Opinion ID: 220657
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: Insufficiency of ClearOne's expert evidence

Text: Donald Bowers argues that the testimony of ClearOne's expert witnesses at the July 31, 2009 show cause hearing regarding the similarities between DialHD's AEC4 product and a WideBand product merely established that the two products were physically similar, but did not otherwise establish that the DialHD product contained the Honeybee Code. Moreover, he argues, had he been allowed to refute this testimony, his arguments would have all but eviscerated ClearOne's `likelihood of success' argument for expansion of its injunction. Aplt. Br. at 26. Thus, he argues, he was unduly prejudiced throughout the course of both the July 31, 2009 hearing and, by extension, all subsequent contempt hearings related thereto.... Id. at 27. The record on appeal refutes Donald Bowers' arguments. At the July 31, 2009 hearing, ClearOne presented the testimony of three witnesses. The first witness, private investigator Andrew Moan, testified that he had recently purchased an acoustic echo cancellation (AEC) product called AEC4 made by DialHD. Moan further testified that the company he purchased the AEC4 unit from, Lucid Corporation, informed him that WideBand had gone through some corporate changes and had revised their company line and changed their name to Dial[HD] and had also updated some technology. JA at T4933. According to Moan, Lucid also informed him that the AEC4 unit operate[d] on the same platform as the Simphonix SI-400[, a WideBand-created product that was found to incorporate the Honeybee Code]. Id. at T4936. Moan testified that when he telephoned DialHD, he ultimately spoke with Lonny Bowers, who identified himself as DialHD's technology evangelist. Id. at T4940. ClearOne's second witness was Derek Graham, ClearOne's vice president of research and development. Graham testified that the DialHD AEC4 unit purchased by Moan was shipped in a box that included a necessary component called an isolation transformer, and that the isolation transformer said WideBand Solutions on it. Id. at T4949. Graham further testified that the inside of the DialHD AEC4 unit was identical to a WideBand Simphonix AEC unit. Graham testified that he performed comparative testing on the DialHD AEC4 and WideBand Simphonix units, including a frequency sweep test and a single tone test on each unit, and that the frequency responses overlap[ped] almost exactly, something he would not expect to find if the two products were running independently developed algorithms.... Id. at T4956. The DialHD AEC4 and WideBand Simphonix units also produced identical results on the single tone test, according to Graham. Graham testified that he did not believe it was possible for someone to have developed from scratch a working AEC algorithm between June 5, 2008 (the last day of trial), and June 2009 (when the DialHD AEC4 unit was purchased). Graham testified that the DialHD AEC4 and WideBand Simphonix units contained the same Federal Communications Commission (FCC) identification numbers, even though different products are required to have their own unique FCC identification numbers, and that FCC identification numbers cannot be transferred. Consequently, Graham testified, the DialHD AEC4 unit had to be functionally identical to the WideBand Simphonix unit, or DialHD was violating FCC rules and regulations. Graham testified that he had carefully examined the circuit boards in both the DialHD and WideBand units and they appeared to be identical. According to Graham, it would be impossible for two identical circuit boards to have been independently designed. In sum, Graham opined that the Dial[HD] AEC4 [wa]s a repackaged [WideBand] Simphonix SI-400 product. Id. at T4996. ClearOne's third and final witness was Thomas Makovicka, the same expert witness that ClearOne had utilized at trial. Makovicka opined that the DialHD and WideBand units utilized the same algorithms.... Id. at T5003. In support of this opinion, Makovicka testified that the DialHD and WideBand units ha[d] the same spectral distortions, the same frequency response, and used the identical filter bank design.... Id. At the conclusion of the hearing, the district court found that there was a substantial likelihood that ClearOne would prevail on the question of whether the products that [we]re at issue ... [we]re in fact employing the Honeybee Code, and that ClearOne would suffer irreparable harm if the assets were transferred again.... Id. at T5095. In sum, we conclude, having reviewed in detail the testimony of the three ClearOne witnesses, that the district court's factual findings were not clearly erroneous, but rather were well supported by the evidence.