Você está na página 1de 50

2019-2420, -2435

In The
United States Court of Appeals
For The Federal Circuit

KUEN HWA TRAFFIC INDUSTRIAL CO.,


Plaintiff - Appellant,

v.

DNA MOTOR, INC.,


Defendant - Cross-Appellant.

APPEALS FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT


FOR THE CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
IN NO. 2:18-cv-05664-RGK-SK, JUDGE R. GARY KLAUSNER.

BRIEF OF APPELLANT

Alexander Chen
INHOUSE CO LAW FIRM
7700 Irvine Center Drive, Suite 800
Irvine, California 92618
(949) 250-1555
alexc@inhouseco.com

Counsel for Appellant


THE LEX GROUPDC  1050 Connecticut Avenue, N.W.  Suite 500, #5190  Washington, D.C. 20036
(202) 955-0001  (800) 856-4419  www.thelexgroup.com
Case: 19-2420 Document: 19 Page: 1 Filed: 10/24/2019
FORM 9. Certificate of Interest Form 9
Rev. 10/17
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FEDERAL CIRCUIT
Kuen Hwa Traffic Industrial Co. DNA Motor Inc.
v.
19-2420, 19-2435
Case No.

CERTIFICATE OF INTEREST

Counsel for the:


(petitioner) (appellant) (respondent) (appellee) (amicus) (name of party)

Kuen Hwa Traffic Industrial Co.


certifies the following (use “None” if applicable; use extra sheets if necessary):

2. Name of Real Party in interest 3. Parent corporations and


1. Full Name of Party (Please only include any real party publicly held companies
Represented by me in interest NOT identified in that own 10% or more of
Question 3) represented by me is: stock in the party
Kuen Hwa Traffic Industrial Co. Kuen Hwa Traffic Industrial Co. N/A

4. The names of all law firms and the partners or associates that appeared for the party or amicus now
represented by me in the trial court or agency or are expected to appear in this court (and who have not
or will not enter an appearance in this case) are:
InHouse Co.

William Walz
Katja M. Grosch
Case: 19-2420 Document: 19 Page: 2 Filed: 10/24/2019
FORM 9. Certificate of Interest Form 9
Rev. 10/17

5. The title and number of any case known to counsel to be pending in this or any other court or agency
that will directly affect or be directly affected by this court’s decision in the pending appeal. See Fed. Cir.
R. 47. 4(a)(5) and 47.5(b). (The parties should attach continuation pages as necessary).

Concurrently pending cross-appeal 19-2435

10/24/19 /s/Alexander Chen

Date Signature of counsel


Alexander Chen
Please Note: All questions must be answered
Printed name of counsel

cc:

Reset Fields
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page

TABLE OF AUTHORITIES ................................................................................... iii

STATEMENT OF RELATED CASES ..................................................................... v

PRELIMINARY STATEMENT ............................................................................... 1

JURISDICTIONAL STATEMENT .......................................................................... 2

STATEMENT OF THE ISSUES............................................................................... 2

STATEMENT OF THE CASE .................................................................................. 3

A. The Design Patent ................................................................................. 3

B. DNA’s Accused Products...................................................................... 3

C. The Trial ................................................................................................ 5

D. The Final Judgment ............................................................................... 8

SUMMARY OF ARGUMENT ................................................................................. 9

STANDARD OF REVIEW ..................................................................................... 11

ARGUMENT ........................................................................................................... 11

I. THE DISTRICT COURT’S EXCLUSION OF EVIDENCE


REGARDING ATTRIBUTES OF THE ORDINARY
OBSERVER AND FAILURE TO ADDRESS THIS PRONG OF
GORHAM REQUIRES VACATUR OF THE JUDGMENT OF
NONINFRINGEMENT ...................................................................... 11

A. Gorham v. White ....................................................................... 13

B. Exclusion of Evidence Constituted Abuse of Discretion ......... 14

1. The Questions, Testimony, and Objections.................... 14

i
2. Testimony by Mr. Tsang and Dr. Jiao Regarding the
Attributes of an Ordinary Observer Was Relevant
and Admissible ............................................................... 16

C. The District Court Erred as a Matter of Law in Applying


the Gorham Test........................................................................ 19

D. The District Court’s Errors Were Not Harmless ...................... 20

II. THE DISTRICT COURT ABUSED ITS DISCRETION IN


EXCLUDING EVIDENCE REGARDING FUNCTIONALITY
OF THE EYELID FEATURE............................................................. 21

A. The Exclusion of Functionality Testimony Constituted


Abuse of Discretion .................................................................. 23

1. The Questions, Testimony, and Objections.................... 23

2. Dr. Jiao’s Testimony Regarding Functionality


Was Relevant and Admissible ........................................ 24

B. The District Court’s Error Was Not Harmless ......................... 27

CONCLUSION ........................................................................................................ 28

ADDENDUM

CERTIFICATE OF FILING AND SERVICE

CERTIFICATE OF COMPLIANCE

ii
TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
Pages
CASES

Amerock Corp. v. Unican Sec. Sys. Corp.


1981 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 17467 (E.D.N.C. 1981) ........................................... 17

Applied Arts Corp. v. Grant Rapids Metalcraft Corp.


67 F.2d 428 (6th Cir. Mich. 1933)................................................................. 24

Avia Grp. Int’l, Inc. v. L.A. Gear Corp.


853 F.2d 1557 (Fed. Cir. 1988) ..................................................................... 14

Braun, Inc. v. Dynamics Corp. of America


975 F.2d 815 (Fed. Cir. 1992) ................................................................... 8, 17

Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharms.


509 U.S. 579 (1993)....................................................................................... 26

Estate of Barabin v AstenJohnson, Inc.


740 F.3d 457 (9th Cir. 2014) .............................................................11, 20, 27

Gorham Company v. White


81 U.S. 511 (1872)..................................................................................passim

Jules Jordan Video, Inc. v. 144942 Canada Inc.,


617 F.3d 1146 (9th Cir. 2010) ....................................................................... 20

Kumho Tire Co. v. Carmichael


119 S.Ct. 1167 (1999).................................................................................... 25

Landes Constr. Co. v. Royal Bank of Canada,


833 F.2d 1365 (9th Cir. 2012) ....................................................................... 11

Obrey v. Johnson,
400 F.3d 691 (9th Cir. 2005) ......................................................................... 20

Ollier v. Sweetwater Union High Sch. Dist.


768 F.2d 843 (9th Cir. 2014) ......................................................................... 26

iii
OddzOn Prods. v. Just Toys, Inc.
122 F.3d 1396 (Fed.Cir.1997) .................................................................22, 24

Pozen Inc. v. Par Pharm., Inc.


696 F.3d 1151 (Fed. Cir. 2012) ..................................................................... 11

Pugliano v. United States


315 F. Supp. 2d 197 (D. Conn. 2004) ........................................................... 26

Richardson v. Stanley Works, Inc.


597 F.3d 1288 (Fed. Cir. 2010) ...............................................................24, 25

Tassin v. Sears Roebuck


946 F. Supp. 1241 (M.D.La. 1996) ............................................................... 25

STATUTES

28 U.S.C. § 1295(a)(1) ............................................................................................... 2

28 U.S.C. § 1331 ........................................................................................................ 2

28 U.S.C. § 1338 ........................................................................................................ 2

RULES

Fed. R. Evid. 103(a) ................................................................................................. 20

Fed. R. Evid. 403 ...............................................................................................11, 21

Fed. R. Evid. 701 ..................................................................................................... 17

Fed. R. Evid. 702 ...............................................................................................18, 25

Fed. R. Civ. P. 61 ..................................................................................................... 20

Fed. R. Civ. P. 103 ................................................................................................... 20

iv
STATEMENT OF RELATED CASES

Plaintiff-Appellant identifies the following appeals as related:

None.

v
PRELIMINARY STATEMENT

In this case, the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California

(Klausner, J.) entered a judgment of noninfringement1 on plaintiff-appellant Kuen

Hwa Traffic Industrial Co.’s (“KHT”) complaint against defendant-appellee DNA

Motor, Inc. (“DNA”) for design-patent infringement after a two-day bench trial. The

patent-in-suit was United States Design Patent No. D791,987, entitled “Vehicle

Headlight” (“the ’987 Patent”), for projector-style replacement headlights.

During the trial, the district court excluded evidence from several of KHT’s

witnesses, which testimony was necessary to meet the elements for design patent

infringement. Specifically, the district court excluded testimony from KHT’s

witnesses regarding the attributes and shopping habits of the ordinary purchaser,

while permitting it from DNA’s witnesses. This abuse of discretion was

compounded by the district court’s error of law in failing to address, much less

consider, this portion of the Gorham test.

Further, the district court abused its discretion in excluding testimony from

KHT’s expert witness regarding the functionality of the “eyelid” feature of the

subject headlight design, which ultimately was the primary basis for the district

1
The District Court also found that the ’987 Patent was valid, denying DNA relief
on its cross-complaint. KHT does not seek vacatur or reversal of this finding.

1
court’s finding of noninfringement. Both of these errors were highly prejudicial to

KHT based on the underlying law.

A new trial is required in light of these evidentiary and legal errors that unduly

prejudiced KHT’s ability to prove its case against DNA. This Court should

accordingly vacate the judgment of noninfringement and order a new trial.

JURISDICTIONAL STATEMENT

The district court had jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331 and 1338.

This Court has jurisdiction over this appeal of the district court’s August 20, 2019,

final judgment pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1295(a)(1). Appx1-9. KHT filed a timely

notice of appeal on September 23, 2019.

STATEMENT OF THE ISSUES

1. Whether the judgment of noninfringement regarding DNA’s accused

products and KHT’s ’987 Patent should be vacated and remanded for a new trial due

to the district court’s abuse of discretion in excluding evidence from KHT’s

witnesses regarding the attributes of an ordinary observer; and

2. Whether the judgment of noninfringement regarding DNA’s accused

products and the ’987 Patent should be vacated and remanded for a new trial due to

the district court’s abuse of discretion in excluding evidence from KHT’s witnesses

regarding the functionality of the “eyelid” feature of the embodiment of the ’987

Patent.

2
STATEMENT OF THE CASE

This appeal arises from a final judgment after bench trial finding that DNA

did not infringe KHT’s ’987 Patent. KHT’s complaint accused DNA of copying its

design patent in DNA’s 2012-2015 Toyota Tacoma projector style headlights

(“Accused Products”). Appx25-44 The district court judge found that neither

generation 1 nor 2 of DNA’s Accused Products infringed the ’987 Patent. Appx1-9

A. The Design Patent

On April 20, 2016, the United States Patent and Trademark Office duly and

legally issued United States Design Patent No. D791,987, entitled “Vehicle

Headlight” (“the ’987 Patent”). Appx59 The ’987 Patent is for an Toyota Tacoma,

2012-2015 model aftermarket replacement headlight. Appx61 KHT is the assignee

and owner of the entire right, title, and interest in and to the ’987 Patent. Appx60

B. DNA’s Accused Products

The ’987 Patent has one single claim directed to the ornamental design for an

exterior surface configuration of a vehicular headlight. Appx59 By its Complaint,

KHT alleged that DNA copied the design of its 2012-2015 Toyota Tacoma projector

style headlight featuring an LED halo ring from the headlight design of the ’987

Patent. Appx59 A side-by-side comparison of the ’987 Patented design and

embodiment against exemplary specimens of Defendant DNA’s projector-style

headlight is shown below:

3
DNA Gen1 Accused Product KHT Product emboding the Patent

DNA Gen1 Accused Product Patent-in-Suit

DNA Accused Product Gen2 KHT Product emboding the


Patent

DNA Accused Product Gen2 Patent-in-Suit

4
Actual samples of KHT’s product embodying the ’987 Patent and DNA’s

Accused Products, generations one and two, were admitted into evidence at trial as

Exhibits 30, 31(a), and 31(b), respectively. Appx62

C. The Trial

In August 2019, the district court held a two-day bench trial. Appx1-9

Although KHT’s key theme at trial was that DNA copied the ’987 Patent, the district

court made numerous rulings hampering KHT’s ability to prove that charge: the

court precluded KHT from introducing testimony regarding the attributes of the

ordinary purchaser of such aftermarket headlights and from introducing testimony

regarding the functional rather than ornamental nature of the “eyelid” or “hood”

feature depicted in the ’987 Patent and its embodiment.

Mr. Hao-Lin Huang, the general manager and chairman of the board of KHT

Appx58, testified regarding the development of the ’987 Patent. Mr. Huang has been

in the vehicle lighting business for over 20 years, handling purchasing,

manufacturing, and sales and marketing. Appx57 Mr. Huang testified that KHT is a

5
manufacturer of aftermarket vehicle lighting, which lighting products replace the

original equipment manufacturer headlight. Appx72 In creating the design protected

by the ’987 Patent, the primary ornamental elements were the v-shaped bezel and

the C-shaped light bar partially surrounding the lamp. Appx61-62

Next, Mr. Randy Tsang, the general manager of KHT’s exclusive distributor

Akkon, testified regarding the market for the headlight design protected by the ’987

Patent. Appx86, Appx86-87 DNA is a well-known competitor in the market for

aftermarket vehicle lighting. Appx89 Mr. Tsang testified that the Accused Products

and the ’987 Patented design mimicked the semi-circular light beam partially

surrounding the lamp. Appx93, Appx93-94, Appx117-118 While Mr. Tsang noted

some minor differences, he testified that the overall impression is that the Accused

Products appear the same as the ’987 Patent. Appx95-96.

Mr. James Yeu, the operations manager of DNA Appx124, testified as well.

Mr. Yeu oversees sales and marketing for DNA. Appx124-125 Mr. Yeu testified that

when he first received a cease and desist letter from KHT, he reviewed the ’987

Patent and decided that DNA was not infringing upon the patented design. Appx130

Mr.Yeu also testified that he spoke to his patent lawyer, Mr. Michael Chen, who

reviewed the designs for 1-2 minutes before agreeing that there was no infringement.

Appx130-131

6
Finally, Dr. Jianzhoug Jiao testified as KHT’s qualified expert on automotive

lighting. Dr. Jiao testified that the focal points of the ’987 Patent are the projector

headlamps, horizontally oriented U-shaped light bar partially surrounding the lamp,

and the horizontally oriented v-shaped bezel. Appx158-159 Dr. Jiao further testified

that the relevant ordinary observer and purchaser of the product would be one who

finds the design distinctively appealing but does not wish to pay too much for the

aftermarket replacement. Appx158-160 Dr. Jiao testified that in making the

purchasing decision, the purchaser would be drawn to the overall appearance of the

lamp, and the combination and arrangement of features rather than focusing on one

specific feature. Ibid.; Appx177-178 After comparing the ’987 Patent, its

embodiment, and generations 1 and 2 of the Accused Products, Dr. Jiao opined that

overall, DNA’s products copied KHT’s design. Appx164-165

With regard to the eyelid feature on KHT’s design but missing from DNA’s

products, which appears as a small hood at the top of the lamp, Dr. Jiao testified that

he believed it was not ornamental, but had the functional purpose to reduce glare

from the light as well as protect against the magnifying effect of the headlight lens.

Appx165-166

7
D. The Final Judgment
On August 20, 2019, the district court entered final judgment for DNA on

KHT’s Complaint, finding in pertinent part that DNA’s Accused Products did not

infringe the ’987 Patent. Appx1-9 In making this finding, the district court made two

primary errors after its exclusion of evidence. First, the district court failed to

consider the second prong of the Gorham test requiring that the court take into

account the nature of the article of manufacture, its cost, value, and other intangibles,

and the degree of attention an ordinary purchaser and user usually would give to the

design. Braun, Inc. v. Dynamics Corp. of America, 975 F.2d 815 (Fed. Cir. 1992).

Second, the district court explicitly considered the “eyelid” feature as an

ornamental feature of the design, rather than a functional feature of the headlight. In

error, the district court would not consider excluded KHT’s expert testimony

regarding the function it served for the headlight’s performance. Nevertheless, the

district court relied on this “eyelid” or “hood” feature as the primary distinguishing

feature between KHT’s and DNA’s designs, confusing ornamental with functional

purpose, and relied on this as the primary basis for its finding of non-infringement:

“Most notably, the patent in suit has an ‘eyelid’ that covers the top of
the lens projector. No such cover is found on the accused products. The
Court is not persuaded by Plaintiff or Plaintiff’s expert that the eyelid
on the patent in suit is simply a minor difference. Nor did Plaintiff
establish that the eyelid is merely functional, as opposed to ornamental.
This difference alone distinguishes the overall appearance of the ’987
Patent from the overall appearances of the accused products.”
Appx1-9 (Emphasis added).

8
The district court’s improper exclusion of expert testimony concerning the

functional purpose of the “eyelid” over the lens projector prejudiced KHT.

SUMMARY OF ARGUMENT

The judgment of noninfringement should be reversed, or be vacated and

remanded, for any of several independent reasons and their cumulative effect:

1. The judgment of noninfringement should be reversed due to the district

court’s exclusion of evidence regarding the attributes of an ordinary observer and

purchaser of the product in question, which evidence is a required factor in

determining whether or not a design patent has been infringed under Gorham

Company v. White, 81 U.S. 511 (1872).

Specifically, the district court abused its discretion in excluding testimony by

KHT’s representative, Mr. Randy Tsang, and KHT’s expert, Dr. Jianzhong Jiao,

regarding the description of what the ordinary observer perceives, what drives the

purchase and use of the type of article design at issue, whether the patented and

accused designs are typically viewed side-by-side during the purchasing decision,

and how much time and attention is spent observing the design when purchasing a

headlight such as those embodying the ’987 Patent. Contrarily, and to KHT’s

prejudice, the district court permitted DNA’s representative, Mr. James Yeu, to

testify regarding these same subjects.

9
Given also the district court’s reliance on the “eyelid” feature of the ’987

Patent as being sufficient on its own to distinguish the overall appearance of KHT’s

and DNA’s products, testimony by Mr. Tsang and Dr. Jiao regarding the ordinary

observer was unquestionably not only relevant but necessary, and admissible on the

same basis that the district court permitted Mr. Yeu to testify on behalf of DNA.

Exclusion of this testimony on behalf of KHT was an abuse of discretion, and the

district court’s failure to analyze the second prong of Gorham supports vacating of

the judgment of noninfringement and the ordering of a new trial.

2. The judgment of noninfringement should be reversed due to the district

court’s exclusion of testimony by Dr. Jiao regarding the functionality of the “eyelid”

feature of the embodiment of the ’987 Patent, where the eyelid was functional and

thus could not be considered as part of the ornamental design infringement analysis.

After striking Dr. Jiao’s testimony about functionality and refusing to permit further

questioning on that topic, the district court stated in its judgment that the eyelid was

the primary feature differentiating the two products, and that KHT failed to establish

that the eyelid was functional rather than ornamental. The functionality of the eyelid

was in issue, and KHT’s expert Dr. Jiao was prepared to and attempted to opine

about the functional purpose it served. The district court’s exclusion of such

testimony constituted an abuse of discretion, and the judgment of noninfringement

10
should be vacated and the case remanded for a new trial based on improper exclusion

of evidence.

STANDARD OF REVIEW

Applying regional circuit law (here that of the Ninth Circuit), this Court

reviews orders excluding evidence for abuse of discretion, granting a new trial

absent a showing that the error was harmless. Pozen Inc. v. Par Pharm., Inc., 696

F.3d 1151, 1161 n. 6 (Fed. Cir. 2012) (regional circuit law applies); Estate of

Barabin v AstenJohnson, Inc., 740 F.3d 457, 462, 464-465 (9th Cir. 2014).

Issues concerning the law are reviewed de novo. Landes Constr. Co. v. Royal

Bank of Canada, 833 F.2d 1365, 1370 (9th Cir. 2012).

ARGUMENT

I. THE DISTRICT COURT’S EXCLUSION OF EVIDENCE


REGARDING ATTRIBUTES OF THE ORDINARY OBSERVER AND
FAILURE TO ADDRESS THIS PRONG OF GORHAM REQUIRES
VACATUR OF THE JUDGMENT OF NONINFRINGEMENT

Vacatur of the judgment and remand for a new trial are warranted because the

district court abused its discretion under Fed. R. Evid. 403 in excluding certain

evidence from KHT’s witnesses concerning the attributes of the ordinary observer

under the second prong of the test articulated by Gorham, supra, 81 U.S. 511.

Specifically, the district court struck and then forestalled further questioning of

KHT’s representative Mr. Tsang and its expert witness, Dr. Jiao, regarding the

description of what the ordinary observer perceives, how and why they purchase and

11
use the type of article at issue, whether the patented and accused designs are typically

viewed side-by-side during the purchasing decision, and how much time and

attention is spent observing the design when purchasing a headlight such as those

embodying the ’987 Patent. Appx95-96, Appx116, Appx117; Appx161-243

Contradictorily, the district court permitted DNA’s own representative Mr. Yeu to

testify regarding these matters over KHT’s objections. Appx256-257

That ruling was an abuse of the district court’s discretion. First, the testimony

was highly probative as to design patent infringement. Testimony regarding the

attributes of the ordinary observer is a necessary part of an evaluation under the

Gorham test, putting the features of the patented design and the allegedly infringing

products in context to determine how the ordinary person, as opposed to, say, a

designer or scrutinizing expert, purchasing these products makes his or her decision.

Testimony by Mr. Tsang and Dr. Jiao would have been directly probative

evidence for KHT on the attributes and shopping behaviors of the ordinary observer

and purchaser of these competing aftermarket headlamps. Mr. Tsang attempted to

testify for KHT that the ordinary purchaser would notice the distinctive U-shaped

bar surrounding the projector lamp, and was asked about how such a purchaser

behaves, but was not permitted to answer on the basis that the subject was the

province of expert testimony.Appx95-96, Appx116, Appx117 However, when

KHT’s expert Dr. Jiao attempted to testify regarding this exact same issue, he was

12
not permitted to do so. Appx161-162, Appx243 Had such evidence been permitted,

it would have informed the district court on the attributes of the ordinary purchaser

of vehicle headlights such as those at issue in this case as necessary for the district

court to complete its analysis under the second prong of Gorham, supra, 81 U.S.

511. Compounding this error, the district court then misapplied the law by failing to

address the second prong of Gorham’s ordinary observer test. Appx1-9

Thus, the district court’s failure to permit such evidence was an abuse of

discretion, which was then compounded by the court’s failure to consider the second

prong of the ordinary observer test. As fully discussed below, the judgment of

noninfringement must be vacated and a new trial ordered.

A. Gorham v. White

The fundamental statement of the ordinary observer test was set forth in

Gorham Company v. White, supra, 81 U.S. 511. In Gorham, the U.S. Supreme Court

held that a patent has been infringed, “if in the eye of an ordinary observer, giving

such attention as a purchaser usually gives, two designs are substantially the same,

if the resemblance is such as to deceive such an observer, inducing him to purchase

one supposing it to be the other, the first one patented is infringed by the other.” Id.

at 528.

Properly qualified experts are permitted to opine regarding the attributes of

the ordinary observer, but not whether or not an ordinary observer would be

13
deceived. Gorham v. White, supra, 81 U.S. 511, 527-528 (1871); Avia Grp. Int’l,

Inc. v. L.A. Gear Corp., 853 F.2d 1557 (Fed. Cir. 1988).

B. Exclusion of Evidence Constituted Abuse of Discretion

1. The questions, testimony, and objections

When Mr. Tsang attempted to testify regarding the attributes of an ordinary

observer, the district court forestalled his testimony on the basis that expert opinion

was required:

Q Could you help us one more time what that means. Why is it
that they appear the same to you?

THE WITNESS: Okay. In both product, this area, where the


beam surrounding the lamp, is the most important portion of the
product, and this is the most striking impression this product leaves
people with.

MR. KNEAFSEY: Objection. Calls for expert opinion. Move to


strike.

THE COURT: Sustained. Will be stricken.

Appx95-96

Q In your years and experience as sales and marketing and also


in running the e-Commerce business in the last ten years or so, eight
years, do you have a viewpoint or opinion as someone who is in the
business of running it as to how customers pick lights in terms of style,
in terms of pricing, in terms of quality?

MR. KNEAFSEY: Objection. Calls for expert opinion.

THE COURT: Sustained. Appx116

Q Can you just help us understand your experience in terms of


aftermarket customers, what are they looking for in general?

14
MR. KNEAFSEY: Objection. Calls for expert opinion. Lacks
foundation.

THE COURT: Sustained. Sustained. Appx117

However, when KHT attempted to elicit testimony on the same subject from

its expert, Dr. Jiao, the district court would not permit him to answer and did not

permit argument from counsel regarding the sustained objection:

Q Dr. Jiao, let's go back to ordinary observer. Help us understand


for the Court again, do you have any opinion as to what the attributes
would be for what an ordinary observer would be in this case?

THE COURT: He's not qualified to testify in that area, Counsel.


That's something the Court has to determine as a matter of law.

MR. CHEN: Your Honor, if I may. As an expert Rule --

THE COURT: Counsel, he does not qualify as an expert to say


what an ordinary observer is. Did he take -- how many courses did he
take about ordinary observers? Have you ever taken a course to that? I
never have.

THE WITNESS: No, I have not.

THE COURT: I didn't think so.

Counsel, you can ask your next question.

He can testify to the technical qualifications, you're well


qualified in that area, but what an ordinary observer is what the Court
must determine.

Next question.

MR. CHEN: I understand that. I'm going to really try not to test
the Court’s patience. Just one line of argument on that.

15
THE COURT: Counsel, ask your next question.

Appx161-162 (Emphasis added).

Q Dr. Jiao, do you have an opinion in the context of what an


ordinary purchaser -- what their behavior would be when they're buying
these lights online?

MR. KNEAFSEY: Objection. Improper testimony.

THE COURT: Outside the scope?

MR. KNEAFSEY: Yes.

THE COURT: Of his expertise?

MR. KNEAFSEY: Yes.

THE COURT: Sustained.Appx243 8-16

2. Testimony by Mr. Tsang and Dr. Jiao Regarding the Attributes


of an Ordinary Observer Was Relevant and Admissible

The district court abused its discretion in excluding testimony by Mr. Tsang

and Dr. Jiao regarding the attributes of the ordinary observer, stating that this was

the exclusive province of the trier of fact, the court itself, to determine. Appx161-

162 This is not a correct statement of the applicable law.

The second prong of the ordinary observer test, “giving such attention as a

purchaser usually gives”, indicates that the ordinary observer test is not conducted

as a sterile academic exercise where two designs are placed side by side and

scrutinized closely for differences and similarities, which is ultimately what the

district court did in this case. Appx1-9 Instead, the test must take into account the

16
nature of the article of manufacture and the degree of attention an ordinary purchaser

would usually give to it, inter alia. Braun, Inc. v. Dynamics Corp. of America, 975

F.2d 815, 820-821 (Fed. Cir. 1992) (Court held a verdict of infringement was

supported because the patented and accused designs whereof an inexpensive product

that customers typically purchased on impulse and a result, customers may not have

differentiated the designs despite the differences). Therefore, potential expert or

other specialized testimony on these issues may include a description of what the

ordinary observer knows, how they purchase and use the type of product at issue,

and how much time and attention is spent observing the design before making a

purchasing decision. Amerock Corp. v. Unican Sec. Sys. Corp., 1981 U.S. Dist.

LEXIS 17467, 4-7 (E.D.N.C. 1981).2 Along with expert testimony, non-expert

opinion on this topic may be admissible where such opinion is rationally based on

the witness’s perception, helpful to understanding his testimony, and not based on

scientific or technical knowledge. Fed. R. Evid. 701.

Mr. Tsang’s testimony should have been permitted under FRE 701. Mr. Tsang

had over a decade of experience in the sale of aftermarket automobile lights, and

2
The designs in Amerock involved kitchen cabinet hardware. Testimony at trial
established that the hardware consumers generally did not have the opportunity to
view different designs of hardware simultaneously. The court stated “[t]herefore,
differences between the patented and the accused design that are apparent in a side-
by-side comparison will not necessarily dictate a finding of non-infringement.” Id.
at 6.

17
testified that he observed market trends on a daily basis by checking out competing

items on online marketplaces such as Amazon and eBay. Appx85-86, Appx97 As

general manager of Akkon, Mr. Tsang testified that he handles the entire operation

of the business, including customer service and marketing. Appx86 When Mr. Tsang

opined regarding the similarities between the embodiment of the ’987 Patent and

Accused Products, including what he believed to be the focal point (specifically, the

semi-circular, U-shaped light bar partially surrounding the lamp), he should have

been permitted to testify regarding how an ordinary observer would have viewed the

products and what features would impact the ordinary purchaser’s ultimate decision.

Such testimony would be rationally based on his perception acquired through

providing customer service and observing buying trends, which are acquired in the

course of his business and observations over time rather than from specialized or

technical knowledge.

Further, after the district court excluded Mr. Tsang’s testimony on the basis

that specialized expert testimony was required, Dr. Jiao’s expert testimony should

have been permitted under FRE 702. Federal courts at every level allow expert

testimony regarding the attributes of an ordinary observer beginning with Gorham

v. White, supra, 81 U.S. 511.Dr. Jiaohas30 years of experience in automobile

lighting design, manufacturing, compliance testing, and employing LED lamps

similar to the products in issue. Appx150 The basis for the district court’s exclusion

18
of Dr. Jiao’s testimony, that it was the court’s province to determine the attributes

of ordinary observer, was an incorrect statement of Gorham, as discussed

immediately infra in section I(C).

C. The District Court Erred as a Matter of Law in Applying the


Gorham Test

In ruling that DNA’s Accused Products did not infringe the ’987 Patent, the

district court acknowledged that the standard was based on an ordinary observer, but

held without analysis that an ordinary observer would not confuse the design of the

accused products with the patent in suit:

“As the Court explained on the record at the conclusion of trial, Plaintiff
failed to show by a preponderance of the evidence that the general
appearance of the accused products and the ’987 Patent are so similar
that the ordinary observer would confuse the accused products with the
patent in suit. That is, the Court concludes that the accused products
and the patent in suit have ornamental differences in their overall
appearance.”

Appx1-9 This finding was expressly based on the district court’s own comparison

of trial exhibits 30 (the embodiment of the ’987 Patent) and 31a and 31b (the

Accused Products). Appx1-9 At no point in its oral ruling or written order did the

district court address how much attention the ordinary observer would give.

Gorham requires that the trier of fact makes its determination of infringement

“giving such attention as a purchaser usually gives”. Gorham, supra, 81 U.S. at 528.

The district court’s failure to address a required element of the relevant test of

infringement was a clear error of law.

19
D. The District Court’s Errors Were Not Harmless

An error by the court is ground for vacatur and remand for new trial where it

has affected any party’s substantial rights. Fed. R. Civ. P. 61, 103; Estate of Barabin

v AstenJohnson, Inc., supra, 740 F.3d at 464-465 (9th Cir. 2014). “We reverse ‘only

if the error affect[ed] a substantial right of the party.’ Fed. R. Evid. 103(a).”).

A finding of prejudice is required in order to reverse a judgment based on any

type of error. Obrey v. Johnson, 400 F.3d 691, 699 (9th Cir. 2005). “[T]he burden

[is] on the beneficiary of the error either to prove that there was no injury or to suffer

a reversal of his erroneously obtained judgment.” Obrey, supra, 400 F.3d at 700

(Citation omitted). Thus, the appellate courts “begin with a presumption of

prejudice. That presumption can be rebutted by a showing that it is more probable

than not that the [court] would have reached the same [result] even if the evidence

had not been admitted.” Jules Jordan Video, Inc. v. 144942 Canada Inc., 617 F.3d

1146, 1159 (9th Cir. 2010) (Citation and internal quotations omitted).

Here, the district court’s abuse of discretion in excluding the testimonies of

Mr. Tsang and Dr. Jiao cannot be considered harmless. The primary purpose of the

excluded testimony was to establish that an ordinary purchaser would consider the

designs as a whole, not focusing on individual features such as the eyelid or the other

minor differences in the appearance of the products. That exclusion of such

testimony harmed KHT’s presentation of its case is clear based on both DNA’s

20
emphasis on individual elements, particularly the eyelid feature, rather than the

overall impression of the design Appx281-282 This erroneous approach was echoed

by the district court in its decision. Appx1-9

Because the trial court abused its discretion in excluding testimony necessary

to inform its application of the relevant infringement test, and then erred in applying

the relevant test by failing to analyze the second prong articulated by Gorham, and

such errors were not harmless, the judgment of noninfringement must be vacated

and this case remanded for a new trial.

II. THE DISTRICT COURT ABUSED ITS DISCRTION IN EXCLUDING


EVIDENCE REGARDING FUNCTIONALITY OF THE EYELID
FEATURE

Vacatur of the judgment and remand for a new trial are warranted because the

district court abused its discretion under Fed. R. Evid. 403 in excluding certain

evidence concerning the functionality of the “eyelid” feature of the ’987 Patent,

which feature was the primary basis for the district court’s finding of

noninfringement. Specifically, the district court struck and then forestalled further

testimony regarding the functionality of the eyelid from KHT’s expert witness, Dr.

Jiao.

That ruling was an abuse of discretion. First, the testimony was highly

probative. The eyelid was the primary feature relied upon by DNA at trial to support

its contention that the Accused Products did not infringe the ’987 Patent. Appx244-

21
245 Second, the district court then specifically relied on the lack of evidence

showing the functionality of the eyelid feature, after striking and refusing to permit

testimony regarding the eyelid feature’s functionality, in finding that DNA’s

Accused Products did not infringe the ’987 Patent. Appx1-9

The district court blocked testimony by Dr. Jiao on behalf of KHT that would

have been directly probative as to why the eyelid feature was functional and not a

part of the design patent infringement analysis. Specifically, Dr. Jiao attempted to

testify that the eyelid served a functional purpose in reducing glare from the lamp,

which testimony was ultimately stricken, and the district court refused to hear KHT’s

further testimony on the issue. Appx244-245 Had such evidence been permitted, it

would have shown that the eyelid could not, as a matter of law, be considered in the

design patent infringement analysis. OddzOn Prods. v. Just Toys, Inc., 122 F.3d

1396, 1405 (Fed. Cir. 1997). Properly disregarding the functional eyelid feature, the

Accused Products are substantially similar to the ’987 Patent such that DNA should

have been found liable for design patent infringement.

Thus, the district court’s failure to permit such evidence was an abuse of

discretion. As fully discussed below, the judgment of noninfringement must be

vacated and a new trial ordered.

22
A. The Exclusion of Functionality Testimony Constituted Abuse of
Discretion

1. The questions, testimony, and objections

Q: And you also mentioned something about it having -- serving


a functionality?

A [Dr. Jiao]: It is my assumption, the eyelid does not serve any


ornamental feature, instead there is a reason they put something there,
perhaps, to serve as function for projector headlamp.

Q Can you elaborate that on a little bit more?

A As regular driver, we often experience the incoming vehicle


glare, especially for projector lamps, and often the engineer will find
some way to block the glare and to be not only pleasing the driver but
also in many extent to meet federal regulation requirements. So adding
something to block the glare, there is a possibility due to the overall
design, meaning where the projector is located, how much indented, to
avoid that glare to add something like that.

Secondly and is also engineering concern is, one, these lamps


being built and the outer lens -- as you see, all these headlamps have
outer lens -- in the very sunny area, such as California or Arizona, and
during the summertime, the outer lens can behave as a magnifying
glass, which can concentrate the lights on the reflector bezel and in turn
the reflector bezel -- the projector bezel may melt. For the reason -- and
sometimes the engineer needs to add something to protect the projector.
So for the combination or maybe one or two of these two reasons is my
assumption they added something on top of the --

MR. KNEAFSEY: Objection, Your Honor. Move to strike.


Lacks foundation. Calls for speculation.

THE COURT: Sustained. Appx244-245

23
2. Dr. Jiao’s Testimony Regarding Functionality Was Relevant
and Admissible

The district court abused its discretion when it excluded testimony by Dr. Jiao

regarding the functionality of the eyelid feature of the ’987 Patent. The first step in

determining infringement of a design patent is to construe the scope of the patent’s

claim. OddzOn Prods. v. Just Toys, Inc., supra, 122 F.3d at 1405. “Where a design

contains both functional and non-functional elements, the scope of the claim must

be construed in order to identify the non-functional aspects of the design as shown

in the patent.” Ibid. The scope of a design patent is limited to ornamental aspects

alone, and said scope does not extend to any functional elements of the design.

Richardson v. Stanley Works, Inc., 597 F.3d 1288, 1294 (Fed. Cir. 2010). It has long

been held that consideration of “the general configuration made necessary by

function … would subvert the purposes of the law, which is to promote the

decorative arts rather than to effectuate it.” Applied Arts Corp. v. Grant Rapids

Metalcraft Corp., 67 F.2d 428, 430 (6th Cir. Mich. 1933).

In OddzOn, both the patented design and the accused design were of a football

with a tail and fins. The court determined that the function of the design was to travel

further than a regular football due to the greater stability provided by the tail and

fins. The court held that since a tail and fins were required to perform the identified

function, the general design similarity of a football with tail and fins could not

provide the basis for infringement. OddzOn, supra, 122 F.3d at 1408. Similarly, in

24
Richardson, the court found that the general configuration of a multi-function tool

design was dictated by its function. On that basis, the court factored out the general

design configuration of its infringement analysis. Richardson, supra, 597 F.3d at

1294.

Here, Dr. Jiao attempted to testify that the eyelid feature included in the ’987

Patent was a functional feature serving to reduce glare. Appx244-245 The district

court struck Dr. Jiao’s testimony and did not permit further questioning after DNA’s

counsel objected on the basis of lack of foundation and that the testimony was

speculative. Neither of these objections apply.

Dr. Jiao unquestionably had the pertinent technical background with

foundation on which to opine on the functionality of the eyelid feature. Experience,

knowledge, skill, training, and education, together or apart, each may constitute

proper foundation for expert opinion. Fed. R. Evid. 702; Tassin v. Sears Roebuck,

946 F. Supp. 1241, 1248 (M.D.La. 1996) (Design engineer’s testimony can be

admissible when the expert’s opinions “are based on facts, a reasonable

investigation, and traditional technical/mechanical expertise, and he provides a

reasonable link between the information and procedures he uses and the conclusions

he reaches”). See also Kumho Tire Co. v. Carmichael, 119 S. Ct. 1167, 1178 (1999)

(stating that “no one denies that an expert might draw a conclusion from a set of

observations based on extensive and specialized experience.”).

25
An objection based on speculation is essentially an extension of the

foundation objection: testimony is properly excluded on the basis of speculation

where it based on mere “subjective belief or unsupported speculation”. Ollier v.

Sweetwater Union High Sch. Dist., 768 F.2d 843,861 (9th Cir. 2014). To assess

reliability of proffered expert’s testimony, the court’s inquiry under Daubert v.

Merrell Dow Pharms., 509 U.S. 579 (1993), and its progeny must focus on whether

the expert’s conclusions are based on reliable foundation, not on the substance of

expert’s conclusions or whether they are correct. Pugliano v. United States, 315 F.

Supp. 2d 197 (D. Conn. 2004).

Here, Dr. Jiao opined based on his 30 years of experience designing vehicle

lighting that the eyelid feature appeared to be for the purpose of reducing glare

visible to other drivers and to prevent the headlight from being damaged by the

magnification effect of the lens in sunnier climates. Appx244-245 This testimony is

not subjective belief, nor is it unsupported speculation: Dr. Jiao has substantial

training and experience in the design of such headlights, which properly formed the

basis for his opinion. Thus, the district court’s striking of his testimony and refusal

to permit additional questioning to establish the foundation of Dr. Jiao’s opinion was

an abuse of discretion.

26
B. The District Court’s Error Was Not Harmless

Where a district court abuses its discretion in excluding evidence, vacatur and

remand for new trial are required unless the error was harmless. Estate of Barabin v

AstenJohnson, Inc., supra, 740 F.3d at 464-465 (9th Cir. 2014).

The district court’s abuse of discretion in excluding the testimony of Dr. Jiao

cannot be considered harmless. Dr. Jiao’s testimony would have shown that the

KHT’s headlight eyelid feature was functional rather than ornamental, and therefore

outside of the scope of the design patent analysis. Yet it is this very feature that the

district court seized upon the primary ornamental design feature distinguishing

KHT’s headlight from the Accused Products and thus its finding of non-

infringement. DNA’s counsel expounded at length in his closing argument that the

lack of an eyelid (or “hood”) feature alone on the Accused Products foreclosed a

finding of infringement:

“There’s multiple differences between the DNA Gen1 and Gen2 and
the claimed design. This detailed hood feature is not present, this nine-
segment hood feature is not present. The hood feature, the eyelid, isn't
present at all in the defendant's Gen1 or Gen2 products. There can't be
infringement. There’s no hood feature at all…. The hypothetical
observer would immediately notice that difference because he or she
would be looking for the specific hood feature.” Appx281-282

While DNA did identify other, smaller differences, it was the eyelid that it

primarily relied upon for its argument of non-infringement. The district court in its

oral ruling similarly relied primarily on the eyelid feature, finding that:

27
“But, more important than that, one of the four elements that is part of
the patent here, a significant part of the patent, is the hood, and that's
part of the claimed patent in the design patent of the plaintiff's patent.
And the Court's going to find that there is no hood in the infringing
patent.” Appx290

The district court repeated this reliance on the hood (eyelid) feature in its

written order. Appx1-9 Given that both defense counsel and the district court

primarily relied on the ’987 Patent’s eyelid feature to find that the Accused Products

did not infringe, exclusion of testimony that the eyelid was functional and therefore

could not be considered within the scope of the ’987 Patent’s design inarguably

harmed KHT’s case for infringement. Without the eyelid, it is very unlikely that the

court would have entered a judgment of noninfringement.

Because the trial court abused its discretion in excluding testimony necessary

to construe the claim of the ’987 Patent, and such error was not harmless, the

judgment of noninfringement must be vacated and remanded for a new trial.

CONCLUSION

The judgment of noninfringement should be vacated and the case remanded

for new trial.

28
Dated: December 20, 2019 Respectfully submitted,

By: /s/ Alexander Chen


InHouse Co. Law Firm
7700 Irvine Center Dr., Ste. 800
Irvine, California 92618
(949) 250-1555
alexc@inhouseco.com
Attorneys for Plaintiff-Appellant KHT

29
ADDENDUM
TABLE OF CONTENTS

Pages

Order and Judgment of


The Honorable R. Gary Klausner
Re: Entering Judgment in Favor of
Defendant as to Plaintiff’s Complaint and Dismissing Plaintiff’s
Infringement and Willful Infringement Claims and Entering Judgment in
Favor of Plaintiff as to Defendant's FACC and Dismissing Defendant’s
Invalidity Counterclaim
filed August 20, 2019 ......................................................................................... Appx1

Appxi
Žÿ’“”•–—˜–™š››œ–žŸ– Ÿÿÿÿ¡¢—£¤¥¦ÿ”™”ÿÿÿ§¨©ªÿ™•«’™«”¬ÿÿÿ­Ž®ÿ”ÿ¢ÿ̄¬ÿÿÿ­Ž®ÿ°¡ÿ±“²¬šš
‰Š‹Œ
012345ÿ738347ÿ527392
3ÿ
093ÿ

41398 ÿ527392
3ÿ ÿ
8 2 9128
ÿÿÿÿ

ÿ1 !ÿ #$%&'()'*+,,-'9./'7/ÿ 50ÿ81210ÿ#*3ÿ#*%4ÿ
3506ÿ 789:ÿ<=>ÿ?@>AABCÿD:E8FGÿHIGÿJGÿKLMÿNIOI@PÿD:CGÿ

UWX0$ÿ3YÿZ XW[6ÿ9!ÿ.89\ÿ/ 8071493ÿ012345ÿ738347ÿ527392


3ÿ]05.4ÿ
7YWXÿ !ÿ^5665_ÿ ÿ 1 0ÿ9`W0aÿ 1S8ÿ
5`10bÿ
6Wcÿ
1W0ÿ9`W0WÿSÿ9(WaWÿ 3`ÿ1 !ÿ
800WXbÿUWX0ÿVWÿU65X05VV$ÿ 800WXbÿUWX0ÿVWÿ5VXaX0$ÿ
1 0ÿUWX0ÿ 1 0ÿUWX0ÿ
defghhijklmnÿ oÿpqrÿseiheÿtkiÿuvilwhkxÿehnÿqhkgyÿejtzÿ
{ s|s
Xÿ]1Xÿ#}3ÿ#*%&3ÿ/1XÿZ~ÿ3WVV5(ÿ2Xa10W56ÿ
!ÿRU65X05VV€TÿV56aÿ0Yÿ5X0X0ÿ(05Xÿ25X0
518ÿ 0W3ÿ2X(!ÿR5VXaX0€T!ÿ3Yÿ
_`65X0ÿW0ÿ0Y0ÿU65X05VVÿ5ÿ0Yÿ~XWÿVÿ0X50aÿ700ÿ
552XÿU0X0ÿ1 !ÿ5}4%34&}3ÿX0506aÿQY5(6ÿZa652Y0€ÿRYW5XV0WÿWVWWaÿ0ÿ3ÿ0Yÿ‚4&}ÿU0X0€ÿ
Wÿ0Yÿ̀0X0ÿ5Xÿ150€T3ÿXaÿ662ÿ0~ ÿ(65_ÿ25X0ÿ5VXaX0$ÿR%Tÿ̀0X0ÿ5XVW5X2_X03ÿ5Xÿ)5605XÿVÿ
ƒ+ÿ0!7!
!ÿ„ÿ#}%RT…ÿXaÿR#Tÿ~566V16ÿ5XVW5X2_X0!ÿU65X05VVÿ(X0Xaÿ0Y0ÿ5VXaX0ÿ6aÿ0~ ÿ_ a6ÿVÿ
Ya652Y03ÿ5aX05V5aÿÿ_ a6ÿ.Xÿ%ÿXaÿ_ a6ÿ.Xÿ#ÿR0Yÿ((1aÿ̀Wa1(0€T3ÿ0Y0ÿ5XVW5X2ÿ0Yÿ‚4&}ÿ
U0X0!ÿU65X05VVÿcÿ(016ÿa_2ÿXaÿÿ̀W_XX0ÿ5X†1X(05X!ÿ
Xÿ81210ÿ%,3ÿ#*%&3ÿ5VXaX0ÿX~Waÿ0Yÿ(_`65X0ÿXaÿV56aÿÿ(1X0W(65_!ÿ5VXaX0‡ÿ
X~Wÿ5X(61aaÿ52Y0XÿVV5W_05)ÿaVX!ÿ Xÿ7`0_[Wÿ#%3ÿ#*%&3ÿ5VXaX0ÿV56aÿÿV5W0ÿ_Xaaÿ
(1X0W(65_ÿc5X2ÿa(6W0Wbÿ†1a2_X0ÿ0Y0ÿ0Yÿ‚4&}ÿU0X0ÿ5ÿ5X)65aÿ1XaWÿƒ+ÿ0!7!
!ÿ„ÿ%*#RTÿXaÿ
„%*ƒ!ÿ8V0Wÿ̀W0W56ÿ_ 05X3ÿ0YWÿ~WÿV5)ÿ51ÿ0ÿW6)ÿ0ÿ0W56$ÿR%%Tÿ̀0X0ÿ~XWY5̀…ÿR#T
5XVW5X2_X0…ÿRƒTÿ~566V16ÿ5XVW5X2_X0…ÿR-TÿW_a5…ÿXaÿR+Tÿ5X)65a50b!
8ÿ[X(Yÿ0W56ÿ~ÿY6aÿXÿ81210ÿ}ÿXaÿ&3ÿ#*%4!ÿ8V0WÿW)5~5X2ÿ0YÿW(WaÿXaÿ(X5aW5X2ÿ0Yÿ
W21_X0ÿXaÿ)5aX(ÿ̀WX0aÿ0ÿ0W563ÿ0Yÿ
1W0ÿ_aÿ0YÿV66~5X2ÿV5Xa5X2$ÿR%TÿU65X05VVÿ~Xÿ0Yÿ
‚4&}ÿ̀0X0…ÿR#TÿU65X05VVÿa5aÿX0ÿ0[65Yÿ[bÿÿ̀W`XaWX(ÿVÿ0Yÿ)5aX(ÿ0Y0ÿ5VXaX0‡ÿ̀Wa1(0ÿ
5XVW5X2ÿXÿ0Yÿ‚4&}ÿU0X0…ÿRƒTÿU65X05VVÿa5aÿX0ÿ0[65Yÿ~566V16ÿ5XVW5X2_X0…ÿR-TÿU65X05VVÿ5ÿX0ÿX0506aÿ
a_2ÿWÿÿ̀W_XX0ÿ5X†1X(05X…ÿXaÿR+Tÿ5VXaX0ÿa5aÿX0ÿ0[65Yÿ0Y0ÿ0Yÿ‚4&}ÿU0X0ÿ5ÿ5X)65a!ÿÿ

%ÿ
ˆaÿXÿ)5aX(ÿXaÿW21_X0ÿ0ÿ0W563ÿ50ÿ``Wÿ0Y0ÿ0Yÿ̀W05ÿ[XaXaÿXbÿ0YWÿ(65_3ÿ(1X0W(65_3ÿWÿ
ÿVV5W_05)ÿaVX!ÿÿ

Q'4*ÿR*,S*-T ÿÿÿÿ U2ÿ%ÿVÿ4ÿ


Appx1
Ž‘ÿ“”•–—˜™—š›œœ—žŸ —¡ ÿÿÿ¢£˜¤¥‘¦§ÿ•š•ÿÿÿ̈©ª‘«ÿš–¬“š¬•­ÿÿÿ®¯‘ÿ“ÿ£°ÿ­ÿÿÿ®¯‘ÿ±¢ÿ²”³­›œ
ÿ ÿ ÿ ÿ ÿ ÿ ÿ ÿ ÿ ÿ ÿ ÿ ÿ
123456ÿ748457ÿ637493
4ÿ
194ÿ

52498 ÿ637493
4ÿ ÿ
8 3 9238ÿ
ÿÿÿÿ

ÿ2!"ÿ #$%&'()'*+,,-'9./'7/ÿ 60ÿ81210ÿ#*3ÿ#*%4ÿ
4506ÿ 789:ÿ<=>ÿ?@>AABCÿD:E8FGÿHIGÿJGÿKLMÿNIOI@PÿD:CGÿ
ÿ ÿ
ÿ
ÿ
WXÿ!Yÿ0Z!ÿV5YX5Y2ÿYXÿV![ÿ0ZÿV!66!\5Y2ÿ[!Y3ÿ0Zÿ
!1[0ÿÿ]^ÿÿ
_`ÿ!Vÿ6 VYXY0ÿÿ0!ÿU65Y05VVaÿ
!bc65Y0ÿYXÿ^ÿU65Y05VVaÿ5YV[5Y2b Y0ÿYXÿ\566V16ÿ
5YV[5Y2b Y0ÿ(65b"ÿ4Zÿ
!1[0ÿ6!ÿÿ]^ÿÿ_`ÿ!VÿU65Y05VVÿÿ0!ÿ6 VYXY0aÿ
8

ÿYXÿ^ÿ6 VYXY0aÿ5Y)65X50dÿ(!1Y0[(65b"ÿ
eÿ _^ÿ̀_ÿ_ÿ^ÿ``ÿ̀_ÿgÿ
4Z5ÿ!c5Y5!Yÿ[)ÿÿ0ZÿV5YX5Y2ÿ!VÿV(0ÿYXÿ(!Y(615!Yÿ!Vÿ6\ÿ[h15[Xÿidÿ X[6ÿ916ÿ!Vÿ

5)56ÿU[!(X1[ÿ+#"ÿ X"ÿ9"ÿ
5)"ÿU"ÿ+#"ÿ8YdÿV5YX5Y2ÿ!VÿV(0ÿ0Z0ÿ(0166dÿ(!Y05010ÿÿ(!Y(615!Yÿ!Vÿ6\ÿ
5ÿX!c0Xÿÿ1(Z3ÿYXÿ)5(ÿ)["ÿÿ
eÿ _jkljkmnÿopÿ_qrsÿ
U65Y05VVÿ5ÿÿ(![c![05!Yÿ![2Y5tXÿ1YX[ÿ0Zÿ6\ÿ!Vÿ45\Yÿ\50Zÿÿc[5Y(5c6ÿc6(ÿ!Vÿi15Yÿ
45YYÿ
50d3ÿ45\Y"ÿU65Y05VVÿbY1V(01[ÿV0[b[u0ÿ)Z5(6ÿZX652Z0"ÿ6 VYXY0ÿ5ÿÿ(!bcYdÿ
65(YXÿ0!ÿ(!YX1(0ÿi15Yÿ5Yÿ
65V![Y5ÿ\50Zÿÿc[5Y(5c6ÿc6(ÿ!Vÿi15Yÿ5Yÿ
50dÿ!Vÿ3YX10[d3ÿ

65V![Y5"ÿ6 VYXY0ÿ5ÿÿc[!X1(0ÿ[66[ÿ0Z0ÿX!ÿY!0ÿX52Yÿ50ÿ!\Yÿc[!X1(03ÿi10ÿ5Y0Xÿ['66ÿ
c[!X1(0ÿ0Z0ÿ[ÿX52YXÿYXÿbY1V(01[Xÿidÿ!0Z[ÿ(!bcY5"ÿÿ
ÿ vwÿ yz{|}{ÿ~}|€‚vƒÿ
Yÿ„16dÿ%%3ÿ#*%…3ÿ0Zÿ1Y50Xÿ700ÿU0Y0ÿYXÿ4[Xb[uÿ VV5(ÿR†17U4 ‡Tÿ51Xÿ0Zÿˆ4&…ÿ
U0Y0ÿR 521[ÿ%T3ÿ\Z5(Zÿ5Y(61Xÿÿ5Y#26ÿ(65bÿX5[(0Xÿ0!ÿ0Zÿ![Yb Y06ÿX52YÿV![ÿÿ)Z5(6ÿZX652Z0ÿ
YXÿV5)ÿV521[ÿX([5i5Y2ÿ50ÿX52Y"ÿ4Zÿ VV5(56ÿˆ4&…ÿU0Y0ÿ
[05V5(03ÿXb500Xÿ5Y0!ÿ)5XY(ÿÿ
5‰Z5i50ÿ#%3ÿ5XY05V5ÿŠ1Y2'‹5Y2ÿ 5Yÿÿ0Zÿ5Y)Y0![ÿYXÿYb ÿU65Y05VVÿÿ0Zÿ52Y "ÿ4Zÿ
cc65(05!YÿV![ÿ0Zÿˆ4&…ÿU0Y0ÿ\ÿV56Xÿ!Yÿ8c[56ÿ#*3ÿ#*%,"ÿ4Zÿc[!X1(0ÿbi!Xd5Y2ÿ0Zÿˆ4&…ÿU0Y0ÿ
X52Yÿ\ÿXb500Xÿ5Y0!ÿ)5XY(ÿÿ5‰Z5i50ÿŒ*ÿR 521[ÿ#T"ÿ4Z5ÿc[!X1(0ÿ5ÿYÿV0[b[u03ÿ[c6(b Y0ÿ
ZX652Z0ÿV![ÿÿ#*%##*%+ÿ4!d!0ÿ4(!b"ÿ

ÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿ ÿ
ÿ ÿ ÿ ÿ ÿ 52"ÿ%ÿ ÿ ÿ ÿ 52"ÿ#ÿ
ÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿ
ÿ
ÿ#
ÿÿÿ4ZÿX52YÿV521[ÿ!Vÿ0Zÿc0Y0ÿ(!Y05Yÿ!65XÿYXÿi[!uYÿ65Y3ÿi10ÿ0Zÿi[!uYÿ65Yÿ[ÿY!0ÿc[0ÿ!Vÿ0Zÿ(65b XÿX52Y"ÿ

Q'4*ÿR*,S*-Tÿ ÿÿÿÿ U2ÿ#ÿ!Vÿ4ÿ
ÿ
ÿ
Appx2
…†‡ˆÿŠ‹ŒŽŽ‘’““”Ž•–—Ž˜—ÿÿÿ™š›œˆžÿŒ‘ŒÿÿÿŸ ¡ˆ¢ÿ‘£Š‘£Œ¤ÿÿÿ¥†¦ˆÿ§ÿšÿ̈¤ÿÿÿ¥†¦ˆÿ©™ÿª‹§¤’«
ÿ ÿ ÿ ÿ ÿ ÿ ÿ ÿ ÿ ÿ ÿ ÿ ÿ
123456ÿ748457ÿ637493
4ÿ
194ÿ

52498 ÿ637493
4ÿ ÿ
8 3 9238ÿ
ÿÿÿÿ

ÿ2!"ÿ #$%&'()'*+,,-'9./'7/ÿ 60ÿ81210ÿ#*3ÿ#*%4ÿ
4506ÿ 789:ÿ<=>ÿ?@>AABCÿD:E8FGÿHIGÿJGÿKLMÿNIOI@PÿD:CGÿ
ÿ ÿ
ÿ
ÿ
ÿ XXYÿ [\]ÿ^_`aÿbcd]edÿ
8ÿfg5(0fÿhiÿ0jÿ!65fÿ65kÿ5kÿ0jÿf52kÿW521lÿ!Wÿ0jÿg0k0ÿ5kÿ150ÿR 521lÿ%T3ÿ0jÿm4&nÿU0k0ÿ
jÿW!1lÿ5fk05Wi5k2ÿW01l"ÿ 5l03ÿ0jÿ5k26ÿ6kÿgl!o(0!lÿ!kÿ0jÿg0k0ÿ5kÿ150ÿ5ÿ(i65kfl5(6ÿkfÿ
6!(0fÿp50j5kÿÿ652j06iÿl(fÿ()50i"ÿ7(!kf3ÿ0jÿg0k0ÿ5kÿ150ÿjÿkÿqi65frÿ!lÿqj!!frÿ0j0ÿ(!s ÿ
!10ÿ!)lÿkfÿ(!)lÿ0jÿ0!gÿ!Wÿ0jÿ6kÿgl!o(0!l"ÿ4j5lf3ÿ0jÿg0k0ÿ5kÿ150ÿ(!k05kÿÿQ'jgfÿh)6ÿ!kÿ
0jÿ6W0ÿ5fÿ!Wÿ0jÿ6kÿgl!o(0!lÿ0j0ÿt0kfÿWl!sÿ0jÿ0!g'6W0ÿ(!lklÿ!Wÿ0jÿ6kÿgl!o(0!lÿf!pkÿ0!ÿ0jÿ
h!00!s'(k0lÿ!Wÿ0jÿ6kÿgl!o(0!l"ÿ4jÿQ'jgfÿh)6ÿ6!ÿjÿÿl(fÿ0gÿ6!(0fÿh0p kÿ0jÿ
!10ls!0ÿgl0ÿ!Wÿ0jÿh)6ÿkfÿ0jÿ6kÿgl!o(0!l"ÿ !1l0j3ÿ0jÿf52kÿ!Wÿ0jÿm4&nÿU0k0ÿ5k(61fÿÿ
5fpiÿ1'jgfÿ6sg3ÿpj5(jÿ!gkÿ0!ÿ0jÿ6W0ÿkfÿplgÿl!1kfÿ0jÿl52j0ÿ5fÿ!Wÿ0jÿ6kÿgl!o(0!l3ÿ
(!kk(05k2ÿ0!ÿ!kÿkfÿ!Wÿ0jÿQ'jgfÿh)6ÿ0ÿ0jÿ0!g'6W0ÿ(!lklÿ!Wÿ0jÿ6kÿgl!o(0!lÿkfÿ0!ÿ0jÿ!0jlÿ
kfÿ!Wÿ0jÿh)6ÿ0ÿ0jÿh!00!s'(k0lÿ!Wÿ0jÿ6kÿgl!o(0!l"ÿ
ÿ XXXYÿ [\]ÿuvvwx]yÿbz{ywvdxÿ
U65k05WWÿ((1ÿ6 Wkfk0ÿ!Wÿ665k2ÿ0p!ÿs!f6ÿ!Wÿjf652j0|5fk05W5fÿÿs!f6ÿ. kÿ%ÿkfÿ
s!f6ÿ. kÿ#|0j0ÿ5kWl5k2ÿ0jÿg0k0ÿ5kÿ150"ÿ6 Wkfk0}ÿ. kÿ%ÿR 521lÿVTÿkfÿ. kÿ#ÿR 521lÿ-Tÿ
s!f6ÿl3ÿ0ÿs!03ÿsl25k66iÿf5WWlk0"ÿ3kÿW(03ÿU65k05WW}ÿtgl03ÿ~5kj!k2ÿ~5!3ÿ5kf5(0fÿ0j0ÿ0jÿ
f5WWlk(ÿh0p kÿ0jÿ0p!ÿs!f6ÿlÿk!05(h6ÿ!k6iÿpjkÿ0jÿ652j0ÿlÿ5661s5k0f"ÿ4j13ÿW!lÿ
g1lg!ÿ!Wÿ0j5ÿ5kWl5k2s k0ÿ(05!k3ÿ6 Wkfk0}ÿ0p!ÿs!f6ÿlÿ5kf505k215jh6"ÿR€]]ÿ 52"ÿVÿkfÿ-"Tÿ
4jÿgl!f1(0ÿlÿ6!ÿW0lsl03ÿlg6(s k0ÿjf652j0ÿW!lÿÿ#*%#‚#*%+ÿ4!i!0ÿ4(!s"ÿ

ÿÿ ÿ
ÿ ÿ ÿ 52"ÿVÿ ÿ ÿ ÿ 52"ÿ-ÿ
4jÿ((1fÿgl!f1(0ÿj)ÿ0jl ÿ5fk05Wi5k2ÿW01l"ÿ 5l03ÿ0jÿ6kÿgl!o(0!lÿ!kÿ0jÿ((1fÿ
gl!o(0ÿlÿgjl5(6"ÿ7(!kf3ÿ0jÿ((1fÿgl!f1(0ÿj)ÿÿl!1kffÿQ'jgfÿh)6ÿ0!ÿ0jÿ6W0ÿ!Wÿ0jÿ
6kÿgl!o(0!l"ÿ4j5lf3ÿ0jÿ((1fÿgl!f1(0ÿj)ÿÿ5fpiÿ1'jgfÿ6sgÿ0j0ÿ!gkÿ0!ÿ0jÿ6W0ÿkfÿ
plgÿl!1kfÿ0jÿl52j0ÿ5fÿ!Wÿ0jÿ6kÿgl!o(0!l"ÿ4jÿkfÿ!Wÿ0jÿ1'jgfÿ6sgÿlÿiss 0l5(6ƒÿ0jiÿ
t0kfÿg0ÿ0jÿ6W0ÿf2ÿ!Wÿ0jÿgl!o(0!lÿkfÿ0!gÿj!l0ÿ!Wÿ0jÿQ'jgfÿh)6"ÿ2!0h6i3ÿ0jÿ((1fÿ
gl!f1(0ÿf!ÿk!0ÿ(!k05kÿkÿqi65frÿ!)lÿ0jÿ0!gÿgl0ÿ!Wÿ0jÿ6kÿgl!o(0!l"ÿ
ÿ X„Yÿ bzX{zÿuzdÿ
ÿ 6 Wkfk0ÿgl!f1(fÿ0jl ÿ!0jlÿjf652j0ÿf52kÿ0ÿ0l56ÿ0j0ÿp lÿ5kÿt50k(ÿhW!lÿ0jÿm4&nÿ
ÿ

Q'4*ÿR*,S*-Tÿ ÿÿÿÿ U2ÿVÿ!Wÿ4ÿ


ÿ
ÿ
Appx3
‚ƒ„ÿ†‡ˆ‰Š‹ŒŠŽŠ‘’“Š”“ÿÿÿ•–‹—˜„™šÿˆˆÿÿÿ›œ„žÿ‰Ÿ†Ÿˆ ÿÿÿ¡‚¢„ÿÿ–£ÿ ÿÿÿ¡‚¢„ÿ¤•ÿ¥‡¦ Ž‰
ÿ ÿ ÿ ÿ ÿ ÿ ÿ ÿ ÿ ÿ ÿ ÿ ÿ
123456ÿ748457ÿ637493
4ÿ
194ÿ

52498 ÿ637493
4ÿ ÿ
8 3 9238ÿ
ÿÿÿÿ

ÿ2!"ÿ #$%&'()'*+,,-'9./'7/ÿ 60ÿ81210ÿ#*3ÿ#*%4ÿ
4506ÿ 789:ÿ<=>ÿ?@>AABCÿD:E8FGÿHIGÿJGÿKLMÿNIOI@PÿD:CGÿ
ÿ ÿ
ÿ
ÿ
U0W0ÿXÿV56YÿX50Zÿ0Zÿ17U4 [ÿ1W50Yÿ700ÿ6 52WÿU0W0ÿ2!"ÿ6\%-3-\,7ÿR]0Zÿ^-\,ÿU0W0_TÿWYÿ
6\4\3̀#-7ÿR]0Zÿ^`#-ÿU0W0TÿWYÿ
Z5Wÿ9 250aYÿU0W0ÿ2!"ÿ
2#*%``*#%&#,*"#ÿR]0Zÿ^#,*"#ÿ
U0W0_T"ÿ4Zÿ^-\,ÿU0W0ÿR 521aÿ+Tÿ(!W05Wÿÿ(5a(16a3ÿba!0a1Y5W2ÿ6Wÿba!c(0!a[ÿÿ0Z5W3ÿ1ba52Z0ÿ1'
ZbYÿ6db[ÿWYÿ0Za ÿYY505!W6ÿ652Z0ÿ6!(0Yÿe6!Xÿ0Zÿ1'ZbYÿ6db"ÿ4Zÿ^`#-ÿU0W0ÿR 521aÿ,Tÿ
Zÿÿa(Y3ÿbZa5(6ÿ6Wÿba!c(0!a3ÿÿX 66ÿÿÿ5YXfÿ1'ZbYÿ6dbÿX50ZÿY505W(0ÿ(!aWaÿ0Z0ÿ
!bWÿ0!ÿ0Zÿa52Z0"ÿ4Zÿ^#,*"#ÿU0W0ÿR 521aÿ\Tÿ(!W05WÿÿbZa5(6ÿ6Wÿba!c(0!a3ÿWÿ]8W2afÿg5aYh_ÿ
f65Yÿ!Wÿ0!bÿ!Vÿ0Zÿba!c(0!a3ÿWYÿÿ0Z5Wÿ6dbÿ0Z0ÿXabÿa!1WYÿ0Za 'V!1a0Zÿ!Vÿ0Zÿba!c(0!a"ÿ

ÿ ÿ ÿ ÿ 52"ÿ+ÿ ÿ 52"ÿ,ÿÿ ÿ ÿ 52"ÿ\ÿ ÿ ÿ


ÿ ijÿ lmnÿonpqnÿprsÿtnquqvÿwnvvnxÿ
7!d 05d ÿV0aÿ0Zÿba!Y1(0ÿde!Yf5W2ÿ0Zÿ^4&\ÿU0W0ÿXÿ)56e6ÿV!aÿ63ÿU65W05VVhÿ2Wa6ÿ
dW2aÿWYÿ(Z5adW3ÿy!'65Wÿy1W23ÿ6aWYÿe!10ÿ6 VWYW0hÿ. Wÿ%ÿZY652Z0"ÿy1W2ÿ5dd Y506fÿ
!12Z0ÿ(!1W63ÿXZ!ÿW0ÿ6 VWYW0ÿÿ(ÿWYÿY50ÿ600aÿR]
6 _TÿZ!a06fÿ0ZaV0a"ÿ4Zÿ
6 ÿ
W!05V5Yÿ6 VWYW0ÿ!Vÿ0Zÿ^4&\ÿU0W0ÿWYÿYdWYYÿ0Z0ÿ6 VWYW0ÿ(ÿY50a5e105!Wÿ!Vÿ50ÿba!Y1(0ÿ5Wÿ
z105!W"ÿ
6 VWYW0hÿ2Wa6ÿdW2a3ÿ{d ÿ| 13ÿa(5)YÿWYÿaYÿ0Zÿ
6 "ÿ| 1}XZ!ÿ5ÿ2Wa66fÿ
Vd565aÿX50ZÿY52Wÿb0W0ÿWYÿXZ!ÿZÿa)5X YÿY52Wÿb0W0ÿ5Wÿ0Zÿb0}W6f~YÿWYÿ(!dbaYÿ
0Zÿb0W0ÿ5Wÿ150ÿ0!ÿ0Zÿ((1Yÿba!Y1(0"ÿ| 1ÿba!W66fÿY0ad5WYÿ0Z0ÿ0Zÿ((1Yÿba!Y1(0ÿY5YÿW!0ÿ
5WVa5W2ÿ0Zÿb0W0ÿ5Wÿ150"ÿ| 1ÿ0ZWÿ!12Z0ÿ0ZÿY)5(ÿ!Vÿ!105Yÿb0W0ÿ00!aWf3ÿ
Z'|W2ÿ
ZW"ÿ
ZWÿ
a)5X Yÿ0ZÿY52WÿV!aÿ!Wÿ0!ÿ0X!ÿd5W10ÿWYÿY)5Yÿ| 1ÿ0Z0ÿ0ZÿY5VVaW`(ÿe0X Wÿ0Zÿ^4&\ÿ
U0W0ÿWYÿ0Zÿ((1Yÿba!Y1(0ÿX aÿ0!!ÿY5VVaW0ÿ0!ÿ(!W05010ÿ5WVa5W2d W0"ÿÿ
6 b50ÿa(5)5W2ÿ0Zÿ
6 3ÿ6 VWYW03ÿeYÿ!Wÿ| 1hÿY0ad5W05!WÿWYÿ
ZWhÿY)5(3ÿ
(!W05W1Yÿ0!ÿY50a5e10ÿWYÿ66ÿ0Zÿ((1Yÿba!Y1(0"ÿ
ÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿ
ÿ
ÿ̀
ÿ4Zÿ
!1a0ÿW!0ÿ0Z03ÿ5Wÿa2aYÿ0!ÿ 5W2ÿ
ZWhÿY)5(3ÿ| 1hÿ0a56ÿ005d!WfÿY5VVaÿVa!dÿZ5ÿYb!505!Wÿ005d!Wf"ÿ80ÿZ5ÿ
Yb!505!W3ÿ| 1ÿ00Yÿ0Z0ÿZÿ!12Z0ÿY)5(ÿ!W6fÿVa!dÿZ5ÿ6505205!Wÿ00!aWf"ÿ| 1ÿYd500Yÿ0Z5ÿY5(abW(fÿ0ÿ0a563ÿZ!X )a3ÿ
€b65W5W2ÿ0Z0ÿZÿ]V!a2!0_ÿ0!ÿd W05!WÿZ5ÿd 05W2ÿX50Zÿ
ZWÿWYÿ0Z0ÿ0Zÿd 05W2ÿ]65bbY_ÿZ5ÿd5WYÿe(1ÿZÿY5YÿW!0ÿ
0Z5Wÿ50ÿXÿ5db!a0W0"ÿ6 VWYW0ÿ6!ÿb6WWYÿ0!ÿ(66ÿ
ZWÿÿÿX50Wÿ0!ÿba1de6ÿ(!66e!a0ÿ| 1hÿ0a56ÿ005d!Wf"ÿ !aÿ
ÿÿ0Zÿa!WÿWYÿeYÿ!Wÿ0Zÿ
!1a0hÿ!ea)05!Wÿ!Vÿ| 1ÿ0ÿ0a563ÿ0Zÿ
!1a0ÿV5WYÿ0Z0ÿ| 1hÿ005d!Wfÿ0ÿ0a56ÿXÿ(aY5e6"ÿÿ

Q'4*ÿR*,S*-Tÿ ÿÿÿÿ U2ÿ-ÿ!Vÿ4ÿ
ÿ
ÿ
Appx4
¡¢£¤ÿ¦§¨©ª«¬ª­®¯¯°ª±²³ª´³ÿÿÿµ¶«·¸¤¹ºÿ̈­¨ÿÿÿ»¼½¤¾ÿ­©¿¦­¿¨ÀÿÿÿÁ¢Â¤ÿ®ÿ¶ÃÿÀÿÿÿÁ¢Â¤ÿĵÿŧÆÀ®À
ÿ ÿ ÿ ÿ ÿ ÿ ÿ ÿ ÿ ÿ ÿ ÿ ÿ
123456ÿ748457ÿ637493
4ÿ
194ÿ

52498 ÿ637493
4ÿ ÿ
8 3 9238ÿ
ÿÿÿÿ

ÿ2!"ÿ #$%&'()'*+,,-'9./'7/ÿ 60ÿ81210ÿ#*3ÿ#*%4ÿ
4506ÿ 789:ÿ<=>ÿ?@>AABCÿD:E8FGÿHIGÿJGÿKLMÿNIOI@PÿD:CGÿ
ÿ ÿ
ÿ
ÿ
WXÿ Z[\]^_Z̀[_ÿZaÿbcÿ
4dÿ
!1e0ÿffeÿ0dÿV5)ÿeg5h5h2ÿ51ÿ5hÿ01eh$ÿR%Tÿi0h0ÿ!jhed5ikÿR#Tÿ5hVe5h2g h0kÿRlTÿ
j566V16ÿ5hVe5h2g h0kÿR-Tÿeg f5kÿhfÿR+Tÿ5h)65f50m"ÿ
ÿ noÿ qrstusÿvwutxyzn{ÿ
6 Vhfh0ÿe21fÿ5hÿ50ÿ(6!5h2ÿ00g h0ÿ0d0ÿU65h05VVÿf!ÿh!0ÿd)ÿ0hf5h2ÿ0!ÿe0ÿi0h0ÿ
5hVe5h2g h0ÿ!Vÿ0dÿ|4&}ÿU0h0"ÿ6 Vhfh0ÿ1eg5fÿ0d03ÿ~(1ÿh!ÿf!(1g h0ÿd!j5h2ÿi0h0ÿ
52hg h0ÿdfÿ~ hÿfg500fÿ5h0!ÿ)5fh(3ÿU65h05VVÿ(!16fÿh!0ÿ0~65dÿ0d0ÿ50ÿjÿ0dÿ6jV16ÿ52h ÿ
0!ÿ0dÿ|4&}ÿU0h0"ÿÿ
4d5ÿe21g h0ÿV56"ÿ1hfeÿl+ÿ1"7"
"ÿÿ#,%3ÿii65(05!hÿV!eÿi0h0ÿ€d66ÿ~ÿ52h~6ÿ5hÿ6jÿ
~mÿhÿ5h0e1g h0ÿ5hÿje505h2"ÿ4d5ÿ(05!hÿ6!ÿie!)5fÿ0d0ÿÿ52hfÿ€(e05V5(0ÿ!Vÿ(‚h!j6f2g h0ÿ"ÿ"ÿ"ÿ
d66ÿ~ÿie5gÿV(5ÿ)5fh(ÿ!Vÿ0dÿƒ(105!hÿ!Vÿhÿ52hg h0ÿ"ÿ"ÿ"ÿ!Vÿÿi0h0ÿ!eÿii65(05!hÿV!eÿi0h0"ÿ
„…"ÿ† e3ÿ0dÿ!VV5(56ÿi0h0ÿ5hÿ150ÿ(e05V5(0ÿ5fh05V5ÿU65h05VVÿÿ0dÿ52h "ÿUe1g~6m3ÿV!eÿU65h05VVÿ
0!ÿ~ÿhg fÿÿ0dÿ52h ÿ!hÿ0dÿi0h0ÿ(e05V5(03ÿhÿ5h0e1g h0ÿ5hÿje505h2ÿ52h5h2ÿ0dÿi0h0ÿ0!ÿ
U65h05VVÿjÿie!)5ffÿ0!ÿ0dÿ17U4 ÿf1e5h2ÿ0dÿii65(05!hÿie!("ÿ6 Vhfh0ÿ6!ÿV56ÿ0!ÿieh0ÿhmÿ
)5fh(ÿ0d0ÿ5hf5(0ÿU65h05VVÿ5ÿh!0ÿ0dÿ52h "ÿ
8((!ef5h26m3ÿ0dÿ
!1e0ÿV5hfÿ0d0ÿU65h05VVÿ5ÿ0dÿ52h ÿ!Vÿ0dÿ|4&}ÿU0h0"ÿ
ÿ nnoÿ qrstusÿ„u‡xnuˆt‰tusÿ
8ÿ(65gÿV!eÿi0h0ÿ5hVe5h2g h0ÿg10ÿ~ÿd!jhÿ~mÿÿiei!hfeh(ÿ!Vÿ0dÿ)5fh("ÿŠ…‹ruŒt…ÿ
rx…nŽ‹ryŒrxÿ‘’yo“ÿ„uŒoÿ‹oÿ‘Œn‰t…ÿ”n‡tÿ‘’yo“ÿ„uŒo3ÿ#,%ÿ "lfÿ%l#43ÿ%ll,ÿR f"ÿ
5e"ÿ#**%T"ÿ
!1e0ÿ
)610ÿf52h'i0h0ÿ5hVe5h2g h0ÿ5hÿÿ0j!'0iÿie!("ÿŠx‰nur•ÿ–ÿŠyyŽŒyoÿ‹oÿ‘rnus—˜Ž™rnuÿr‰rx“ÿ
„uŒo3ÿ+*%ÿ "lfÿ%l%-3ÿ%l%4ÿR f"ÿ
5e"ÿ#**}T3ÿr™xŽˆrst…ÿŽuÿŽsztxÿˆxŽu…yÿ™’ÿšˆ’{snruÿ˜Ž……tyy“ÿ„uŒoÿ‹oÿ
‘wnyr“ÿ„uŒo3ÿ+-lÿ "lfÿ,,+ÿR f"ÿ
5e"ÿ#**&TÿRhÿ~h(T"ÿ
!1e0ÿV5e0ÿ€(!h0e1ÿ0dÿ(65gÿ!Vÿ0dÿf52hÿ
i0h0ÿ0!ÿf0eg5hÿ0d5eÿg h5h2ÿhfÿ(!i"ÿŠx‰nur•3ÿ+*%ÿ "lfÿ0ÿ%l%4"ÿ
!1e0ÿ0dhÿ€(!gieÿ0dÿ
(!h0e1fÿ(65gÿ0!ÿ0dÿ((1fÿf52h"ÿ„…oÿ0ÿ%l#*"ÿ€3hVe5h2g h0ÿ!Vÿÿf52hÿi0h0ÿ!((1eÿ5Vÿ0dÿ
f52hÿd)ÿ0dÿg ÿ2he6ÿ)516ÿiieh(3ÿ1(dÿ0d0ÿ50ÿ5ÿ65‚6mÿ0d0ÿ0dÿi1e(deÿR!eÿ0dÿ!ef5hemÿ
!~e)eTÿj!16fÿ~ÿf(5)fÿ5h0!ÿ(!hV15h2ÿ0dÿf52hÿ!Vÿ0dÿ((1fÿe05(6ÿj50dÿ0dÿi0h0fÿf52h"ÿ
„…oÿR60e05!hÿhfÿ5h0eh6ÿ›1!005!hÿge‚ÿ!g500fT"ÿÿ
œ (1ÿ50ÿ5ÿf5VV5(160ÿ€0!ÿf(e5~ÿÿf52hÿ5hÿj!ef3ÿ50ÿ5ÿ1166mÿ€ieVe~6ÿ"ÿ"ÿ"ÿV!eÿÿ"ÿ"ÿ"ÿ(!1e0ÿ
h!0ÿ0!ÿ00gi0ÿ0!ÿ|(!h0e1ÿÿf52hÿi0h0ÿ(65gÿ~mÿie!)5f5h2ÿÿf056fÿ)e~6ÿf(e5i05!hÿ!Vÿ0dÿ
(65g fÿf52h"ÿšˆ’{snruÿ˜Ž……tyy“ÿ„uŒo3ÿ+-lÿ "lfÿ0ÿ,}4"ÿ3h0f3ÿ€žŸÿf52hÿi0h0ÿ(65gÿ5ÿ"ÿ"ÿ"ÿ!V0hÿ
~ÿ 00eÿeieh0fÿ~mÿž2eid5(Ÿÿ56610e05!h"ÿ‘{Žxsÿ n‰tuynŽu“ÿ„uŒoÿ‹oÿŽt‰ruÿŽo3ÿ&#*ÿ "lfÿ%l%,3ÿ
ÿ

Q'4*ÿR*,S*-Tÿ ÿÿÿÿ U2ÿ+ÿ!Vÿ4ÿ


ÿ
ÿ
Appx5
˜™š›ÿžŸ ¡¢£¡¤¥¦¦§¡¨©ª¡«ªÿÿÿ¬­¢®¯›°±ÿŸ¤Ÿÿÿÿ²³́›µÿ¤ ¶¤¶Ÿ·ÿÿÿ̧™¹›ÿ¦ÿ­ºÿ·ÿÿÿ̧™¹›ÿ»¬ÿ¼ž½·¦¤
ÿ ÿ ÿ ÿ ÿ ÿ ÿ ÿ ÿ ÿ ÿ ÿ ÿ
123456ÿ748457ÿ637493
4ÿ
194ÿ

52498 ÿ637493
4ÿ ÿ
8 3 9238ÿ
ÿÿÿÿ

ÿ2!"ÿ #$%&'()'*+,,-'9./'7/ÿ 60ÿ81210ÿ#*3ÿ#*%4ÿ
4506ÿ 789:ÿ<=>ÿ?@>AABCÿD:E8FGÿHIGÿJGÿKLMÿNIOI@PÿD:CGÿ
ÿ ÿ
ÿ
ÿ
%W#*ÿR X"ÿ
5Y"ÿ#*%,T"ÿZ50[ÿ0[ÿY6)\0ÿX52\ÿX]5(0Xÿ^!)3ÿ0[ÿ
!1Y0ÿ01Y\ÿ0!ÿ0[ÿ(!\Xÿ0]ÿ!Vÿ
0[ÿ5\VY5\2_ \0ÿ\6̀5"ÿ
80ÿ0[5ÿ0]3ÿ0[ÿ
!1Y0ÿ(!_]Yÿa0[ÿ]0\0Xÿ\Xÿ((1XÿX52\ÿ"ÿ"ÿ"ÿV!Yÿbcdefggÿcijkfgÿ
jiligfeimn"oÿpgldeÿcqÿrssÿtfueivfmiwxyÿrwvq3ÿ,zÿ "WXÿ%+z%3ÿ%+zzÿR X"ÿ
5Y"ÿ%44+TÿR_][5ÿXXXT"ÿ4!ÿ
V5\Xÿ5\VY5\2_ \03ÿ0[ÿ0{!ÿX52\ÿ\ Xÿ\!0ÿ^ÿ5X\05(6|ÿ1^0\056ÿ5_56Y50̀ÿ5ÿ\!12["ÿ}eliwf~3ÿ+*%ÿ
"WXÿ0ÿ%W#*|ÿpxnmifwÿ€bdjj3ÿ+-Wÿ "WXÿ0ÿ,z*"ÿ7](5V5(66̀3ÿ1\XYÿ0[ÿ!YX5\Y`'!^Y)Yÿ003ÿ\!ÿ
5\VY5\2_ \0ÿ!((1Yÿ{[Yÿa0[ÿ((1XÿX52\ÿ(!16Xÿ\!0ÿY!\^6̀ÿ^ÿ)5{ Xÿÿ!ÿ5_56Yÿ0!ÿ0[ÿ
(65_ XÿX52\ÿ0[0ÿÿ]1Y([Yÿ‚!Yÿ!YX5\Y`ÿ!^Y)YƒÿV_565Yÿ{50[ÿ0[ÿ]Y5!YÿY0ÿ{!16Xÿ^ÿX(5)Xÿ^`ÿ
0[ÿ5_56Y50̀ÿ^0{ \ÿ0[ÿ(65_ Xÿ\Xÿ((1XÿX52\3oÿa„5\X1(5\2ÿ[5_ÿ0!ÿ]1Y([ÿ!\ÿ1]]!5\2ÿ50ÿ0!ÿ
^ÿ0[ÿ!0[Y"…oÿ†fvqÿsbfjmÿ‡feiwdÿˆiwj‰idgjÿŠmqÿcqÿ‡fgiukÿ‹bfmjyÿŠŠs3ÿzW4ÿ "WXÿ,4-3ÿz*%ÿR X"ÿ
5Y"ÿ
#*%-TÿRŒ1!05\2ÿ€be‰flÿ‡xqÿsbqÿcqÿˆ‰imd3ÿ&%ÿ1"7"ÿ+%%3ÿ+#&ÿR%&z%TT|ÿfvvbeÿpxnmifwÿ€bdjj3ÿ+-Wÿ
"WXÿ0ÿ,z-"ÿ
ÿ ÿ fqÿ ŽeiwfenÿŽujdecdeÿ
4[ÿ
!1Y0ÿ_10ÿV5Y0ÿ5X\05V`ÿ0[ÿ!YX5\Y`ÿ!^Y)Y"ÿ}eliwf~3ÿ+*%ÿ "WXÿ0ÿ%W#%"ÿa‚4ƒ[ÿV!(1ÿ5ÿ
!\ÿ0[ÿ(016ÿ]Y!X1(0ÿ0[0ÿ5ÿ]Y\0XÿV!Yÿ]1Y([3ÿ\Xÿ0[ÿ!YX5\Y`ÿ]1Y([Yÿ!Vÿ0[0ÿ]Y!X1(0"oÿ
€bbndfeÿiedÿsbqÿcqÿdevkgdjÿiedÿ‘ÿ’kuudeÿsbq3ÿ%,#ÿ "WXÿ%%%W3ÿ%%%,“%zÿR X"ÿ
5Y"ÿ%44&T3ÿfuebxfmdÿ
bwÿbm‰deÿxebkwjÿunÿpxnmifwÿ€bdjjyÿ+-Wÿ "WXÿ0ÿ,z&"ÿ8((!YX5\26̀3ÿ0[ÿ!YX5\Y`ÿ!^Y)Yÿ5\ÿ0[5ÿ(ÿ
5ÿ\ÿ5\X5)5X16ÿ(!\1_ Yÿ{[!ÿ^1`ÿV0Y_Y”0ÿ[X652[0ÿV!Yÿÿ#*%#“#*%+ÿ4!`!0ÿ4(!_"ÿ4[ÿ
!YX5\Y`ÿ!^Y)Yÿ5ÿ6!ÿ!\ÿ{[!ÿ5ÿV_565Yÿ{50[ÿ0[ÿ]Y5!YÿY0ÿ]Y\0Xÿ5\ÿ0[5ÿ(•X]5(0Xÿ\Xÿ
X(Y5^Xÿ^!)"ÿ–ddÿpxnmifwÿ€bdjjyÿ+-Wÿ "WXÿ0ÿ,z,ÿRa‚4ƒ[ÿ!YX5\Y`ÿ!^Y)Yÿ5ÿX _ Xÿ0!ÿ)5{ÿ
0[ÿX5VVY\(ÿ^0{ \ÿ0[ÿ]0\0XÿX52\ÿ\Xÿ0[ÿ((1Xÿ]Y!X1(0ÿ5\ÿ0[ÿ(!\0—0ÿ!Vÿ0[ÿ]Y5!YÿY0"oT"ÿÿ
ÿ ÿ uqÿ rweiwxdldwmÿ}wfgnjijÿ
4[ÿ
!1Y03ÿ^V!Yÿ515\2ÿ50ÿY165\2ÿ0[0ÿ0[ÿ((1Xÿ]Y!X1(0ÿX!ÿ\!0ÿ5\VY5\2ÿ0[ÿ]0\0ÿ5\ÿ1503ÿ
Y)5{ Xÿ)Y6ÿ5_2ÿ!Vÿ0[ÿ]0\0ÿ5\ÿ1503ÿ0[ÿ]Y!X1(0ÿ_^!X`5\2ÿ0[ÿ]0\0ÿ5\ÿ1503ÿ0[ÿ((1Xÿ
]Y!X1(03ÿ\Xÿ0[ÿ]Y5!YÿY0ÿ]Y!X1(Xÿ0ÿ0Y56"ÿ4[ÿ
!1Y0ÿ6!ÿ—_5\Xÿ0[ÿ(016ÿ[X652[0ÿX_500Xÿ5\0!ÿ
)5X\(•0[ÿ[X652[0ÿ_^!X`5\2ÿ0[ÿ]0\0ÿ5\ÿ150ÿR5—[5^50ÿW*T3ÿÿ{ 66ÿÿ0[ÿ((1Xÿ]Y!X1(0ÿ
R5—[5^50ÿW%RTÿ\XÿW%R^TT"ÿÿ
8ÿ0[ÿ
!1Y0ÿ—]65\Xÿ!\ÿ0[ÿY(!YXÿ0ÿ0[ÿ(!\(615!\ÿ!Vÿ0Y563ÿU65\05VVÿV56Xÿ0!ÿ[!{ÿ^`ÿÿ
]Y]!\XY\(ÿ!Vÿ0[ÿ)5X\(ÿ0[0ÿ0[ÿ2\Y6ÿ]]Y\(ÿ!Vÿ0[ÿ((1Xÿ]Y!X1(0ÿ\Xÿ0[ÿ„4&zÿU0\0ÿ
Yÿ!ÿ5_56Yÿ0[0ÿ0[ÿ!YX5\Y`ÿ!^Y)Yÿ{!16Xÿ(!\V1ÿ0[ÿ((1Xÿ]Y!X1(0ÿ{50[ÿ0[ÿ]0\0ÿ5\ÿ150"ÿ4[0ÿ
53ÿ0[ÿ
!1Y0ÿ(!\(61Xÿ0[0ÿ0[ÿ((1Xÿ]Y!X1(0ÿ\Xÿ0[ÿ]0\0ÿ5\ÿ150ÿ[)ÿ!Y\_ \06ÿX5VVY\(ÿ5\ÿ
0[5Yÿ!)Y66ÿ]]Y\("ÿÿ
ÿÿ

Q'4*ÿR*,S*-Tÿ ÿÿÿÿ U2ÿ,ÿ!Vÿ4ÿ
ÿ
ÿ
Appx6
†‡ˆ‰ÿ‹ŒŽ‘’“””•–—˜™˜ÿÿÿš›œ‰žŸÿ’ÿÿÿ ¡¢‰£ÿ’Ž¤‹’¤¥ÿÿÿ¦‡§‰ÿ̈ÿ›©ÿ¥ÿÿÿ¦‡§‰ÿªšÿ«Œ¬¥”
ÿ ÿ ÿ ÿ ÿ ÿ ÿ ÿ ÿ ÿ ÿ ÿ ÿ
123456ÿ748457ÿ637493
4ÿ
194ÿ

52498 ÿ637493
4ÿ ÿ
8 3 9238ÿ
ÿÿÿÿ

ÿ2!"ÿ #$%&'()'*+,,-'9./'7/ÿ 60ÿ81210ÿ#*3ÿ#*%4ÿ
4506ÿ 789:ÿ<=>ÿ?@>AABCÿD:E8FGÿHIGÿJGÿKLMÿNIOI@PÿD:CGÿ
ÿ ÿ
ÿ
ÿ
X!0ÿY!0Z6[3ÿ0\ÿ]0Y0ÿ5Yÿ150ÿ\ÿYÿ^[65_`ÿ0\0ÿ(!)aÿ0\ÿ0!]ÿ!Wÿ0\ÿ6Yÿ]a!b(0!a"ÿ2!ÿ1(\ÿ
(!)aÿ5ÿW!1Y_ÿ!Yÿ0\ÿ((1_ÿ]a!_1(0"ÿ4\ÿ
!1a0ÿ5ÿY!0ÿ]a1__ÿZ[ÿU65Y05WWÿ!aÿU65Y05WWcÿd]a0ÿ0\0ÿ
0\ÿ[65_ÿ!Yÿ0\ÿ]0Y0ÿ5Yÿ150ÿ5ÿ5e]6[ÿÿe5Y!aÿ_5WWaY("ÿ2!aÿ_5_ÿU65Y05WWÿ0Z65\ÿ0\0ÿ0\ÿ[65_ÿ5ÿ
e a6[ÿW1Y(05!Y63ÿÿ!]]!_ÿ0!ÿ!aYe Y06"ÿ4\5ÿ_5WWaY(ÿ6!Yÿ_505Y215\ÿ0\ÿ!)a66ÿ]]aY(ÿ
!Wÿ0\ÿf4&VÿU0Y0ÿWa!eÿ0\ÿ!)a66ÿ]]aY(ÿ!Wÿ0\ÿ((1_ÿ]a!_1(0"ÿÿ
4\ÿ
!1a0ÿ6!ÿW5Y_ÿ0\0ÿ0\ÿ!)a66ÿ]]aY(ÿ!Wÿ0\ÿ((1_ÿ]a!_1(0ÿY_ÿ0\ÿf4&VÿU0Y0ÿaÿ
_55e56aÿW!aÿ__505!Y6ÿa!Y"ÿ4\ÿ1'\]_ÿ6e]ÿ!Yÿ0\ÿ]0Y0ÿ5Yÿ150ÿ_!ÿY!0ÿd0Y_ÿ]0ÿ0\ÿ
Z!00!eÿ!Wÿ0\ÿ6Yÿ]a!b(0!a3ÿg\56ÿ0\ÿZ!00!eÿ!Wÿ0\ÿ1'\]_ÿ6e]ÿ!Yÿ0\ÿ((1_ÿ]a!_1(0ÿ_!"ÿ4\ÿ
Q'\]_ÿZ)6ÿ!Yÿ0\ÿ]0Y0ÿ5Yÿ150ÿ5ÿ6!ÿ_5WWaY0hÿ50ÿ\ÿÿa(_ÿ0]ÿ6!(0_ÿZ0g Yÿ0\ÿ
!10ae!0ÿ]a0ÿ!Wÿ0\ÿZ)6ÿY_ÿ0\ÿ6Yÿ]a!b(0!a3ÿg\5(\ÿ(YY!0ÿZÿW!1Y_ÿ!Yÿ0\ÿ((1_ÿ]a!_1(0"ÿ
5Y66[3ÿ60\!12\ÿY!0ÿe Y05!Y_ÿZ[ÿ50\aÿ5_ÿ0ÿ0a563ÿ0\ÿ
!1a0ÿ6!ÿY!0ÿ0\0ÿ0\ÿ6Yÿ]a!b(0!aÿ
0\e6)ÿ]]aÿ0!ÿZÿ_5WWaY0"ÿ4\ÿ]a!b(0!aÿ!Yÿ0\ÿ]0Y0ÿ5Yÿ150ÿ5ÿ([65Y_a5(6ÿY_ÿ6!(0_ÿg50\5Yÿÿ
652\06[ÿa(_ÿ()50["ÿ4\ÿ]a!b(0!aÿ!Yÿ0\ÿ((1_ÿ]a!_1(03ÿ\!g )a3ÿ]]aÿ0!ÿZÿ]\a5(63ÿY_ÿ50ÿ
5ÿY!0ÿa(_ÿ!aÿ]a!0a1_5Y2ÿ!10"ÿ
4\ÿ
!1a0ÿ0\aW!aÿW5Y_ÿ0\0ÿ0\ÿ((1_ÿ]a!_1(0ÿ_!ÿY!0ÿ5YWa5Y2ÿ!Yÿ0\ÿf4&VÿU0Y0"ÿ
ÿ iiijÿ limmnomÿpqnriqstutqvÿ
U65Y05WWÿ6!ÿ662_ÿY_ÿ]aY0_ÿ)5_Y(ÿ0\0ÿ6 WY_Y0ÿg566W166[ÿ5YWa5Y2_ÿ0\ÿf4&VÿU0Y0"ÿ
U65Y05WWcÿa21e Y0ÿ5ÿZ_ÿ!Yÿ0\ÿW(0ÿ0\0ÿ6 WY_Y0ÿ(!Y05Y1_ÿ0!ÿ66ÿY_ÿ_50a5Z10ÿ0\ÿ((1_ÿ
]a!_1(0ÿW0aÿU65Y05WWcÿ
6 ÿ5YW!ae _ÿ6 WY_Y0ÿ!Wÿ0\ÿf4&VÿU0Y0"ÿÿ
w (1ÿU65Y05WWÿW56_ÿ0!ÿ0Z65\ÿ5YWa5Y2e Y03ÿU65Y05WWÿ(YY!0ÿ0Z65\ÿg566W16ÿ5YWa5Y2e Y0"ÿ
w10ÿ)Yÿ5Wÿ5YWa5Y2e Y0ÿ\_ÿZ Yÿ0Z65\_3ÿU65Y05WWÿ_5_ÿY!0ÿ0Z65\ÿg566W16ÿ5YWa5Y2e Y0"ÿ
U65Y05WWcÿg566W16ÿ5YWa5Y2e Y0ÿ(65eÿ5ÿZ_ÿ!66[ÿ!Yÿ6 WY_Y0cÿxY!g6_2ÿ!Wÿ0\ÿf4&VÿU0Y0ÿW0aÿ
0\ÿ
6 "ÿ5)5_Y(ÿ0\0ÿYÿ5YWa5Y2aÿxYgÿ!Wÿ0\ÿ]0Y0ÿ^Y_ÿY!0\5Y2ÿe!a`ÿ5ÿ5Y1WW5(5Y0ÿ0!ÿ0Z65\ÿ
g566W16ÿ5YWa5Y2e Y0"ÿyttÿz{m|ÿ}mt~j€ÿpq~jÿjÿ‚omtÿ}mt~j€ÿpq~j3ÿ%ƒ,ÿ7"ÿ
0"ÿ%4#ƒ3ÿ%4ƒ,ÿRwa[a3ÿ„"3ÿ
(!Y(1aa5Y2T"ÿX!a!)a3ÿ0\ÿ
!1a0ÿW5Y_ÿ0\0ÿ6 WY_Y0cÿ(!Y_1(0ÿgÿY!0ÿg566W16"ÿw_ÿ!Yÿ0\ÿ)5_Y(ÿ
]aY0_ÿ0ÿ0a563ÿ0\ÿ
!1a0ÿ5ÿ(!Y)5Y(_ÿ0\0ÿ… 13ÿ6 WY_Y0cÿ2Ya6ÿeY2a3ÿ\_ÿÿ2!!_'W50\ÿZ65Wÿ
0\0ÿ0\ÿ((1_ÿ]a!_1(0ÿ_5_ÿY!0ÿ5YWa5Y2ÿZ_ÿ!Yÿ\5ÿ!gYÿY6[5ÿ!Wÿ0\ÿ_52Yÿ]0Y0ÿY_ÿ\5ÿ
a65Y(ÿ!Yÿ!105_ÿ(!1Y6"ÿ
8((!a_5Y26[3ÿ0\ÿ
!1a0ÿW5Y_ÿ0\0ÿU65Y05WWÿ_!ÿY!0ÿ0Z65\ÿg566W16ÿ5YWa5Y2e Y0"ÿ

ÿÿ

Q'4*ÿR*,S*-Tÿ ÿÿÿÿ U2ÿVÿ!Wÿ4ÿ
ÿ
ÿ
Appx7
’“”•ÿ—˜™š›œ›žŸ  ¡›¢£¤›¥¤ÿÿÿ¦§œ¨©•ª«ÿ™ž™ÿÿÿ¬­®•¯ÿžš°—ž°™±ÿÿÿ²“³•ÿšÿ§ÿ́±ÿÿÿ²“³•ÿµ¦ÿ¶˜·± —
ÿ ÿ ÿ ÿ ÿ ÿ ÿ ÿ ÿ ÿ ÿ ÿ ÿ
123456ÿ748457ÿ637493
4ÿ
194ÿ

52498 ÿ637493
4ÿ ÿ
8 3 9238ÿ
ÿÿÿÿ

ÿ2!"ÿ #$%&'()'*+,,-'9./'7/ÿ 60ÿ81210ÿ#*3ÿ#*%4ÿ
4506ÿ 789:ÿ<=>ÿ?@>AABCÿD:E8FGÿHIGÿJGÿKLMÿNIOI@PÿD:CGÿ
ÿ ÿ
ÿ
ÿ
ÿ WXYÿ [\]\^W\_ÿ
U65̀05VVÿ aÿ0bÿV!66!c5̀2ÿde f5$ÿgde``0ÿ5̀h1`(05!`ÿR`h!5̀5̀2ÿ6 V`f`0iÿVd!eÿ665̀2ÿ
0bÿ((1fÿgd!f1(0T3ÿfe2ÿg1d1`0ÿ0!ÿj+ÿ1"7"
"ÿkÿ#&43ÿ`fÿ0dl6ÿfe2ÿV!dÿc566V16ÿ
5̀Vd5̀2e `0ÿg1d1`0ÿ0!ÿj+ÿ1"7"
"ÿkÿ#&-"ÿm (1ÿU65̀05VVÿf!ÿ̀!0ÿgd)56ÿ!`ÿ`nÿ!Vÿ50ÿ(65e3ÿ
U65̀05VVÿ5ÿ̀!0ÿ`0506fÿ0!ÿfe2ÿ!dÿ5̀h1`(05)ÿd65V"ÿ
ÿ XYÿ opXqrW^Wstÿ
6 V`f`0iÿ6!`ÿ(!1`0d(65eÿ5ÿV!dÿf(6d0!dnÿh1f2e `0ÿ0b0ÿ0bÿu4&vÿU0`0ÿ5ÿ5̀)65fÿ1`fdÿ
j+ÿ1"7"
"ÿkÿ%*#RTÿ`fÿkÿ%*j"-ÿ
30ÿ5ÿc 66'0l65bfÿ0b0ÿÿg0`0ÿ5ÿgd1e fÿ)65f3ÿ`fÿ0bÿfV`f`0ÿbÿ0bÿl1df`ÿ!Vÿ
gd!)5̀2ÿ5̀)65f50nÿlnÿ(6dÿ`fÿ(!`)5̀(5̀2ÿ)5f`("ÿw\\ÿj+ÿ1"7"
"ÿkÿ#&#xÿoyzpÿ{yW|ÿ}qy~\rrÿzYÿXYÿ€wÿ
w|zys_‚ÿopƒY3ÿj4#ÿ "jfÿ%j%v3ÿ%j#*ÿR f"ÿ
5d"ÿ#**-T"ÿÿ
1`fdÿkÿ%*#RT3ÿÿg0`0ÿ5ÿf e fÿ5̀)65fÿ5Vÿÿgd!f1(0ÿel!fn5̀2ÿ0bÿf52`ÿ!Vÿÿg0`0ÿ5ÿ!`ÿ
6ÿV!dÿe!dÿ0b`ÿÿndÿlV!dÿ0bÿg0`0ÿgg65(05!`ÿ5ÿV56f"ÿw\\ÿj+ÿ1"7"
"ÿkÿ%*#RT"ÿ4bÿgg65(05!`ÿ
V!dÿ0bÿu4&vÿU0`0ÿcÿV56fÿ!`ÿ8gd56ÿ#*3ÿ#*%,"ÿU65̀05VViÿ(b5de`ÿ`fÿ2`d6ÿe`2d3ÿ„1`23ÿ
005V5fÿ0b0ÿU65̀05VVÿV5d0ÿ!6fÿ0bÿgd!f1(0ÿel!fn5̀2ÿ0bÿg0`0ÿ5̀ÿ150ÿ5̀ÿggd!…5e06nÿ#*%+3ÿV0dÿ
5̀50566nÿ5̀f5(0fÿ0b0ÿ50ÿenÿb)ÿl `ÿ#*%-"ÿ6 V`f`0ÿ0bdV!dÿd21fÿ5̀ÿ(6!5̀2ÿ0b0ÿ0bÿu4&vÿU0`0ÿ
cÿ5̀)65f"ÿm10ÿ„1`2iÿ005e!`nÿ6!`ÿf!ÿ̀!0ÿ0l65b† g(566nÿlnÿ(6dÿ`fÿ)5f`(†0b0ÿ
U65̀05VVÿ!6fÿgd!f1(0ÿel!fn5̀2ÿ0bÿg0`0ÿ5̀ÿ150ÿlV!dÿ8gd56ÿ#*3ÿ#*%+"ÿ6 V`f`0ÿ0bdV!dÿV56ÿ0!ÿ
0l65bÿ0b0ÿ0bÿu4&vÿU0`0ÿcÿ5̀)65fÿ1`fdÿkÿ%*#RT"ÿÿ
1`fdÿkÿ%*j3ÿÿg0`0ÿ5ÿf e fÿ5̀)65fÿV!dÿ!l)5!1`ÿ‡5Vÿ0bÿf5VVd`(ÿl0c `ÿ0bÿ(65e fÿ
5̀)`05!`ÿ`fÿ0bÿgd5!dÿd0ÿdÿ1(bÿ0b0ÿ0bÿ(65e fÿ5̀)`05!`ÿÿÿcb!6ÿc!16fÿb)ÿl `ÿ!l)5!1ÿ"ÿ"ÿ"ÿ
0!ÿÿgd!`ÿb)5̀2ÿ!df5̀dnÿa566ÿ5̀ÿ0bÿd0ÿ0!ÿcb5(bÿ0bÿ(65e fÿ5̀)`05!`ÿgd05̀"ˆÿj+ÿ1"7"
"ÿkÿ%*j"ÿ
!dÿf52`ÿg0`03ÿ‡0bÿ1605e0ÿ5̀‰15dnÿ1`fdÿ(05!`ÿ%*jÿ5ÿcb0bdÿ0bÿ(65e fÿf52`ÿc!16fÿb)ÿ
l `ÿ!l)5!1ÿ0!ÿÿf52`dÿ!Vÿ!df5̀dnÿa566ÿcb!ÿf52`ÿd05(6ÿ!Vÿ0bÿ0ngÿ5̀)!6)f"ˆÿŠ[ÿ
oppzXqsWzp_‚ÿopƒYÿXYÿ‹Œps\yÿŠŽY‚ÿ3ÿv-vÿ "jfÿ%j#,3ÿ%jj%ÿR f"ÿ
5d"ÿ#*%-TÿR(5005!`ÿ`fÿ5̀0d`6ÿ
‰1!005!`ÿ!e500fT"ÿ4b5ÿ5̀‰15dnÿd‰15dÿÿ0c!'0gÿgd!("ÿo^"ÿ 5d03ÿÿ(!1d0ÿe10ÿ5f`05Vnÿÿgd5ednÿ
gd5!dÿd0ÿdVd`(ÿc50bÿf52`ÿ(bd(0d505(ÿ0b0ÿdÿ‡l5(66nÿ0bÿe ˆÿÿ0bÿg0`0ÿ5̀ÿ150"ÿo^Yÿ4!ÿ
ÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿ
ÿ
ÿ-
ÿU65̀05VV3ÿ5̀ÿ50ÿ0d56ÿld5Vÿ`fÿ0ÿ0d563ÿdg0f6nÿd21fÿ0b0ÿ0bÿu4&vÿU0`0ÿ5ÿ̀!0ÿ5̀)65fÿ!`ÿ0bÿ0b!dnÿ!Vÿ`05(5g05!`ÿ
g1d1`0ÿ0!ÿj+ÿ1"7"
"ÿkÿ%*#RlT"ÿm10ÿ6 V`f`0ÿf5fÿ̀!0ÿg6fÿ5̀)65f50nÿ1`fdÿ`ÿ`05(5g05!`ÿ0b!dn3ÿ̀!dÿf5fÿ6 V`f`0ÿ
gd`0ÿ)5f`(ÿ!dÿd21e `0ÿ!Vÿ1(bÿ0b!dnÿ0ÿ0d56"ÿ4bÿ
!1d0ÿ0bdV!dÿ̀ fÿ̀!0ÿ`6n‘ÿ5̀)65f50nÿlfÿ!`ÿÿ0b!dnÿ!Vÿ
ÿÿ`05(5g05!`"ÿÿ

Q'4*ÿR*,S*-Tÿ ÿÿÿÿ U2ÿ&ÿ!Vÿ4ÿ
ÿ
ÿ
Appx8
€‚ÿ„…†‡ˆ‰Šˆ‹ŒŽˆ‘ˆ’‘ÿÿÿ“”‰•–‚—˜ÿ†‹†ÿÿÿ™š›‚œÿ‹‡„‹†žÿÿÿŸ€ ‚ÿžÿ”¡ÿžÿÿÿŸ€ ‚ÿ¢“ÿ£…¤ž¤
ÿ ÿ ÿ ÿ ÿ ÿ ÿ ÿ ÿ ÿ ÿ ÿ ÿ
123456ÿ748457ÿ637493
4ÿ
194ÿ

52498 ÿ637493
4ÿ ÿ
8 3 9238ÿ
ÿÿÿÿ

ÿ2!"ÿ #$%&'()'*+,,-'9./'7/ÿ 60ÿ81210ÿ#*3ÿ#*%4ÿ
4506ÿ 789:ÿ<=>ÿ?@>AABCÿD:E8FGÿHIGÿJGÿKLMÿNIOI@PÿD:CGÿ
ÿ ÿ
ÿ
ÿ
W0XY5Zÿ[\0\XÿÿW52Zÿ5ÿ]^5(66_ÿ0\ÿY 3̀ÿÿ(!1X0ÿY10ÿ(!Z5WXÿ0\ÿ])516ÿ5YaX5!Zÿ(X0Wÿ
^_ÿ0\ÿa0Z0WÿW52Zÿÿÿ[\!6"`ÿbc"ÿRd1!05Z2ÿbeÿghÿijkhe3ÿ,lmÿ "#Wÿm&&3ÿm4%ÿR

U8ÿ%4&#TT"ÿ7(!ZW3ÿ
V0XÿV5ZW5Z2ÿÿaX5YX_ÿXVXZ(3ÿÿ(!1X0ÿY_ÿ(!Z5WXÿ](!ZWX_ÿXVXZ(`ÿ0\0ÿY!W5V_ÿ0\ÿaX5YX_ÿ
XVXZ(ÿZWÿ(X0ÿÿW52Zÿ[50\ÿ0\ÿY ÿ!)X66ÿ)516ÿaaXZ(ÿ!Vÿ0\ÿa0Z0ÿ5Zÿ150"ÿnioÿ
beejpqrsjek3ÿl-lÿ "mWÿ0ÿ%mm%"ÿ
t X3ÿ6 VZWZ0ÿV56ÿ0!ÿ0^65\ÿ0\0ÿZ_ÿ!Vÿ0\ÿaX!VVXWÿaX5!XÿX0ÿ(!Z05010ÿÿ]aX5YX_ÿ
XVXZ(`ÿ0!ÿ0\ÿu4&lÿU0Z0"ÿ4\ÿaX5!XÿX0ÿW!ÿZ!0ÿ(X0ÿ0\ÿY ÿ)516ÿ5YaX5!Zÿÿ0\ÿu4&lÿU0Z0"ÿ
8ÿva65ZWÿ5Zÿ0\ÿV5ZW5Z2ÿ!VÿV(0ÿ^!)3ÿ0\ÿaX5!XÿX0ÿW52Zÿ5WZ05V5Wÿ^_ÿ6 VZWZ0ÿXÿZ!0ÿ
]^5(66_ÿ0\ÿY `ÿÿ0\ÿa0Z0ÿ5Zÿ150"ÿÿ
w!X!)X3ÿ6 VZWZ0ÿW!ÿZ!0ÿX21ÿ0\0ÿ0\ÿ
!1X0ÿ\!16Wÿ(!Z5WXÿZ_ÿ!Vÿ0\ÿaX5!XÿW52Zÿÿ
0\ÿaX5YX_ÿXVXZ("ÿ3Z0W3ÿ6 VZWZ0ÿY X6_ÿX21ÿ0\0ÿ0\ÿ5WZ05V_5Z2ÿV01Xÿ5Zÿ0\ÿa0Z0ÿ5Zÿ150ÿ
[ Xÿ!^)5!1ÿ^(1ÿ0\ÿ5WZ05V_5Z2ÿV01Xÿ!Vÿ0\ÿa0Z0ÿ5Zÿ150ÿv50ÿ5Zÿ0\ÿaX5!XÿX0"ÿ71(\ÿZÿ
X21Y Z0ÿ5ÿ5Z1VV5(5Z0ÿ0!ÿ0^65\ÿ!^)5!1Z3ÿ\![ )X3ÿ^(1ÿ6 VZWZ0ÿW!ÿZ!0ÿV5X0ÿ0^65\ÿÿ
aX5YX_ÿaX5!XÿX0ÿXVXZ("ÿÿ
8((!XW5Z26_3ÿ0\ÿ
!1X0ÿV5ZWÿ0\0ÿ6 VZWZ0ÿV56ÿ0!ÿ0^65\ÿ0\0ÿ0\ÿu4&lÿU0Z0ÿ5ÿ5Z)65W"ÿ
xÿ zzÿ
3Zÿ652\0ÿ!Vÿ0\ÿV!X2!5Z23ÿ0\ÿ
!1X0ÿÿ{|ÿÿ}zÿ!Vÿ6 VZWZ0ÿÿ0!ÿ
U65Z05VV~ÿ
!Ya65Z0ÿZWÿ|ÿU65Z05VV~ÿ5ZVX5Z2Y Z0ÿZWÿ[566V16ÿ5ZVX5Z2Y Z0ÿ(65Y"ÿ4\ÿ

!1X0ÿ6!ÿÿ{|ÿÿ}zÿ!VÿU65Z05VVÿÿ0!ÿ6 VZWZ0~ÿ 8

ÿZWÿ|ÿ
6 VZWZ0~ÿ5Z)65W50_ÿ(!1Z0X(65Y"ÿ
ÿÿzÿz||xÿ
ÿ $ÿ ÿ
3Z5056ÿ!VÿUXaXXÿ ÿ

tÿ
ÿÿ

ÿÿ

Q'4*ÿR*,S*-Tÿ ÿÿÿÿ U2ÿ4ÿ!Vÿ4ÿ
ÿ
ÿ
Appx9
CERTIFICATE OF FILING AND SERVICE

I hereby certify that on this 20th day of December, 2019, I caused this Brief

of Appellant to be filed electronically with the Clerk of the Court using the

CM/ECF System, which will send notice of such filing to the following registered

CM/ECF users:

Sean M. Kneafsey
THE KNEAFSEY FIRM, INC.
800 Wilshire Boulevard, Suite 710
Los Angeles, California 90017
(213) 892-1200
skneafsey@kneafseyfirm.com

Counsel for Defendant – Cross Appellant

Elizabeth Yang
199 W Garvey Avenue, Suite 201
Monterey Park, California 91754
(877) 492-6452
lizyang8@gmail.com

Counsel for Defendant – Cross Appellant

/s/ Alexander Chen


Counsel for Appellant
CERTIFICATE OF COMPLIANCE

1. This brief complies with type-volume limits because, excluding the parts of
the document exempted by Fed. R. App. R. 32(f) (cover page, disclosure
statement, table of contents, table of citations, statement regarding oral
argument, signature block, certificates of counsel, addendum, attachments):

[ X ] this brief contains [6,240] words.

[ ] this brief uses a monospaced type and contains [state the number of]
lines of text.

2. This brief complies with the typeface and type style requirements because:

[ X ] this brief has been prepared in a proportionally spaced typeface using


[Microsoft Word 2016] in [14pt Times New Roman]; or

[ ] this brief has been prepared in a monospaced typeface using [state


name and version of word processing program] with [state number of
characters per inch and name of type style].

Dated: December 20, 2019 /s/ Alexander Chen


Counsel for Appellant

Você também pode gostar