UNITED STATES INTERNATIONAL TRADE COMMISSION
`WASHINGTON, D.C.
`
`Before the Honorable Theodore R. Essex
`Administrative Law Judge
`_________________________________________
`
`)
`) Investigation No . 337-TA-625
`
`
`
`
`In the Matter of
`)
`
`Certain Self-Cleaning Litter Boxes and
`)
`
`Components Thereof
`
`
`__________________________________________)
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`RESPONSE OF RESPONDENT LUCKY LITTER LLC TO
`APPLICA CONSUMER PRODUCTS, INC.’S MOTION TO COMPEL
`
`
`
`Ground Rule 4.1.1 requires that “[n]o motion to compel discovery may be filed unless the
`
`subject matter of the motion has first been brought to the Discovery Committee and the
`
`Committee has reached an impasse in resolving the matter.” As is discussed in the pages that
`
`follow, no impasse was ever reached in resolving any of the matters set forth in Applica’s
`
`Motion to Compel. In fact, most of those matters have already been resolved in the parties’
`
`weekly discovery committee meetings and related correspondence, some of which is even
`
`attached to Applica’s Memorandum. Thus, Lucky Litter submits that Applica’s Motion was
`
`improper under Ground Rule 4.1.1.
`
`In fact, out of all of the issues raised in Applica’s Motion, the only issue that remains
`
`viable for the ALJ’s decision is whether Lucky Litter is obligated to produce the personal contact
`
`information for each of its individual investors, and information regarding the specific amount
`
`and/or nature of their respective investments. Nevertheless, Applica’s Motion is still improper
`
`because, even though the parties have debated this limited issue on multiple occasions, Lucky
`
`Litter did not realize that the parties were at an impasse until this Motion was filed. Indeed, on
`
`February 21, 2008, Lucky Litter’s counsel sent a letter to Applica’s counsel, Mr. Mills, stating
`
`that, with respect to its Investors, “the only information Lucky Litter is withholding are
`
`
`
`

`
`
`
`documents identifying the personal contact information for any investor and the nature/amount
`
`of their contributions. Lucky Litter has not withheld any investor updates, briefings, emails, etc.,
`
`that it made or sent to investors.” See Ex. G. to Applica’s Memorandum, at 1. Yet, Applica
`
`appears to flat-out ignore this representation when it misinforms the ALJ on page 14 of its
`
`Memorandum that “according to Lucky Litter’s representations, it has not produced documents
`
`provided to or received from investors or potential investors.” This is just one of the many
`
`examples where Applica is asking the ALJ to decide an issue that is not in issue.
`
`Likewise, with respect to Lucky Litter’s position on future products, Applica disregards
`
`the Joint Report Of The Parties’ February 2008 Discovery Committee Conferences, submitted to
`
`the ALJ on March 12, 2008, wherein it states, at page 3, “Lucky Litter agreed to produce detailed
`
`financial information, documents related to any automated/self-cleaning litter box under
`
`development, and it advised Applica that it has not withheld any marketing information from its
`
`production. See Ex. 1. Moreover, in Ex. G to Applica’s Memorandum, counsel for Lucky Litter
`
`again states “with respect to products under development, our client has agreed to produce all
`
`documents that relate to its only automated litter box currently under development (referred to as
`
`the LB3, LB5, and LB6). We understand that the parties are in agreement that documents
`
`relating to future products that do not concern self-cleaning/automated litter boxes need not be
`
`produced.” Yet, despite these unequivocal statements, which were all subsequent to Lucky
`
`Litter’s January 14th discovery responses, Applica acts as if this issue remains in dispute. In
`
`fact, the documents relating to Lucky Litter’s only automated litter box currently under
`
`development were included in at least its production of March 7, 2008, before this Motion to
`
`Compel was filed.
`
`
`
`2
`
`

`
`
`
`Applica’s Motion is specious because it is based on Lucky Litter’s outdated responses to
`
`discovery, and completely omits Lucky Litter’s subsequent verbal and written commitments, and
`
`actions (through document productions). Lucky Litter has agreed to amend/supplement its
`
`discovery responses in view of the recent agreements reached during the weekly discovery
`
`committee meetings, but it wanted to avoid having to do this work multiple times. Therefore, it
`
`requested that Applica provide it with a letter identifying which if the 111 responses to Applica’s
`
`document requests, and which of the 39 answers to Applica’s interrogatories, required
`
`supplementation. It was not until February 25, 2008 that Applica provided this letter to Lucky
`
`Litter’s counsel. See Ex. 2. Although some time has passed since then, at no time has Lucky
`
`Litter refused to update its discovery responses. Rather, it was waiting for its electronic
`
`discovery vendor to resolve serious technical issues, detailed in the next section.
`
`Applica filed this Motion without even discussing it with Lucky Litter beforehand, in
`
`violation of the Ground Rules. Lucky Litter respectfully requests that Applica’s motion be
`
`denied in its entirety.
`
`I.
`
`Lucky Litter Has Produced All Non-Privileged Electronic Documents Identified
`by Applica’s Search Terms
`
`
`Applica’s Motion is misleading in that it suggests that Lucky Litter has produced no
`
`electronic documents. To be clear, at the time this Motion was filed, Lucky Litter (a company of
`
`less than 10 employees) had already produced over 60001 electronic documents, both in this
`
`case, and in connection with the parallel litigation that is currently pending in the Eastern District
`
`
`1
`This figure does not include the paper documents Lucky Litter produced, or documents
`that were produced on behalf of the third parties, whom Lucky Litter’s counsel is
`representing.
`
`
`
`3
`
`

`
`
`
`of Texas2 (the Texas Action”), where Lucky Litter is charged with infringing the same patent at
`
`issue in this investigation. Moreover, the Parties have agreed that all documents produced in
`
`connection with the Texas Action may be used for purposes of this Investigation. Thus,
`
`Applica’s cries of “prejudice” are disingenuous, at best.
`
`In fact, at the time that Applica’s Motion was filed, the only electronic documents that
`
`had not yet been produced were Lucky Litter’s email files and attachments. On March 14, 2008,
`
`Lucky Litter produced over 38,000 electronic documents to Applica’s local counsel in the Texas
`
`Action and to Applica’s ITC counsel in this Investigation.
`
`From the beginning of the electronic discovery process, Lucky Litter has been an open
`
`book as to the methods it used to collect and produce electronic documents. On December 28,
`
`2007, this Investigation was instituted, and, immediately thereafter, Applica served 111 requests
`
`for documents and 39 interrogatories on Lucky Litter. Because Applica refused to agree to stay
`
`the Texas Action (which involved a related patent not asserted in this case)3, Lucky Litter faced
`
`extensive document productions in both this Investigation and in the Texas Action. Lucky Litter
`
`thus made the rational decision to consolidate its electronic document production efforts for both
`
`cases.
`
`3
`
`
`2
`Applica Consumer Products, Inc. v. Doskocil Mfg. Co. et al., 2:07-CV-73-TJW (E.D.
`Tex.).
`In the Texas Action, Applica asserts infringement of U.S. Patent No. 6,082,302, which is
`not asserted in this action. For this reason, Applica objected to Lucky Litter’s motion to
`stay the Texas Action in its entirety. The Court has not yet ruled on that motion. Lucky
`Litter submits that Applica intentionally did not assert the ‘302 patent in this
`Investigation to “game the system” and to cause Lucky Litter – a small company with
`less than 10 employees – to incur the expense of defending what is essentially the same
`case in two different forums. This is contrary to Congressional intent. See In re Princo,
`Corp., 486 F.3d 1365, 1368 (Fed. Cir. 2007) (“[t]he purpose of [35 U.S.C.] § 1659(a) was
`to prevent infringement proceedings from occurring ‘in two forums at the same time.’”).
`
`
`
`4
`
`

`
`
`
`F.R.Civ.P. 26(f)(3) requires the parties to adopt a discovery plan which includes “issues
`
`about disclosure or discovery of electronically stored information, including the form or forms in
`
`which it should be produced.” To this end, in the Texas case, counsel had negotiated search
`
`terms that would be used initially to find electronic documents. It was not until January 18,
`
`2008, however, that counsel for Applica confirmed that the electronic search terms it provided in
`
`the Texas Action would also be sufficient for purposes of this Investigation. Shortly thereafter,
`
`Lucky Litter’s vendor ran those search terms through the electronic data it collected from Alan
`
`Cook, Lucky Litter’s President, and Ethan Youdarian, Lucky Litter’s Vice President, during an
`
`onsite collection. However, given the extremely broad nature of the terms Applica provided,
`
`such as “litter” (a term that appears in Respondent’s trade name and, therefore, could be found in
`
`every single electronic document ever generated by the company) and “cat,” it was necessary for
`
`Lucky Litter to provide its vendor with a second set of search terms to narrow the pool of
`
`potentially relevant documents that would be processed by the vendor. Lucky Litter then made a
`
`production of 2320 electronic documents to Applica on February 8, 2008, and it expressly
`
`informed Applica of the manner in which it went about this production, and it set forth in letter
`
`to Applica every term it used to exclude documents and the topics to which such terms related.
`
`When Applica complained that the terms used to exclude documents may have been too
`
`broad, Lucky Litter offered to run a third set of search terms, that Applica could provide, through
`
`the universe of excluded documents. Lucky Litter agreed to produce any non-privileged
`
`documents that were identified by that third set of terms, and it did just that on March 4, 2008
`
`(producing an additional 3636 electronic documents to Applica’s counsel).
`
`In a discovery committee meeting held on February 15, 2008, Applica’s informed Lucky
`
`Litter, for the first time, that only 34 emails had been produced from Lucky Litter’s files. Lucky
`
`
`
`5
`
`

`
`
`
`Litter immediately questioned its vendor about the lack of emails, and Lucky Litter’s vendor,
`
`after conducting an investigation, reported back that there had been an error in the indexing of
`
`the Personal Storage (“PST”) files, which would include Lucky Litter’s emails and the related
`
`attachments. See Ex. 3, Decl. of S. Kirchner, ¶ 3. The vendor undertook to correct this problem
`
`by reindexing the PST files, and re-running the search terms through those documents. On
`
`February 20, 2008, the vendor informed Lucky Litter’s counsel that “an additional 2500
`
`emails/attachments” contained those terms. Id. ¶ 4. Consistent with it efforts to always keep
`
`Applica informed, Lucky Litter passed this information on to Applica’s counsel. Lucky Litter
`
`advised Applica that it would simply be screening these documents for privilege and that they
`
`could be produced by no later than March 7th.
`
`It was not until February 27th, that Lucky Litter learned from its vendor for the first time
`
`that the actual number of emails uncovered by the search terms was approximately 40,000. Id. ¶
`
`5. Upon learning this information, Lucky Litter immediately contacted its vendor to find why
`
`the previous number was so much lower. Id. It appears that the at the time the vendor provided
`
`Lucky Litter with the 2500 figure, the processing had not yet completed and, yet, the vendor
`
`neglected to inform Lucky Litter’s counsel that this number could and did substantially increase.
`
`Id. After looking into this issue further, Lucky Litter discovered that the vendor had not de-
`
`duplicated the 40,000 PST files and, thus, the processed files had to be returned to the vendor so
`
`that this process could be performed. Decl. of S. Kirchner, ¶ 6.
`
`The vendor then informed Lucky Litter that it would be delivering the de-duplicated PST
`
`files by the end of the day on March 5th or during the morning of March 6, at the latest. Id.
`
`Given that Lucky Litter was only going to be screening these documents for privilege, and then
`
`producing everything in native format, it believed it could still meet the March 7th production
`
`
`
`6
`
`

`
`
`
`date it had provided, even despite all of the foregoing issues. On March 6th, however, the
`
`vendor informed Lucky Litter’s counsel that, when performing some quality checks on the
`
`delivery, she noticed some serious issues with the software indexing again. Id. ¶ 7. She also
`
`stated that she was in contact with the support and programming team at LexisNexis, the owner
`
`of the software the vendor uses to process native files, in effort to resolve these problems as
`
`quickly as possible. Id. It was not until March 11, 2008 that the issues were finally resolved
`
`and the PST files were delivered from the vendor to Lucky Litter’s counsel. Id. ¶ 8. Those files
`
`were produced three days later, only one week after the March 7th date Lucky Litter had
`
`projected. See Ex. 4.
`
`Despite the fact that Lucky Litter provided Applica with daily updates on the status of its
`
`vendor problems (Ex. 5), Applica still filed this Motion, incorrectly characterizing Lucky Litter’s
`
`inability to produce these files sooner as “willful” and/or “negligent.” On the contrary, the
`
`declaration and correspondence attached as Exhibits 3-5 to this Response indicate that Lucky
`
`Litter hired a licensed vendor to do its processing and that this vendor experienced some
`
`significant technical issues in processing the voluminous documents collected using Applica’s
`
`search terms. Nevertheless, Lucky Litter was able to produce all of the relevant non-privileged
`
`electronic on a rolling basis, while always keeping Applica informed on its progress.
`
`II.
`
`
`
`Lucky Litter Has Produced Documents Related to Its Automated Litter Boxes
`Under Development
`
`Prior to filing this Motion, the Parties had agreed to produce documents related to
`
`automated litter boxes currently under development, but not other products under development
`
`(e.g. pet toys or non-automated litter boxes). See Ex. G to Applica’s Memorandum, at 1
`
`(stating “we understand that the parties are in agreement that documents relating to future
`
`products that do not concern self-cleaning/automated litter boxes need not be produced.”).
`
`
`
`7
`
`

`
`
`
`Indeed, even the Joint Report Of The Parties February 2008 Discovery Committee
`
`Conferences, acknowledged as much, stating:
`
`In the February 13, 2008, discovery committee meeting, ACPI declared an
`impasse as to the production of documents containing financial information,
`documents relating to products under development, and certain marketing
`information. ACPI believes these categories of documents to be relevant; Lucky
`Litter does not. In the February 20, 2008, discovery committee meeting, Lucky
`Litter agreed to produce detailed financial information, documents related to any
`automated/self-cleaning litter box under development, and it advised Applica
`that it has not withheld any marketing information from its production.
`
`
`
`Ex. 1, at 3, ¶ 1(a). In fact, Lucky Litter produced these documents on March 7, 2008, before
`
`Applica’s Motion was filed.
`
`
`III. The Only Information Lucky Litter has Withheld About its Investors is Their
`Personal Contact Information and the Amount of their Contribution, which
`Lucky Litter Continues to Maintain are Not Relevant to this Investigation
`
`Applica’s assertion, at page 14 of its Memorandum, that “according to Lucky Litter’s
`
`
`
`representations, it has not produced documents provided to or received from investors or
`
`potential investors” is patently false, and Applica knows it. Indeed, Ex. G to Applica’s
`
`Memorandum states exactly the contrary “to be clear, the only information Lucky Litter is
`
`withholding are documents identifying the personal contact information for any investor and the
`
`nature/amount of their contributions. Lucky Litter has not withheld any investor updates,
`
`briefings, emails, etc., that it made or sent to investors.” Ex. G to Applica’s Memorandum, at 1.
`
`Lucky Litter also confirmed this in a conference with Applica’s counsel that was held on
`
`February 22, 2008. In fact, Applica seemed to be satisfied with this clarification. Lucky Litter
`
`did not realize, until this Motion was filed, that the parties were in fact at an impasse on this
`
`issue.
`
`
`
`8
`
`

`
`
`
`Nevertheless, Lucky Litter’s objection to producing this information is twofold. First, the
`
`personal contact information for its investors and the amount of their investment(s) is not
`
`relevant to any issue in this Investigation and is not likely to lead to the discovery of admissible
`
`evidence. Second, if Lucky Litter turns over the master list of investors to Applica’s counsel it
`
`will, without a doubt, continue down its path of issuing subpoenas to every individual Lucky
`
`Litter identifies in an effort to interfere with Lucky Litter’s business relations to drive its rising
`
`competitor, Lucky Litter, out of business. Applica has Lucky Litter’s financial documents, it has
`
`the information Lucky Litter communicated to or received from investors, and it even has a
`
`corporate disclosure statement that was filed in connection with the Texas Action, which
`
`discusses Lucky Litter ownership structure. Accordingly, Applica’s requests for this highly
`
`sensitive information about its competitors investors should be denied.
`
`Given the complete lack of relevance, Lucky Litter maintains its objection only to
`
`producing
`
`these
`
`two categories of
`
`information—investor contact
`
`information and
`
`the
`
`nature/amount of their respective contributions.
`
`IV. Lucky Litter Has Not Withheld Documents Concerning its Market and/or
`Business Plans
`
`Lucky Litter has not withheld documents related to its Market and/or Business plans.
`
`
`
`Indeed, as mentioned above, Lucky Litter used search terms provided by Applica to collect and
`
`produce documents in this Investigation. Lucky Litter agreed to use the Applica-generated terms
`
`for precisely this reason—to avoid disputes over the sufficiency of its production. Nevertheless,
`
`as Applica well knows, Lucky Litter has produced countless comparisons, studies and
`
`presentations concerning its competitors in the marketplace (e.g. documents bearing the
`
`production nos. LL0000138-LL0000166, LL0000290-LL0000296, LL0000784-LL0000789,
`
`LL0000790-LL0000792, LL0000793-LL0000795, LL0000796-LL0000799, LL0000800-
`
`
`
`9
`
`

`
`
`
`LL0000805).
`
` Lucky Litter has also produced sales forecasts (e.g. LL0002098-2104,
`
`LL0002298-2569, LL0002570-2842, LL0003088-3268, LL0003269-3410, LL0003411-3630,
`
`LL0004081-4358, LL0004375-4646, and documents contained in Katten’s Native Productions 6,
`
`7, 8 and 9). Further, all of these documents were produced well before this Motion was filed.
`
`V.
`
`
`The Parties Are Working to Resolve Issues Related to the Protective Order
`
`Lucky Litter recently discovered that William Beard, an attorney representing Applica in
`
`this action and in the Texas Action, was, unbeknownst to Lucky Litter, prosecuting patents
`
`related to the exact technology that is at issue in both cases. At the same time, Mr. Beard was
`
`pressing Lucky Litter to produce its most sensitive documents. Mr. Beard insisted that Lucky
`
`Litter must produce documents showing Lucky Litter’s planned future automatic litter boxes.
`
`Upon discovering that Mr. Beard and other Baker Botts lawyers had been prosecuting
`
`patent applications for Applica in connection with automatic litter box patent applications, Lucky
`
`Litter immediately alerted him to the conflict and demanded that, among other things, the
`
`Protective Order in this case be amended to exclude attorneys who are prosecuting patents
`
`applications for automated-self-cleaning litter boxes from accessing the confidential business
`
`information.
`
`Applica responded by trying to analogize its situation to Lucky Litter’s, where one or
`
`more attorneys from Katten Muchin Rosenman LLP (“Katten”), the law firm that is representing
`
`Lucky Litter in this case, are involved in prosecuting its patent applications for self-cleaning
`
`litter boxes. The analogy is not well-taken, however, because, unlike Mr. Beard, no attorney at
`
`Katten has both participated in the prosecution of Lucky Litter’s patent applications and its
`
`litigation.
`
`
`
`10
`
`

`
`
`
`Although Mr. Beard agreed that the Protective Order should be amended to prohibit
`
`attorneys who have access to Confidential Business Information from prosecuting patent
`
`applications, Mr. Beard insisted that the prohibition should not apply to PTO reexamination
`
`proceedings of the patents-in-suit in the Texas case and the patent-in-suit in this Investigation.
`
`Lucky Litter sent case law to Mr. Beard demonstrating that the law in the Eastern District of
`
`Texas where the Texas action is pending is absolutely clear on this point: the prohibition applies
`
`to reexamination proceedings. In Visto Corp. v. Seven Networks, Inc., 2006 WL 3741891 (E.D.
`
`Tex.) (Ward, J.), the Chief Judge in that District construed a protective order to have prohibited
`
`trial counsel from participating in reexamination proceedings. The Court relied on a prior
`
`decision reaching the same result. Microunity Systems Engineering, Inc. v. Dell, Inc., 2:04-CV-
`
`120 (Order, Dkt.# 156) (E.D. Tex. 2005) (“The Court finds that the Protective Order entered in
`
`this case is clear. The Protective Order includes a Prosecution Bar that applies equally to
`
`reexaminations as it does to new applications filed with the USPTO.”)4
`
`In the face of this authority from the very District where Applica chose to file the Texas
`
`Action that it now refuses to stay, Applica argued that Lucky Litter had not cited any authority
`
`from the Commission. That begs the question. The documents that Lucky Litter has produced
`
`will be used in both actions. This demonstrates that Applica is attempting to “game the system”
`
`by citing the Texas rules where it serves its purpose and attempting to rely on Commission
`
`authority (although Applica has cited none) as an excuse for not following settled precedent in
`
`the District of its choice.
`
`
`4
`A court in the Eastern District of Virginia reached the same conclusion. MercExchange
`LLC v. eBay, Inc., 500 F. Supp.2d 556, 589, 590 (E.D. Va. 2007) (trial counsel’s
`involvement in reexamination violation of protective order). After receiving this
`
`
`
`11
`
`

`
`
`
`On Friday, March 21, 2008, Mr. Beard indicated that Applica had reconsidered its
`
`position in view of the authority discussed above, but it reserved the right to apply to the Court
`
`for leave so that Baker Botts attorneys, who have had access to Confidential Business
`
`Information, could participate in reexamination proceedings.
`
`The reason for barring trial counsel who has had access to confidential information from
`
`participating in prosecution is as follows:
`
`[w]ere he given access to [the defendant's] technology, [counsel] would be in the
`‘untenable position’ of having to either refuse his client legal advice on
`competitive design matters or violate the protective order's prohibition against
`revealing [the plaintiff's] technical information.... No matter how much good faith
`[counsel] might exercise, it is unrealistic to expect that his knowledge of [the
`defendant’s] secret technology would or could not influence the nature of his
`advice to [the plaintiff]. This is so whether the advice relates to a pending
`application or a future application....
`
` Mikohn Gaming Corp. v. Acres Gaming Inc, 50 U.S. P.Q. 2d 1783, 1786 (D. Nev. 1998),
`
`quoting, Motorola, Inc. v. Interdigital Technology Corp., 1994 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 20714 (D. Del.
`
`1994).
`
`In this case, Applica insisted that Lucky Litter produce documents reflecting designs of
`
`future products. Lucky Litter has produced those documents over its objection, in order to avoid
`
`the expense of litigating this issue. Because those documents were produced based on electronic
`
`search terms that encompassed the designs of its future products, it would be extremely
`
`expensive for Lucky Litter to determine the universe of documents it produced on this topic in
`
`order to retrieve them all. Armed with information about such products, claims in a
`
`reexamination proceeding could potentially be amended in a manner that reads on those
`
`products, but avoids the prior art. Clearly, the risk to Lucky Litter is significant, and the damage
`
`potentially irreparable.
`
`
`
`12
`
`

`
`
`
`Applica has contended that the reexamination prohibition should not be entered because
`
`Respondents have not yet filed a notice of reexamination with the PTO. Such a notice will be
`
`filed soon.
`
`In the meantime, Lucky Litter has continued to produce documents to Applica’s law firm
`
`of record, Miller Chevalier, until this conflict has been resolved through an amendment to the
`
`Protective Order.
`
`VI. Conclusion
`
`For the reasons stated herein, Lucky Litter respectfully requests that Applica’s Motion to
`
`Compel be denied in its entirety.
`
`
`
`Dated: March 24, 2008
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Respectfully submitted,
`
`
`
`
`
`/s/ Eric C. Cohen
`
`Eric C. Cohen
`Carolyn M. Passen
`Jeremy C. Daniel
`KATTEN MUCHIN ROSENMAN LLP
`525 West Monroe Street
`Chicago, Illinois 60661-3693
`Phone (312) 902-5200
`Facsimile (312) 902-1061
`
`David P. Sanders
`Justin L. Krieger
`KATTEN MUCHIN ROSENMAN LLP
`1025 Thomas Jefferson St., N.W.
`East Lobby, Suite 700
`Washington, D.C. 20007-5201
`Phone (202) 625-3500
`Facsimile (202) 298-7570
`
`
`
`13
`
`

`
`
`
`CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
`
`I hereby certify that, on March 24, 2008, copies of the RESPONSE OF RESPONDENT
`LUCKY LITTER LLC TO APPLICA CONSUMER PRODUCTS, INC.’S MOTION TO
`COMPEL were served on the following as indicated:
`
` Via Hand Delivery (1 original; 6 copies)
` Via U.S. Mail
` Via Overnight Mail
` Via Electronic Mail
` Via Facsimile
` Via Electronic Docket Filing
`
` Via Hand Delivery (2 copies)
` Via U.S. Mail
` Via Overnight Mail
` Via Electronic Mail
` Via Facsimile
`
` Via Hand Delivery
` Via U.S. Mail
` Via Overnight Mail
` Via Electronic Mail
` Via Facsimile
`
` Via Hand Delivery
` Via U.S. Mail
` Via Overnight Mail
` Via Electronic Mail
` Via Facsimile
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`The Honorable Marilyn R. Abbott
`Secretary
`U.S. International Trade Commission
`500 E. Street, S.W., Room 112-F
`Washington, D.C. 20436
`
`
`The Honorable Theodore R. Essex
`Administrative Law Judge
`U.S. International Trade Commission
`600 E. Street, S.W., Room 317
`Washington, D.C. 20436
`
`
`Anne Goalwin, Esq.
`Office of Unfair Import Investigations
`U.S. International Trade Commission
`500 E Street, S.W.
`Washington D.C. 20436
`Anne.goalwin@usitc.gov
`
`James B. Altman
`F. David Foster
`Miller & Chevalier
`655 Fifteenth Street, N.W.
`Suite 900
`Washington, D.C. 20005-5701
`TEL +1 202.626.5916
`FAX +1 202.626.5801
`dfoster@milchev.com
`jaltman@milchev.com
`
`Counsel for Complainants
`
`
`
`

`
` Via Hand Delivery
` Via U.S. Mail
` Via Overnight Mail
` Via Electronic Mail
` Via Facsimile
`
` Via Hand Delivery
` Via U.S. Mail
` Via Overnight Mail
` Via Electronic Mail
` Via Facsimile
`
` Via Hand Delivery
` Via U.S. Mail
` Via Overnight Mail
` Via Electronic Mail
` Via Facsimile
`
` Via Hand Delivery
` Via U.S. Mail
` Via Overnight Mail
` Via Electronic Mail
` Via Facsimile
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Bruce W. Slayden II
`Jeffrey D. Mills
`Baker Botts L.L.P.
`1500 San Jacinto Center
`98 San Jacinto Boulevard
`Austin, Texas 78701
`Tel: 512-322-2500
`Fax 512-322-2501
`Bruce.slayden@bakerbotts.com
`jeffrey.mills@bakerbotts.com
`
`Counsel for Complainants
`Bryant C. Boren
`Steve Schortgen
`BAKER BOTTS L.L.P.
`2001 Ross Avenue
`Dallas, TX 75201
`TEL +1 214.953.6500
`FAX +1 214.953.6503
`Bryant.c.boren@bakerbotts.com
`Steve.schortgen@bakerbotts.com
`
`Counsel for Complainants
`Vance L. Liebman
`Funkhouser Vegosen Liebman & Dunn Ltd.
`55 West Monroe, Suite 2300
`Chicago, IL 60603
`TEL +1 312.701.6850
`FAX +1 312.701.6801
`vliebman@fvldlaw.com
`
`Counsel for Complainants
`Roy William Hardin
`Michael Scott Fuller
`Locke Liddell & Sapp PLLC
`2200 Ross Avenue, Suite 2200
`Dallas, Texas 75201-6776
`rhardin@lockeliddell.com
`sfuller@lockeliddell.com
`
`Counsel for Doskocil Mfg. Co., Inc.
`
`
`
`

`
`
`
`Paul V. Storm
`John J. Patti
`Chris Kling
`Storm LLP
`901 Main Street, Suite 7100
`Dallas, Texas 75202
`paulstorm@alliplaw.com
`johnpatti@alliplaw.com
`chriskling@alliplaw.com
`
`Counsel for OurPet’s Company
`Dwayne J. Hermes
`Amy D. Benavides
`Nhut Tan Tran
`Hermes Sargent Bates L.L.P.
`901 Main Street, Suite 5200
`Dallas, Texas 75202
`Dwayne.hermes@hsblaw.com
`Amy.benavides@hsblaw.com
`Nhut.tran@hsblaw.com
`
`Counsel for OurPet’s Company
`
` Via Hand Delivery
` Via U.S. Mail
` Via Overnight Mail
` Via Electronic Mail
` Via Facsimile
`
` Via Hand Delivery
` Via U.S. Mail
` Via Overnight Mail
` Via Electronic Mail
` Via Facsimile
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
` /s/ Eric C. Cohen_____
`
`Eric C. Cohen
`Katten Muchin Rosenman LLP
`525 West Monroe St.
`Chicago, Illinois 60661-3693
`
`Counsel for Respondent Lucky Litter LLC