Case 1:12-cv-00398-GMS Document 37 Filed 05/13/13 Page 1 of 6 PageID #: 1355
`
`
`
`IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`FOR THE DISTRICT OF DELAWARE
`
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`
`
`
`C.A. No. 12-398-GMS
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`HUMANEYES TECHS., LTD.,
`
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`
`SONY ELECS., INC., SONY CORP., SONY
`CORP. OF AMERICA, SONY MOBILE
`COMMS. AB, SONY MOBILE COMMS.
`(USA), INC.,
`
`v.
`
`
`
`
`
`Defendants.
`
`
`
`
`
`DECLARATION OF VERED LEVY-RON IN SUPPORT
`OF HUMANEYES TECHNOLOGIES, LTD.’S ANSWERING BRIEF IN
`OPPOSITION TO SONY’S MOTION TO STAY LITIGATION PENDING THE
`OUTCOME OF INTER PARTES REVIEW OF THE PATENTS-IN-SUIT
`
`ASHBY & GEDDES
`Steven J. Balick (#2114)
`Tiffany Geyer Lydon (#3950)
`Andrew C. Mayo (#5207)
`500 Delaware Avenue, 8th Floor
`P.O. Box 1150
`Wilmington, Delaware 19899
`(302) 654-1888
`sbalick@ashby-geddes.com
`tlydon@ashby-geddes.com
`amayo@ashby-geddes.com
`
`Attorneys for Plaintiff
`
`Of Counsel:
`
`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
`(650) 802-6000
`
`Dated: May 6, 2013
`
`{00745515;v1 }
`
`
`
`

`
`Case 1:12-cv-00398-GMS Document 37 Filed 05/13/13 Page 2 of 6 PageID #: 1356
`
`I, Vered Levy-Ron, hereby declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the United
`
`States of America that the following statements are true and correct:
`
`1.
`
`The facts set forth below are based on my personal knowledge and/or information
`
`provided to me by HumanEyes employees at my request and direction and I am competent to
`
`testify to the same.
`
`2.
`
`I am Chief Executive Officer of HumanEyes Technologies, Ltd. (“HumanEyes”).
`
`I am submitting this declaration in connection with Human Eyes’ Opposition Brief In Response
`
`to Sony’s Motion to Stay Litigation Pending the Outcome of Inter Partes Review of the Patents-
`
`in-Suit.
`
`3.
`
`I have served as CEO of HumanEyes since February 1, 2010. As part of my job
`
`responsibilities as CEO, I have also familiarized myself with the history of HumanEyes’ business
`
`operations prior to my arrival at the company.
`
`4.
`
`HumanEyes was founded in 2000 by Shmuel Peleg, Moshe Ben-Ezra, Yael
`
`Pritch, and their business partner Gideon Ben-Zvi to commercialize the research breakthroughs
`
`of Professor Peleg and his team, including the inventions protected by U.S. Patents Nos.
`
`6,665,003 and 7,477,284 (“the Asserted Patents”). Building on the research conducted by
`
`Professor Peleg and his team, HumanEyes was able to develop and market the first software to
`
`allow creation of panoramic 3D images from images captured from a single-lens, standard digital
`
`camera.
`
`5.
`
`Today, HumanEyes’ commitment to commercializing these discoveries and
`
`growing and developing the nascent 3D printing and imaging industry continues with the
`
`development and sale of HumanEyes’ Capture 3D, Creative3D, Producer3D, and iPhone App
`
`Snapily3D software products (collectively “HumanEyes Software” or “the Software”), its
`
`2
`
`

`
`Case 1:12-cv-00398-GMS Document 37 Filed 05/13/13 Page 3 of 6 PageID #: 1357
`
`Snapily and SnapilyPro printing services (collectively “Snapily”), and its extensive software
`
`licensing program. HumanEyes has been developing a similar Snapily3D application for use on
`
`Android phones and recently displayed the prototype at the 2012 and 2013 Mobile World
`
`Congress in Barcelona.
`
`6.
`
`HumanEyes has made substantial investments in licensing efforts designed to
`
`identify and cultivate partnerships with companies interested in incorporating HumanEyes’
`
`technology into their products. Since its founding, I and other HumanEyes employees, including
`
`Founder Shmuel Peleg, former CEOs Gideon Ben-Zvi and Duby Hodd, former and current Vice
`
`Presidents of R&D Assaf Zomet and Anton Bar, Head of Sales for the Americas Jeff Miller, and
`
`others have had licensing discussions with dozens of U.S. or multi-national companies with
`
`substantial operations and/or sales in the United States, including, for example:
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`7.
`
`HumanEyes’ licensing efforts have also included multiple meetings and other
`
`communications with representatives of Sony regarding the inventions protected by the Asserted
`
`Patents at least as early as 2004 and as recently as 2010. For example, Professor Peleg, I, and
`
`others at HumanEyes have discussed the technologies protected by the Asserted Patents with
`
`employees of Sony including at least Dr. Kenji Tanaka, Toshiyuki Ogura, and Atsushi Iizuka at
`
`Sony Corporation; Sony Electronics Inc. marketing director Mary Abram; and Senior Vice
`
`President of Sony Corporation of America’s “Sony 3D Technology Center” Buzz Hays. Dr.
`
`Kenji Tanaka even referred to Professor Peleg as “one of the most famous people in this field” in
`
`correspondence between Dr. Tanaka and Professor Peleg in 2004.
`
`3
`
`

`
`Case 1:12-cv-00398-GMS Document 37 Filed 05/13/13 Page 4 of 6 PageID #: 1358
`Case l:12—cv—OO398—GMS Document 37 Filed 05/13/13 Page 4 of 6 Page|D #: 1358
`
`8.
`
`Sony’s marketing, importation, and sale of devices that include the 3D Sweep
`
`Panorama and Sweep Multi-Angle features have already negatively impacted HumanEyes’
`
`efforts toward licensing the Asserted Patents. For example, promising licensing discussions1
`
` t believed the accused Sony
`
`devices were infringing the Asserted Patents. Sony’s ongoing infringement is believed to have
`
`negatively affected negotiations with other potential licensees as well. HumanEyes has also
`
`sought to license the Asserted Patents to companies interested in 3D display technology,
`
`including printing technology, to provide a vehicle for such companies’ customers to generate
`
`3D content. Sony’s devices provide a competing vehicle for the generation of such 3D content.
`
`9.
`
`Sony’s ongoing infiingement and use of HumanEyes’ intellectual property and
`
`technology continues to harm HumanEyes’ business even outside of the licensing context. For
`
`example, the continuing perceived uncertainty in the market regarding the strength and value of
`
`HumanEyes’ intellectual property is harming HumanEyes’ ability to find licensing partners as
`
`well as HumanEyes’ ability to raise investment capital. The greater the delay in resolving this
`
`dispute regarding Sony’s infringement, the greater this uncertainty becomes.
`
`10.
`
`The impact of Sony’s infringement on HumanEyes’ licensing eflbrts, as well as
`
`the management attention that has had to be diverted from HumanEyes’ core business to attend
`
`to this negation, haveharmednuma-1Eyes*m
`
`1. In addition, the significant cost to HumanEyes as a small company battling a
`
`global conglomerate is overwhelming and Sony’s requested delay would hurt us even more—the
`
`forecast is that‘ of HumanEyes’ 2013 annual expenses will be attributable to costs
`
`associated with the defense and enforcement of HumanEyes’ intellectual property in this
`
`litigation and the related proceedings. Depending on the timing of the trial in the District Court
`
`

`
`Case 1:12-cv-00398-GMS Document 37 Filed 05/13/13 Page 5 of 6 PageID #: 1359
`
`the ratio of expenses spent on litigation could be even higher. In fact, HumanEyes needed to
`
`raise an additional
`
` above and beyond its ongoing expenses in order to defend its IP, and
`
`drawing the process out longer will increase the financial burden, as well as the burden on the
`
`company’s personnel.
`
`11.
`
`The financial harm Sony’s infringement has caused was a substantial driver of
`
`major budget cuts and a reduction of force that I was forced to implement in January 2013. I
`
`reduced HumanEyes’ workforce by a third—laying off 8 of HumanEyes’ formerly 23
`
`employees. Today, 15 employees remain at HumanEyes. A reduction in force of that magnitude
`
`directly impacts the viability of a small business like HumanEyes, limiting our ability to grow,
`
`attract new customers, pursue licensing partners, implement projects, and maintain investor
`
`commitment.
`
`12.
`
`HumanEyes and I provided additional details about these and other harms to
`
`HumanEyes’ business resulting from Sony’s ongoing infringement through the production of
`
`confidential documents and through confidential deposition testimony during the ITC
`
`
`
`Investigation.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`5
`
`

`
`Case 1:12-cv-00398-GMS Document 37 Filed 05/13/13 Page 6 of 6 PageID #: 1360
`
`Case1:12—cv—OO398—GMS Document37 Filed05/13/13 Page6of6Page|D#:1360
`
`Dated: May 6, 2013
`
`“x
`
`
`
`i
`
`i
`
`
`
`..._._.__...._........—..._——..~...-....—...‘.,........_v....