21, 24, 2642. He will be made available on 2-
`19.
`
`

`

`Jose Angel Allen Miguel is designated to testify regarding technical aspects of converter
`
`controller software in DFIG wind turbines relating to the following topics: 11—12, 14, 19-21,
`
`24, 2642. He will be made available on 2—23.
`
`0 Javier Serrano Monge is designated to testify regarding technical aspects of turbine controller
`
`software in DFIG wind turbines relating to the following topics: 11—12, 14, 19—21, 24, 26-42.
`He will be made available on 2—24.
`
`0 Paul Brogan is designated to testify regarding prior art MV3000 systems employed in SGRE’s
`
`prior art Horse Hollow wind turbines relating to topic 43. He will be made available on 2—25.
`
`0 Ashok Naik is designated to testify regarding potential uses of components identified in the
`
`parties' inventory stipulation relating to topic 18. He will be made available on 3-1.
`
`We expect that Messrs. Lund, Aguado, Araque, Serrano, and Allen will be able to provide
`
`knowledgeable testimony on operation of the Accused Products as it relates to GE’s infringement
`
`assertions, but, of course, there are practical limits to any witness's knowledge.
`
`If it turns out that
`
`these witnesses cannot provide responses to certain lines of inquiry from GE, Respondents may
`
`designate other witnesses to testify on those issues. We would arrange to make any such
`
`witness(es) available on unscheduled days in the weeks of February 22 and/or March 1, which have
`
`been left open for this purpose.
`
`For planning: Mr. Lund resides in Denmark and is a native Danish speaker. Messrs. Aguado, Araque,
`
`Serrano, and Allen reside in Spain and are native Spanish speakers. Messrs. Waite and Brogan reside
`in the UK. Messrs. Marcucci and Naik reside in the US. We understand all of these witnesses will
`
`testify in English, with the exception of Messrs. Serrano and Allen, who will require Spanish-English
`
`interpreters.
`
`Respondents do not intend to designate the following two witnesses for any topics and no longer
`
`intend to rely on either at the hearing.
`
`Jakob Skjoeth
`Jan Thisted
`
`Please let us know the preferred start times and the virtual deposition logistics for each witness GE
`
`wishes to depose as soon as you have it available.
`
`Best regards,
`
`Cv
`
`T. Cy Walker
`Partner
`
`Washington Square
`1050 Connecticut Ave, NW. | Suite 1100
`Washington, DC 20036-5403
`T +1.202.861 .1 688
`
`cwalkerQbakerlawcom
`m
`
`

`

`
`
`This email is intended only for the use of the party to which it is
`addressed and may contain information that is privrleged,
`confidential, or protected by law. If you are not the intended
`recipient you are hereby notified that any dissemination, copying
`or distribution of this email or its contents is stnctly proh bited
`If you have received this message In error, please notify us immediately
`by replying to the message and deleting it from your computer.
`
`Any tax advrce In this email is for information purposes only The content
`of this email is limited to the matters specifically addressed herein
`and may not contain a full descnption of all relevant facts or a
`complete anatysns at all relevant issues or authorities.
`
`Internet communications are not assured to be secure or clear of
`inaccuracies as intormation could be intercepted corrupted. lost,
`destroyed, amve late or incomplete, or contain Viruses. Therefore,
`we do not accept responsrbility for any errors or omissrons that are
`present in this email, or any attachment, that have arisen as a result
`of e-mail transmission.
`
`
`
`The information contained in this email message is intended only for use of the individual or entity named
`above. If the reader of this message is not the intended recipient. or the employee or agent responsible to
`deliver it to the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution or copying
`of this cornmunication'is strictly prohibited. If you have received this communicationin error, please
`immediately notify us by email,Wm, and destroy the original message. Thank you.
`
`

`

`EXHIBIT 3
`
`EXHIBIT 3
`
`

`

`Musher Daniel
`Froemel, Chmr‘, GE-Siemens—ITC
`
`Siemens-Gamesa-ITC' SGRE-{TC Group Service
`RE: lTC Cme No. 337-1218; Service of mm Party Declaration
`Tuesday, March 2, 2021 6:58:43 PM
`Mal—031m
`iwefloflm
`
`From:
`
`To:
`Cc:
`Subject:
`Date:
`Attachments:
`
`Counsel,
`
`GE has repeatedly requested that SGRE make Mr. Woods available for a deposition but SGRE has
`
`declined to do so, representing that Mr. Woods was a third party and not under SGRE’s control. Mr.
`
`Woods’ declaration clearly states that he was retained by your firm on behalf of SGRE. GE will move
`
`to strike Mr. Woods' declaration if SGRE declines to put him up for a deposition before the close of
`
`fact discovery.
`
`Best,
`Daniel
`
`From: Froemel, Christopher <cfroemel@bakerlaw.com>
`
`Sent: Tuesday, March 2, 2021 5:42 PM
`
`To: GE-Siemens—ITC <ge.siemens.itc@weil.com>
`
`Cc: Siemensfiamesa—ITC <SiemensGamesa-lTC@finnegan.com>; SGRE—ITC Group Service éGRE-
`
`ITCGroupService@bakerlaw.com>
`
`Subject: [MESSAGE ENCRYPTED]ITC Case No. 337-1218; Service of Third Party Declaration
`
`Counsel,
`
`Attached for service is the Declaration of Mark Woods of Delta Power Systems (UK).
`
`Please note, these documents have been designated as CONFIDENTIAL BUSINESS INFORMATION
`
`SUBJECT TO PROTECTIVE ORDER. The password to access these materials will follow momentarily in
`
`a separate email-
`
`Regards,
`Chris
`
`Chris Froemel
`
`IP Litigation Paralegal
`
`. O
`
`ne North Wacker Drive | Suite 4500
`Chicago. IL 60606-2841
`T +1.312.416.6280
`
`cfroemelQbakeilawcom
`W
`
`

`

`D
`
`Thisernailisintendedonlylortheuseotthepartytovmidritis
`addressed and may contain information that isprivileged,
`confidential, or protected bylaw. Ifyouare notthe intended
`recipientyou areherebynotifiedthatany dissemination, copying
`ordistlirutionofthisemailoritscontentsisstricliyprohbited.
`tfyou have received thisrnessage in error, pleasenotifyusimmediately
`byreply‘ngtothemessageanddeletingitfromyouroorrputer
`
`Anytaxadviceinthisernailisforinfomrationpurposesonly. Thecontent
`of this email is limited to the matters specifically addressed herein
`and may not contain a full description of all relevant facts or a
`complete analysis ofall relevant issues or authorities.
`
`Internet communications are not assured to be secure or clear of
`inaccuracies as information could be interwpted, corrupted, lost,
`destroyed, arrive late or incomplete, or contain viruses Therefore,
`wedonotacceptresponsibilityforanyenorsoromissionsthatare
`present in this email, or any attachment, that have arisen as a result
`of e-mai transmission.
`
`