Case 1:12-cv-00398-GMS Document 28 Filed 03/11/13 Page 1 of 13 PageID #: 364
`Case 1:12—cv—OO398—GMS Document 28 Filed 03/11/13 Page 1 of 13 Page|D #: 364
`
`IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`
`FOR THE DISTRICT OF DELAWARE
`
`HUMANEYES TECHNOLOGIES, LTD.
`
`Plaintzfl
`
`V.
`
`C.A. No. l2—398-GMS
`
`SONY CORPORATION, SONY
`
`CORPORATION OF AMERICA, SONY
`ELECTRONICS INC., SONY MOBILE
`
`COMMUNICATIONS AB, AND SONY
`
`MOBILE COMMUNICATIONS (USA) INC.,
`
`Defendants.
`
`DEFENDANTS SONY CORPORATION, SONY CORPORATION OF AMERICA,
`SONY ELECTRONICS INC., SONY MOBILE COMMUNICATIONS AB, AND
`SONY MOBILE COMMUNICATIONS (USA), INC.’S ANSWER TO PLAINTIFF
`HUMANEYES TECHNOLOGIES LTD.’S FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT
`
`Defendants Sony Corporation (“SC”), Sony Corporation of America (“SCA”), Sony
`
`Electronics Inc. (“SEL”), Sony Mobile Communications AB (“SOMC”), and Sony Mobile
`
`Communications (USA), Inc. (“SoMC USA”) (collectively “Defendants” or “Sony”) hereby
`
`answer Plaintiff HumanEyes Technologies, Ltd.’s (“Plaintiff or HumanEyes”) First Amended
`
`Complaint (“First Amended Complaint”) as follows. Any allegation that is admitted below
`
`applies only to the Sony entity making the admission and to no other Sony entities. Except as
`
`expressly admitted herein, Defendants deny each and every allegation contained in Plaintiffs
`
`First Amended Complaint.
`
`PARTIES
`
`l.
`
`Defendants are without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to
`
`the truth of the allegations set forth in paragraph 1 of the First Amended Complaint, and
`
`RLFI 8285668v.l
`
`

`
`Case 1:12-cv-00398-GMS Document 28 Filed 03/11/13 Page 2 of 13 PageID #: 365
`Case 1:12—cv—OO398—GMS Document 28 Filed 03/11/13 Page 2 of 13 Page|D #: 365
`
`therefore denies them.
`
`2.
`
`SC admits that it is a Japanese corporation with a principal place of business at 1-
`
`7-1, Konan, Minato-ku, Tokyo 108-0075, Japan.
`
`3.
`
`SCA admits that it is an indirect subsidiary of SC, and that it is a New York
`
`corporation with a principal place of business at 550 Madison Avenue, New York, NY 10022-
`
`3211. SCA further admits that it is registered to do business in Delaware and that its registered
`
`agent for service of process in Delaware is The Corporation Trust Company, Corporation Trust
`
`Center, 1209 Orange Street, Wilmington, DE 19801.
`
`4.
`
`SEL admits that it is a wholly-owned subsidiary of SCA and an indirect
`
`subsidiary of SC. SEL further admits that it is a Delaware corporation with a principal place of
`
`business at 16530 Via Esprillo, San Diego, CA 92127. SEL admits that its registered agent for
`
`service of process is Corporation Service Company, 2711 Centerville Road, Suite 400,
`
`Wilmington, DE 19808.
`
`5.
`
`SOMC admits that it is a subsidiary of SC, and that it is a Swedish corporation.
`
`SoMC denies any remaining allegations of paragraph 5 of the First Amended Complaint.
`
`6.
`
`SoMC USA admits that it is an indirect subsidiary of SC, and that it is a Delaware
`
`Corporation with its principal place of business at 3333 Piedmont Road, Suite 600, Atlanta,
`
`Georgia 3035. SOMC USA further admits that its registered agent for service of process is
`
`Capitol Services, Inc., 1675 South State Street, Suite B, Dover, DE 19901.
`
`7.
`
`SC admits that SC or one or more of its subsidiaries and/or contract
`
`manufacturers design, manufacture, import and sell cameras and mobile phones. SEL admits
`
`that it imports cameras and that it sells in the United States certain cameras and mobile phones
`
`manufactured abroad. SOMC admits that SoMC or one or more of its subsidiaries and/or
`
`RLFI 8285668v.1
`
`

`
`Case 1:12-cv-00398-GMS Document 28 Filed 03/11/13 Page 3 of 13 PageID #: 366
`Case 1:12—cv—OO398—GMS Document 28 Filed 03/11/13 Page 3 of 13 Page|D #: 366
`
`contract manufacturers design, manufacture, import and sell mobile phones. SOMC USA admits
`
`that it imports and sells in the United States mobile phones. Sony denies any remaining
`
`allegations contained in paragraph 7 of the First Amended Complaint.
`
`JURISDICTION AND VENUE
`
`8.
`
`Defendants admit that the First Amended Complaint purports to state an action
`
`under the patent laws of the United States, 35 U.S.C. § 100, et seq., including 35 U.S.C. § 271.
`
`Defendants admit that this Court has subject matter jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331
`
`and 1338(3).
`
`9.
`
`For the purposes of this case only, SC does not contest that this Court has
`
`personal jurisdiction over SC. SC denies the remaining allegations of paragraph 9 of the First
`
`Amended Complaint.
`
`10.
`
`For the purposes of this case only, SC does not contest that this Court has
`
`personal jurisdiction over SC. SC denies the remaining allegations of paragraph 10 of the First
`
`Amended Complaint.
`
`1].
`
`For the purposes of this case only, SCA does not contest that this Court has
`
`personal jurisdiction over SCA. SCA denies the remaining allegations of paragraph ll of the
`
`First Amended Complaint.
`
`12.
`
`For the purposes of this case only, SCA does not contest that this Court has
`
`personal jurisdiction over SCA. SCA denies the remaining allegations of paragraph 12 of the
`
`First Amended Complaint.
`
`13.
`
`SEL does not contest that this Court has personal jurisdiction over SEL.
`
`14.
`
`For the purposes of this case only, SOMC does not contest that this Court has
`
`personal jurisdiction over SOMC. SOMC denies the remaining allegations of paragraph 14 of the
`
`R_LFl 8285668v.l
`
`

`
`Case 1:12-cv-00398-GMS Document 28 Filed 03/11/13 Page 4 of 13 PageID #: 367
`Case 1:12—cv—OO398—GMS Document 28 Filed 03/11/13 Page 4 of 13 Page|D #: 367
`
`First Amended Complaint.
`
`15.
`
`For the purposes of this case only, SOMC does not contest that this Court has
`
`personal jurisdiction over SOMC. SOMC denies the remaining allegations of paragraph 15 of the
`
`First Amended Complaint.
`
`16.
`
`SOMC USA does not contest that this Court has personal jurisdiction over SoMC
`
`USA.
`
`17.
`
`Defendants admit that Venue is proper in this District under 28 U.S.C. §§ l391(b)
`
`and (c) and/or l400(b).
`
`BACKGROUND AS TO ALL COUNTS
`
`18.
`
`Sony admits that Shmuel Peleg is listed as an inventor on the face of U.S. Patent
`
`No. 6,665,003 (“the ‘U03 patent”) and on the face of U.S. Patent No. 7,477,284 (“the ‘.284
`
`patent”). Sony is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of
`
`the remaining allegations of paragraph 18 of the First Amended Complaint, and therefore denies
`
`them.
`
`19.
`
`Sony is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the
`
`truth of the allegations of paragraph 19 of the First Amended Complaint, and therefore denies
`
`them.
`
`20.
`
`Sony is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the
`
`truth of the allegations of paragraph 20 of the First Amended Complaint, and therefore denies
`
`them.
`
`21.
`
`SC admits that Dr. Kenji Tanaka has cited articles listing Shmuel Peleg as an
`
`author in three of his publications, and that articles attributed to Shmuel Peleg or patents in
`
`which Shmuel Peleg is listed as an inventor are referenced in U.S. Patent Nos. 7,542,606;
`
`RLFl 8285668V.l
`
`

`
`Case 1:12-cv-00398-GMS Document 28 Filed 03/11/13 Page 5 of 13 PageID #: 368
`Case 1:12—cv—OO398—GMS Document 28 Filed 03/11/13 Page 5 of 13 Page|D #: 368
`
`7,764,283; 7,831,086; 7,840,095; and 8,086,072. SC further admits that articles attributed to
`
`Shmuel Peleg or patents in which Shmuel Peleg is listed as an inventor are referenced in U.S.
`
`Patent Application Publication Nos. 2011/0122953; 2011/0123131; 2011/0286526;
`
`2011/0293014; 2010/0289881; 2011/0293195; and 2012/0019725. Sony denies any remaining
`
`allegations of paragraph 21 of the First Amended Complaint.
`
`22.
`
`Sony denies that Schrnuel Peleg or others at HumanEyes discussed any
`
`“breakthrough work on 3D panorama mosaic imaging” with any Sony employee. SC admits that
`
`Shmuel Peleg contacted Dr. Tanaka, and that individuals associated with Humanfiyes and/or
`
`Snapily initiated contact with SC in 2010. SCA admits that individuals associated with
`
`HumanEyes and/or Snapily contacted SCA. Sony is Without knowledge or information
`
`sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the allegations concerning Mary Abram, and
`
`therefore denies them. Sony denies any remaining allegations of paragraph 22 of the First
`
`Amended Complaint.
`
`THE ASSERTED PATENTS
`
`23.
`
`Sony admits that the ’003 patent states on its face that its title is “System and
`
`Method for Generating and Displaying Panoramic Images and Movies.” Sony also admits that
`
`the ‘O03 patent states on its face that it issued on December 16, 2003, and names as inventors
`
`Shmuel Peleg, Moshe Ben-Ezra, and Robert S. Rosenschein. Sony admits that a document
`
`purporting to be the ‘O03 patent was attached as Exhibit A to the First Amended Complaint.
`
`Sony is Without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the
`
`remaining allegations of paragraph 23 of the First Amended Complaint, and therefore denies
`
`them.
`
`24.
`
`Sony admits that the ’284 patent states on its face that its title is “System and
`
`RLFI 8285668V.1
`
`

`
`Case 1:12-cv-00398-GMS Document 28 Filed 03/11/13 Page 6 of 13 PageID #: 369
`Case 1:12—cv—OO398—GMS Document 28 Filed 03/11/13 Page 6 of 13 Page|D #: 369
`
`Method for Capturing and Viewing Stereoscopic Panoramic Images.” Sony also admits that the
`
`’284 patent states on its face that it issued on January 13, 2009, and names as inventors Shlnuel
`
`Peleg, Moshe Ben-Ezra, and Yael Pritch. Sony admits that Yissum Research Development
`
`Company of the Hebrew University of Jerusalem appears as the assignee on the face of the ’284
`
`patent. Sony admits that a document purporting to be the ’284 patent was attached as Exhibit B
`
`to the First Amended Complaint. Sony is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a
`
`belief as to the truth of any remaining allegations of paragraph 24 of the First Amended
`
`Complaint, and therefore denies them.
`
`25.
`
`Sony is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the
`
`truth of the allegations of paragraph 25 of the First Amended Complaint, and therefore denies
`
`them.
`
`THE ACCUSED PRODUCTS
`
`26.
`
`Sony admits that HumanEyes’ First Amended Complaint identifies certain models
`
`of Sony cameras and mobile phones. Sony denies any remaining allegations of paragraph 26 of
`
`the First Amended Complaint.
`
`27.
`
`Sony admits that HumanEyes’ First Amended Complaint purports to identify the
`
`3D Sweep Panorama mode and/or Sweep Multi-Angle mode in certain models of Sony cameras
`
`and mobile phones, including the models identified in paragraph 27 of the First Amended
`
`Complaint. Sony denies that any of these products infringe the ’003 patent or the ’284 patent.
`
`Sony denies any remaining allegations of paragraph 27 of the First Amended Complaint.
`
`COUNT I: INFRINGEMENT OF U.S. PATENT NO. 6,665,003
`
`28.
`
`Sony incorporates by reference its responses to paragraphs 1 through 27 of the
`
`First Amended Complaint as if fully set forth herein.
`
`RLFI 8285668v.l
`
`

`
`Case 1:12-cv-00398-GMS Document 28 Filed 03/11/13 Page 7 of 13 PageID #: 370
`Case 1:12—cv—OO398—GMS Document 28 Filed 03/11/13 Page 7 of 13 Page|D #: 370
`
`29.
`
`Sony denies the allegations of paragraph 29 of the First Amended Complaint.
`
`30.
`
`Sony admits that on April 27, 2012 the ITC instituted Investigation No. 337-TA-
`
`842 based on a complaint filed by HumanEyes that referenced the ’003 patent. Sony further
`
`admits that the Complaint (D.I. 1) and the First Amended Complaint (D.I. 27) in this action
`
`reference the ’003 patent. Sony denies any remaining allegations of paragraph 30 of the First
`
`Amended Complaint.
`
`3 1.
`
`SC admits that the ‘O03 patent is referenced in Singapore Patent Application No.
`
`200903 332-5 and its U.S. counterpart, U.S. Patent Application No. 12/775,024, which are
`
`assigned to SC. Sony denies any remaining allegations of paragraph 31 of the First Amended
`
`Complaint.
`
`32.
`
`Sony denies the allegations of paragraph 32 of the First Amended Complaint.
`
`33.
`
`Sony denies the allegations of paragraph 33 of the First Amended Complaint.
`
`34.
`
`Sony admits that in connection with ITC Inv. No. 337—TA~842, HumanEyes
`
`served on Sony’s outside counsel interrogatory responses marked Confidential Business
`
`Information in accordance with the Protective Order governing that investigation and that
`
`HumanEyes may have returned such material to Sony’s outside counsel after termination of that
`
`investigation. Sony denies any remaining allegations of paragraph 34 of the First Amended
`
`Complaint.
`
`35.
`
`Sony admits that during ITC Inv. No. 337-TA-842 and in this action HumanEyes
`
`has accused certain models of Sony cameras and mobile phones of infringing the ‘O03 patent.
`
`Sony denies that new models of its cameras or mobile phones will include the 3D Sweep
`
`Panorama and/or Sweep Multi-Angle modes. However, SEL admits that it is selling, offering to
`
`sell and advertising previously released models of cameras and mobile phones that may include
`
`RLFI 8285668v.l
`
`

`
`Case 1:12-cv-00398-GMS Document 28 Filed 03/11/13 Page 8 of 13 PageID #: 371
`Case 1:12—cv—OO398—GMS Document 28 Filed 03/11/13 Page 8 of 13 Page|D #: 371
`
`the 3D Sweep Panorama and/or Sweep Multi-Angle modes. SOMC USA admits that it is selling,
`
`offering to sell and advertising previously released models of mobile phones that may include the
`
`3D Sweep Panorama and/or Sweep Multi-Angle modes. Sony otherwise denies any remaining
`
`allegations of paragraph 35 of the First Amended Complaint.
`
`36.
`
`Sony denies the allegations of paragraph 36 of the First Amended Complaint.
`
`37.
`
`Sony denies the allegations of paragraph 37 of the First Amended Complaint.
`
`38.
`
`Sony denies the allegations of paragraph 38 of the First Amended Complaint.
`
`39.
`
`Sony denies the allegations of paragraph 39 of the First Amended Complaint.
`
`40.
`
`Sony denies the allegations of paragraph 40 of the First Amended Complaint.
`
`41.
`
`Sony denies the allegations of paragraph 41 of the First Amended Complaint.
`
`42.
`
`Sony denies the allegations of paragraph 42 of the First Amended Complaint.
`
`43.
`
`Sony denies the allegations of paragraph 43 of the First Amended Complaint.
`
`COUNT II: INFRINGEMENT OF U.S. PATENT N0. 7,477,284
`
`44.
`
`Sony incorporates by reference its responses to paragraphs 1 through 43 of the
`
`First Amended Complaint as if fully set forth herein.
`
`45.
`
`Sony denies the allegations of paragraph 45 of the First Amended Complaint.
`
`46.
`
`Sony admits that on April 27, 2012 the ITC instituted Investigation No. 337-TA-
`
`842 based on a complaint filed by HumanEyes that referenced the ’284 patent. Sony further
`
`admits that the Complaint (D.I. 1) and the First Amended Complaint (D.I. 27) in this action
`
`reference the ’284 patent. Sony denies any remaining allegations of paragraph 46 of the First
`
`Amended Complaint.
`
`47.
`
`SC and SEL admit that the ’284 patent was cited in an April 11, 2011 non-final
`
`rejection during the prosecution of U.S. Patent No. 8,086,072, which is assigned to SC and SEL.
`
`RLF1 8285668v.l
`
`

`
`Case 1:12-cv-00398-GMS Document 28 Filed 03/11/13 Page 9 of 13 PageID #: 372
`Case 1:12—cv—OO398—GMS Document 28 Filed 03/11/13 Page 9 of 13 Page|D #: 372
`
`Sony denies any remaining allegations of paragraph 47 of the First Amended Complaint.
`
`48.
`
`Sony denies the allegations of paragraph 48 of the First Amended Complaint.
`
`49.
`
`Sony denies the allegations of paragraph 49 of the First Amended Complaint.
`
`50.
`
`Sony admits that in connection with ITC lnv. No. 337—TA—842, HumanEyes
`
`served on Sony’s outside counsel interrogatory responses marked Confidential Business
`
`Information in accordance with the Protective Order governing that investigation and that
`
`HumanEyes may have returned such material to Sony’s outside counsel after termination of that
`
`investigation. Sony denies any remaining allegations of paragraph 50 of the First Amended
`
`Complaint.
`
`51.
`
`Sony admits that during ITC Inv. No. 337-TA-842 and in this action HumanEyes
`
`has accused certain models of Sony cameras and mobile phones of infringing the ’284 patent.
`
`Sony denies that new models of its cameras or mobile phones will include the 3D Sweep
`
`Panorama and/or Sweep Multi~Angle modes. However, SEL admits that it is selling, offering to
`
`sell and advertising previously released models of cameras and mobile phones that may include
`
`the 3D Sweep Panorama and/or Sweep Multi—Angle modes. SoMC USA admits that it is selling,
`
`offering to sell and advertising previously released models of mobile phones that may include the
`
`3D Sweep Panorama and/or Sweep Multi-Angle modes. Sony otherwise denies any remaining
`
`allegations of paragraph 51 of the First Amended Complaint.
`
`52.
`
`Sony denies the allegations of paragraph 52 of the First Amended Complaint.
`
`53.
`
`Sony denies the allegations of paragraph 53 of the First Amended Complaint.
`
`54.
`
`Sony denies the allegations of paragraph 54 of the First Amended Complaint.
`
`55.
`
`Sony denies the allegations of paragraph 55 of the First Amended Complaint.
`
`56.
`
`Sony denies the allegations of paragraph 56 of the First Amended Complaint.
`
`RLFI 8285668v.l
`
`

`
`Case 1:12-cv-00398-GMS Document 28 Filed 03/11/13 Page 10 of 13 PageID #: 373
`Case 1:12—cv—OO398—GMS Document 28 Filed 03/11/13 Page 10 of 13 Page|D #: 373
`
`57.
`
`Sony denies the allegations of paragraph 57 of the First Amended Complaint.
`
`58.
`
`Sony denies the allegations of paragraph 58 of the First Amended Complaint.
`
`59.
`
`Sony denies the allegations of paragraph 59 of the First Amended Complaint.
`
`DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL
`
`60.
`
`Defendants admit that the First Amended Complaint includes a demand for a trial
`
`byjury. Defendants also request a trial by jury of any issues so triable by right.
`
`PRAYER FOR RELIEF
`
`61.
`
`Defendants deny that Plaintiff is entitled to any of the relief that it has requested.
`
`DEFENSES
`
`62.
`
`Defendants assert the following affirmative defenses to Plaintiffs claims for
`
`patent infringement. The assertion of these affirmative defenses is not a concession that
`
`Defendants have the burden of proving the matter asserted.
`
`Non-Infringement
`
`63.
`
`Defendants do not infringe and have not infringed any Valid claims of the ‘G03 or
`
`‘284 patents, either literally or under the doctrine of equivalents, or otherwise.
`
`Patent Invalidity
`
`64.
`
`Plaintiffs alleged claims for infringement of the ’003 or ’284 patents are barred
`
`because each and every claim of the ’003 or ’284 patents is invalid and/or unenforceable for
`
`failure to comply with one or more of the conditions and requirements of the patent laws,
`
`including, but not limited to, 35 U.S.C. §§ 101, 102, 103 and/or 112.
`
`Prosecution History Estoppe!
`
`65.
`
`HumanEyes is estopped from construing the claims of the ’O03 or ‘Z84 patents in
`
`such a way as may cover any Sony product or process by reason of statements made to the
`
`RLF1 828S668v.1
`
`10
`
`

`
`Case 1:12-cv-00398-GMS Document 28 Filed 03/11/13 Page 11 of 13 PageID #: 374
`Case 1:12—cv—OO398—GMS Document 28 Filed 03/11/13 Page 11 of 13 Page|D #: 374
`
`United States Patent and Trademark Office during the prosecution of the applications that led to
`
`the issuance of the ’003 or ’284 patents.
`
`Limitation on Damages
`
`66.
`
`Plaintiff may not recover money damages for any alleged infringement occurring
`
`outside of the six year period identified in 35 U.S.C. § 286. The Plaintiffs damages are limited
`
`as set forth in 35 U.S.C. § 287 because neither Plaintiff nor its predecessors in interest complied
`
`with the notice provisions of the statute. Plaintiff is also barred under 35 U.S.C. § 288 from
`
`recovering costs.
`
`No Attorneys’ Fees
`
`67.
`
`Plaintiffs claims for relief and prayer for damages of attorneys’ fees are barred
`
`because Plaintiff cannot prove that this is an exceptional case justifying an award of attorneys’
`
`fees against Defendants pursuant to 35 U.S.C. §285.
`
`Equitable Defenses
`
`68.
`
`Plaintiffs claims for relief are barred in whole or in part under one or more of the
`
`principles of equity, including laches, prosecution laches, waiver, estoppel and/or unclean hands.
`
`RESERVATION OF RIGHTS
`
`69.
`
`Defendants reserve the right to add any additional defenses that discovery may
`
`reveal.
`
`PRAYER FOR RELIEF
`
`WHEREFORE, Defendants respectfully requests that the Court enter judgment as follows:
`
`(a)
`
`Dismissing the First Amended Complaint against Defendants in its entirety, with
`
`prejudice;
`
`RLFI S285668v.1
`
`1 1
`
`

`
`Case 1:12-cv-00398-GMS Document 28 Filed 03/11/13 Page 12 of 13 PageID #: 375
`Case 1:12—cv—OO398—GMS Document 28 Filed 03/11/13 Page 12 of 13 Page|D #: 375
`
`(b)
`
`Declaring that Defendants do not and have not infringed any claims of the ’003 or
`
`’284 patents;
`
`(c)
`
`(d)
`
`(e)
`
`Declaring that each and every claim of the ‘O03 or ’284 patents is invalid;
`
`Finding that this is an exceptional case under 35 U.S.C. § 285;
`
`Awarding Defendants reasonable attorney’s fees and costs in connection with this
`
`action, to the fullest extent under the law; and
`
`(f)
`
`Awarding Defendants such other and further relief as the Court deems just and
`
`proper.
`
`OF COUNSEL:
`
`John Flock
`Michelle Carniaux
`Sheila Mortazavi
`Iuliana Tanase
`KENYON & KENYON LLP
`One Broadway
`New York, New York 100044050
`(212) 425—720O
`
`Datedi March 11, 2013
`
`/s/ Elizabeth R. He
`
`Chad M. Shandler (#3 796)
`Elizabeth R. He (#5345)
`RICHARDS, LAYTON & FINGER, ]?.A.
`One Rodney Square
`920 N. King Street
`Wilmington , DE 19801
`(302) 651-7700
`Shandler@rlf.eom
`He@rlf.co1r1
`
`Attorneysfor Defendants Sony
`Corporation, Sony Corporation ofAmerica,
`Sony Electronics Inc, Sony Mobile
`Communications AB, Sony Mobile
`Communications (USA) Inc.
`
`RLF1 8285668v.1
`
`12
`
`

`
`Case 1:12-cv-00398-GMS Document 28 Filed 03/11/13 Page 13 of 13 PageID #: 376
`Case 1:12—cv—OO398—GMS Document 28 Filed 03/11/13 Page 13 of 13 Page|D #: 376
`
`CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
`
`I hereby certify that on March 11, 2013, I caused to be filed. the foregoing document with
`
`the Clerk of Court using CM/ECF, which will send notification of such filing to counsel of
`
`record, and served true and correct copies of the foregoing on the following counsel as indicated:
`
`BY ELECTRONIC MAIL
`
`Steven J. Balick
`
`Andrew Colin Mayo
`Tiffany Geyer Lydon
`Ashby & Geddes
`500 Delaware Avenue, 8th Floor
`P.O. Box 1150
`
`Wilmington, DE 19899
`sbaiick@ashby—geddes.com
`amayo@ashby—geddes.corn
`tlydon@ashby—geddes.com
`
`Matthew D. Powers
`
`Steven S. Cherensky
`Paul T. Ehrlich
`
`Stefani C. Smith
`
`Robert L. Gerrity
`TENSEGRITY LAW GROUP LLP
`
`555 Twin Dolphin Drive, Suite 360
`Redwood Shores, CA 94065
`1nat‘thew.powers@tensegritylawgroupcom
`steven.cherensky@tensegritylawgroup.co1n
`paul.ehrlich@tensegritylawgroup.corn
`stefani.srnith@1;ensegrity1awgroup.corn
`robert.gerrity@tensegritylawgroup.corn
`
`/s/ Elizabeth R. He
`
`Elizabeth R. He (#5345)
`he@rlf.com
`
`RLF1 8285668v.1
`
`13