2:13-cv-10444-AJT-MAR Doc # 61 Filed 04/21/14 Pg 1 of 18 Pg ID 1135
`
`
`
`IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN
`SOUTHERN DIVISION
`
`
`
`UUSI, LLC, a Michigan domestic limited
`Liability company, d/b/a NARTRON,
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Civil Action No: 2:13-cv-10444
`
`
`
`and
`
`Civil Action No. 2:13-cv-11704
`
`
`
`HON. ARTHUR J. TARNOW
`Mag. Judge Randon
`
`
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`vs.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`ROBERT BOSCH LLC, a Michigan
`Corporation, and BROSE NORTH
`AMERICA, INC.,
`a Michigan corporation,
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`and
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`WEBASTO ROOF SYSTEMS, INC.,
`a Delaware Corporation,
`
`
`
`
`
`Defendants.
`______________________________________/
`
`
`
`PLAINTIFF UUSI NARTRON’S EXPEDITED MOTION TO STAY
`
`PENDING INTER PARTES REVIEW
`
`
`
`

`

`2:13-cv-10444-AJT-MAR Doc # 61 Filed 04/21/14 Pg 2 of 18 Pg ID 1136
`
`
`
`
`
`Plaintiff UUSI, LLC d/b/a Nartron (“UUSI”) hereby moves this Court to
`
`stay this action pending determination of an inter partes review of United States
`
`Patents 8,217,612 (“the ‘612 Patent”), 7,579,802 (“the ‘802 Patent”) and U.S.
`
`Patent No. 7,548,037 (“the ‘037 Patent”). 1 The parties have exchanged proposed
`
`stipulations. There is a need for the Court’s intervention, however, as the parties
`
`are at odds on the breadth and wording of the stipulations.
`
`
`
`A stay is appropriate because (1) the parties are in agreement that a stay is
`
`the proper course of action, (2) a stay would not prejudice or present a clear
`
`tactical disadvantage to defendants Robert Bosch LLC (“Bosch”), Brose North
`
`America, Inc. (“Brose”), and Webasto Roof Systems, Inc. (“Webasto”), (3) a stay
`
`will greatly simplify the issues in question and therefore trial, and (4) the case is
`
`still in the early stages of litigation, before completion of discovery before the
`
`exchange of claim construction positions and before a Markman hearing.2
`
`
`
`USSI’s counsel certifies compliance was sought via email and phone
`
`conference under Local Rule 7.1(a) prior to filing this motion.
`
`
`
`1 UUSI has filed an identical motion in UUSI’s case versus Defendant Webasto
`Roof Systems, Inc. (“Webasto”).
`
` 2
`
` UUSI requests the Court hold all dates in abeyance pending the Court’s
`determination of the Expedited Motion for Stay.
`
`
`
`1
`
`

`

`2:13-cv-10444-AJT-MAR Doc # 61 Filed 04/21/14 Pg 3 of 18 Pg ID 1137
`
`
`
`For the reasons set forth above and in the supporting Memorandum
`
`concurrently filed with this Motion, UUSI respectfully requests that this Court
`
`stay this proceeding pending the PTO’s resolution of the inter partes review.
`
`
`
`Dated: April 21, 2014
`
`
`
`
`
`Respectfully submitted,
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`s/ George D. Moustakas /
`George D. Moustakas (P41631)
`Timothy D. MacIntyre (P53100)
`J. Bradley Luchsinger (P76115)
`Stephanie L. Dowdy (P77225)
`HARNESS, DICKEY & PIERCE, P.L.C.
`5445 Corporate Drive, Ste. 200
`Troy, MI 48098
`(248) 641-1600
`(248) 641-0270 Fax
`gdmoustakas@hdp.com
`tdmacintyre@hdp.com
`bluchsinger@hdp.com
`sdowdy@hdp.com
`
`
`
`
`
`18519240.1
`
`
`
`2
`
`

`

`2:13-cv-10444-AJT-MAR Doc # 61 Filed 04/21/14 Pg 4 of 18 Pg ID 1138
`
`IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN
`SOUTHERN DIVISION
`
`UUSI, LLC, a Michigan domestic limited
`Liability company, d/b/a NARTRON,
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Civil Action No: 2:13-cv-10444
`
`
`
`and
`
`Civil Action No. 2:13-cv-11704
`
`
`
`HON. ARTHUR J. TARNOW
`Mag. Judge Randon
`
`
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`vs.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`ROBERT BOSCH LLC, a Michigan
`Corporation, and BROSE NORTH
`AMERICA, INC.,
`a Michigan corporation,
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`and
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`WEBASTO ROOF SYSTEMS, INC.,
`a Delaware Corporation,
`
`
`
`
`
`Defendants.
`______________________________________/
`
`MEMORANDUM IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFF UUSI, LLC
`d/b/a NARTRON’S EXPEDITED MOTION TO STAY
`PENDING INTER PARTES REVIEW
`
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`2:13-cv-10444-AJT-MAR Doc # 61 Filed 04/21/14 Pg 5 of 18 Pg ID 1139
`
`ISSUES PRESENTED
`
`Should this patent infringement suit be stayed to permit the U.S. Patent and
`
`
`
`Trademark Office to review the validity of the claims of United States Patent Nos.
`
`8,217,612 (“the ‘612 patent”), 7,579,802 (“the ‘802 patent”), and 7,548,037 (“the
`
`‘037 Patent”)?
`
`Answer: Yes
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`ii
`
`

`

`2:13-cv-10444-AJT-MAR Doc # 61 Filed 04/21/14 Pg 6 of 18 Pg ID 1140
`
`CONTROLLING AUTHORITY
`
`35 U.S.C. 316(d)(1)
`
`Progressive Cas. Ins. Co. v. Safeco Ins. Co., 2013 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 54899,
`at *15 (N.D. Ohio 2013)
`
`
`
`
`iii
`
`

`

`2:13-cv-10444-AJT-MAR Doc # 61 Filed 04/21/14 Pg 7 of 18 Pg ID 1141
`
`I.
`
`INTRODUCTION
`
`
`
`On February 6, 2014, Brose North America, Inc. (“Brose”) filed an Inter
`
`Partes Review (“IPR”) concerning U.S. Patent Nos. 8,217,612 (“the ‘612 Patent”)
`
`and 7,579,802 (“the ‘802 Patent”). On February 18 and 19, 2014, Plaintiff, UUSI,
`
`LLC d/b/a Nartron (“UUSI”) served its infringement contentions on Webasto Roof
`
`Systems, Inc. (“Webasto”). On March 30, 2014, UUSI served its infringement
`
`contentions on Robert Bosch, LLC (“Bosch”) and Brose.
`
`
`
`On April 3, 2014, UUSI forwarded an email to all Defendants inquiring as to
`
`whether Defendants would stipulate to a stay of proceedings. On April 11, 2014,
`
`UUSI forwarded a draft stipulation to all Defendants. On April 16, 2014, Webasto
`
`filed an IPR concerning 8,217,612 (“the ‘612 Patent”), 7,579,802 (“the ‘802
`
`Patent”) and 7,548,037 (“the ‘037 Patent”). On April 18, 2014, in view of the
`
`April 16th IPR from Webasto and the position of the parties, counsel for UUSI
`
`advised that it would be filing an expedited motion seeking the Court’s guidance.
`
`Attached at Exhibit A is the last draft from UUSI to the Defendants, and at Exhibit
`
`B is the last draft from Defendants in response.
`
`
`
`The parties competing stipulations can be distilled down to a few salient
`
`points. These are as follows:
`
`
`
`(a) The breadth of the release and covenant in paragraph 2 in Exhibits
`A and B. UUSI takes the position that the breadth of the release
`should only be to those Accused Products that have been identified by
`each Defendant in its response to Interrogatory No. 2. The response
`
`
`
`1
`
`

`

`2:13-cv-10444-AJT-MAR Doc # 61 Filed 04/21/14 Pg 8 of 18 Pg ID 1142
`
`to Interrogatory No. 2 was used as the basis for preparing the
`infringement contentions and for taking depositions to confirm the
`identity of the Accused Products.
`
`(b) The breadth of the terms in paragraph 5 in Exhibits A and B
`concerning the Accused Products (addressed above) and “good
`cause.” The instances that serve as good cause include, information
`learned in discovery; corrections of errors in the interpretation of
`documents and/or source code; corrections of errors in the testimony
`of witnesses/designates; corrections of errors in the contentions as
`served; due to the court’s claim construction ruling; and new products
`that are disclosed in discovery and/or introduced to the market. There
`are and remain multiple inconsistencies in the documents, deposition
`testimony and assertions of the parties for many of the Accused
`Products and Source Code. Some delineation of good cause is
`appropriate.
`
`(c) The need for paragraph 6 in Exhibits A and B. An issue has
`arisen during the course of litigation, which was originally addressed
`at the 16(b) conference. More specifically, at least one of the
`Defendants, Brose, has posed an attack based on its assertion that it is
`not liable because the actions complained of are those of its parent.
`UUSI cannot wait 18 months until the IPR’s are concluded, assuming
`no appeal is taken, to vet this issue. Waiting would cause significant
`prejudice to UUSI should one or more Defendants state that the delay
`was prejudicial and dispositive to the issue of liability and damages.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`To conserve the resources of the Court and the parties, UUSI requests a stay of this
`
`action be maintained until the IPR proceedings are concluded by the PTO.
`
`
`II. LEGAL STANDARD
`
`
`
`The decision whether to stay pending district court proceedings while the
`
`PTO’s IPR takes place, while not vested expressly by statute, falls within the
`
`court’s inherent discretionary power. See Landis v. North American Co., 299 U.S.
`
`
`
`2
`
`

`

`2:13-cv-10444-AJT-MAR Doc # 61 Filed 04/21/14 Pg 9 of 18 Pg ID 1143
`
`248, 254 (1936) (It is in the Court’s “inherent [power] to control the disposition of
`
`the cases on its docket.”). In deciding whether to grant a motion to stay pending
`
`an IPR proceeding, district courts have used the three factor test previously set
`
`forth for stays pending reexamination proceedings: “(1) whether discovery is
`
`complete and whether a trial date has been set; (2) whether a stay will simplify the
`
`issues in question and trial of the case; and (3) whether a stay would unduly
`
`prejudice or present a clear tactical disadvantage to the non-moving party.”
`
`Regents of the Univ. of Mich. v. St. Jude Med. Inc., No 12-12908, 2013 U.S. Dist.
`
`LEXIS 76845, at *5 (E.D. Mich. May 31, 2013) citing Star Envirotech, Inc. v.
`
`Redline Detection, LLC, No. 12-01861, 2013 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 58866, 2013 WL
`
`1716068, at *1 (C.D. Cal. April 3, 2013). Congress codified this three-factor test
`
`and added a fourth factor, which requires courts to consider “whether a stay, or the
`
`denial thereof, will reduce the burden of litigation on the parties and on the court.”
`
`America Invents Actor of 2011 (“AIA”) §18(b)(1), Pub. L. No. 112-29, 125 Stat.
`
`284, 331 (2011).
`
`
`III. FACTS AND ARGUMENT
`
`
`
`The issue for the Court’s determination is the scope of the competing
`
`stipulations attached at Exhibits A and B. In this regard, Section A, infra, sets
`
`forth the positions concerning the stipulation, and Section B, infra the legal basis
`
`for granting a stay.
`
`
`
`3
`
`

`

`2:13-cv-10444-AJT-MAR Doc # 61 Filed 04/21/14 Pg 10 of 18 Pg ID 1144
`
`A. The Parties Competing Stipulations
`
`
`
`
`The parties’ competing stipulations can be distilled down to a few salient
`
`points that UUSI asks the Court to address. The first concerns paragraph 2 in
`
`Exhibits A and B as to the breadth of the release and covenant. UUSI takes the
`
`position that the release should only be to those Accused Products and only those
`
`Accused Products that have been definitively identified by each Defendant in its
`
`response to Interrogatory No. 2. The response to Interrogatory No. 2 was used as
`
`the basis for the infringement contentions and the depositions taken to confirm the
`
`identity of the Accused Products and corresponding Source Code. It is inequitable
`
`and an invitation to follow on motions to expand the breadth of the release and
`
`covenant beyond those Accused Products that have been specifically identified,
`
`with their corresponding Source Code. Any positions to the contrary, as noted for
`
`example in Exhibit B, where Defendants take the view that the release should be to
`
`“any product that uses an anti-trap algorithm that is not colorably different from
`
`any one or more of the algorithms present in the code previously made available to
`
`Plaintiff for inspection” are ill-placed and an invitation to significant issues in
`
`proceeding forward. UUSI is unable to determine or know what these other
`
`products are that have never been identified in the response to Interrogatory No. 2.
`
`The next concerns paragraph 5 which is, in part, addressed above concerning
`
`paragraph 2. Paragraph 5, however, also addresses the issue of what is “good”
`
`
`
`4
`
`

`

`2:13-cv-10444-AJT-MAR Doc # 61 Filed 04/21/14 Pg 11 of 18 Pg ID 1145
`
`cause shown. The articulation of good cause shown should be stated to include,
`
`information learned in discovery; corrections of errors in the interpretation of
`
`documents and/or source code; corrections of errors in the testimony of
`
`witnesses/designates; corrections of errors in the contentions as served; due to a the
`
`courts claim construction ruling; and new products that are disclosed in discovery
`
`and/or introduced to the market. The reason for requesting this specificity is that
`
`there are multiple inconsistencies in the documents versus testimony versus
`
`assertions of the parties, for many of the Accused Products and Source Code. The
`
`breadth of the documents disclosed, 353,941 pages of production from Bosch,
`
`452,052 pages of production from Brose, and 385,119 pages from Webasto,
`
`present the real possibility of errors made. By not articulating, at least, the basis
`
`for good cause shown, as noted in Exhibit A, this will lead to multiple predictable
`
`motions and inconsistencies in proceedings which can be solved now. There is no
`
`basis to suggest otherwise, and to the extent that this is pursued by the Defendants,
`
`it poses a myriad of issues including, whether or not the Accused Products and
`
`Source Code were correctly identified, whether other Accused Products and/or
`
`other versions of the Source Code will be discovered later, and whether these
`
`issues and others, including new products introduced in the field, will be used to
`
`restrict UUSI in the future.
`
`
`
`5
`
`

`

`2:13-cv-10444-AJT-MAR Doc # 61 Filed 04/21/14 Pg 12 of 18 Pg ID 1146
`
`The next concerns paragraph 6. An issue has arisen during the course of
`
`litigation which was originally addressed at the 16(b) conference. If the Court
`
`recalls, UUSI specifically addressed the issue of Defendants denying liability by
`
`suggesting that the proper party in interest was their parent or related corporation.
`
`As the Court may recall, each Defendant stated that this would not be an issue.
`
`Unfortunately, recent events have proven otherwise. More specifically, at least
`
`one of the Defendants, Brose, has made a specific assertion that it is not liable for
`
`the actions of its parent or related company. This issue needs to be vetted now
`
`since UUSI cannot wait 18 months until the IPR’s are concluded, assuming no
`
`appeal are taken, to vet the issue therein causing significant prejudice to it should
`
`one or more Defendants state that the delay was prejudicial and dispositive to the
`
`issue of liability and damages. This Court can easily resolve the issue by adopting
`
`the language of paragraph 6 or by asking each Defendant, on the record, to state
`
`whether or not it will seek to avoid or deny liability and damages, to the extent that
`
`liability and damages are assessed, by placing liability onto another. At the very
`
`least, this will disclose whether or not one or more Defendants are lying in wait. If
`
`so, after the cases are stayed, UUSI will institute proceedings against the
`
`Defendants’ parents, if necessary.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`6
`
`

`

`2:13-cv-10444-AJT-MAR Doc # 61 Filed 04/21/14 Pg 13 of 18 Pg ID 1147
`
`B. The Four Factors Strongly Favor A Stay During Inter Parties
`Review
`
`In determining whether to stay litigation pending PTO reexamination, “the
`
`
`
`
`
`AIA asks district courts to decide whether a stay should be granted based on a
`
`four-factor test:
`
`1.
`
`2.
`
`3.
`
`4.
`
`whether a stay, or the denial thereof, will simplify the issues in
`
`question and streamline the trial;
`
`whether discovery is complete and whether a trial date has been set;
`
`whether a stay, or the denial thereof, would unduly prejudice the
`
`nonmoving party or present a clear tactical advantage for the moving
`
`party; and
`
`whether a stay, or the denial thereof, will reduce the burden of
`
`litigation on the parties and the court.”
`
`Progressive Cas. Ins. Co. v. Safeco Ins. Co., 2013 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 54899 at *9,
`
`citing AIA §18(b)(1), P.L. 112-29, 125 Stat. 284, 331 (2011).1
`
`
`
`
`
`1 35 U.S.C. 316(d)(1), as amended, provides that during an IPR, “the patent owner
`may file 1 motion to amend the patent in 1 or more of the following ways: (A)
`Cancel any challenged patent claim. (B) For each challenged claim, propose a
`reasonable number of substitute claims.” Thus, an IPR both provides an
`opportunity to correct claim language, to adjust the scope of claim protection as
`needed, and to cancel invalid claims.
`
`
`
`
`
`7
`
`

`

`2:13-cv-10444-AJT-MAR Doc # 61 Filed 04/21/14 Pg 14 of 18 Pg ID 1148
`
`1.
`
`Staying this action will simplify the issues and streamline
`the trial
`
`A stay is justified when the outcome of the IPR is likely to assist the Court
`
`
`
`
`
`in determining patent validity and, if the claims are cancelled in the IPR, eliminate
`
`the need to try infringement issue(s). See Slip Track Systems, Inc. v. Metal Lite,
`
`159 F.3d 1337, 1341 (Fed. Cir. 1998). Thus, litigation can be simplified by the
`
`IPR via cancellation or narrowing amendments to the claims, hence eliminating the
`
`need to try certain issues. Further, when claims survive an IPR proceeding, the
`
`expert view of the PTO can assist the court in determining patent validity, thus
`
`further simplifying trial.
`
`
`
`a.
`
`The ‘612, ‘802 and ‘037 Patents’ claims could be
`cancelled or altered during the IPR proceeding
`
`
`The claims of the ‘612, ‘802 and ‘037 Patents could be narrowed or
`
`cancelled during reexamination in view of the prior art not previously considered
`
`by the PTO. In fact, statistics show that “in inter partes proceedings, the PTO
`
`cancels all claims of a patent 42% of the time and either cancels or amends claims
`
`89% of the time.” Id. at *16-17, citing ECF No. 75-1 at 4 in Case No.
`
`1:10CV01370; see also ECF No. 75-8 (PTO statistics based on total inter partes
`
`reexamination certificates issued between 1999 and June 30, 2012).
`
`8
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`2:13-cv-10444-AJT-MAR Doc # 61 Filed 04/21/14 Pg 15 of 18 Pg ID 1149
`
`b.
`
`An IPR proceeding will provide this court with expert
`analysis of the prior art
`
`Careful consideration of each of the prior art patents will be required to
`
`
`
`
`
`analyze and determine the validity of the ‘612, ‘802 and ‘037 Patent claims. As
`
`previously stated, when the PTO grants the request for IPR, this Court will have
`
`the benefit of the PTO’s expert analysis of these various prior art references. An
`
`IPR proceeding can “facilitate trial of [an] issue by providing the district court with
`
`the expert view of the PTO.” Gould v. Control Laser Corp., 705 F.2d 1340, 1342
`
`(1983). Thus, if the action is stayed, the Court will have the benefit of the PTO’s
`
`expertise and technical analysis of the ‘612, ‘802 and ‘037 Patents’ reviewed
`
`claims and prior art patents.
`
`2.
`
`Discovery is not yet complete and a trial date has not been
`set
`
`
`
`
`
`Discovery has commenced – UUSI has provided infringement charts to all
`
`Defendants and has received invalidity charts from Webasto. However, discovery
`
`is far from complete and no trial date has yet been set. Further, while the
`
`Markman hearing date has been set, the Markman hearing has not yet taken place.
`
`Construction positions have not been exchanged.
`
`The stage of discovery may fairly be characterized as “early.” Depositions
`
`are far from over, as is claim construction. “Staying a case at an early juncture
`
`advances judicial efficiency and ‘will maximize the likelihood that neither the
`
`
`
`9
`
`

`

`2:13-cv-10444-AJT-MAR Doc # 61 Filed 04/21/14 Pg 16 of 18 Pg ID 1150
`
`Court … nor the parties expend their assets addressing invalid claims’.”
`
`Progressive Cas. Ins. Co. v. Safeco Ins. Co., 2013 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 54899 at *19-
`
`20, citing Gioello Enterprises Ltd. v. Mattel Inc., 2001 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 26158,
`
`2001 WL 125340 at *2.
`
`3.
`
`Defendants Bosch, Brose, and Webasto will not be unduly
`prejudiced by a stay
`
`A stay will not unduly prejudice or present a clear tactical advantage to
`
`
`
`
`
`Defendants Bosch, Brose, and Webasto or Plaintiff UUSI. Permitting the PTO to
`
`review the ‘612, ‘802 and ‘037 Patents will benefit all of the litigants by focusing
`
`the remaining discovery and trial. An IPR proceeding will clarify the validity of
`
`the ‘612, ‘802 and ‘037 Patent claims at issue in view of the prior art, including
`
`potentially culling or narrowing claims.
`
`
`
`4.
`
`A stay will reduce the burden of litigation on both the
`parties and this Court
`
`“The fourth factor of the test was enacted to increase the likelihood that a
`
`
`
`
`
`
`stay would be granted.” Progressive Cas. Ins. Co. v. Safeco Ins. Co., 2013 U.S.
`
`Dist. LEXIS 54899 at *28. A stay would relieve both UUSI and Brose and
`
`Webasto from litigating in multiple fora. This Court would be relieved of having
`
`to expend substantial judicial resources in deciding claim construction, non-
`
`
`
`10
`
`

`

`2:13-cv-10444-AJT-MAR Doc # 61 Filed 04/21/14 Pg 17 of 18 Pg ID 1151
`
`infringement, and invalidity issues before those claims are invalidated, narrowed,
`
`or refined through IPR proceedings.
`
`
`IV. CONCLUSION AND RELIEF REQUESTED
`
`
`
`
`
`UUSI has demonstrated diligence in proactively filing the present motion
`
`requesting stay of this action. Defendants Bosch, Brose, and Webasto will not be
`
`unduly prejudiced by a stay of this action pending outcome of UUSI’s inter partes
`
`review of the ‘612, ‘802 and ‘037 Patents. Review by the PTO will serve to clarify
`
`the scope of the issues for more focused and efficient litigation, ultimately
`
`conserving resources of the litigants and this Court. For the reasons stated above,
`
`UUSI requests that its Expedited Motion to Stay this Action Pending Inter Partes
`
`Review of U.S. Patent Nos. 8,217,612, 7,579,802 and 7,548,037 be GRANTED.
`
`Dated: April 21, 2014
`
`
`
`
`
`Respectfully submitted,
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`s/ George D. Moustakas /
`George D. Moustakas (P41631)
`Timothy D. MacIntyre (P53100)
`J. Bradley Luchsinger (P76115)
`Stephanie L. Dowdy (P77225)
`HARNESS, DICKEY & PIERCE, P.L.C.
`5445 Corporate Drive, Ste. 200
`Troy, MI 48098
`(248) 641-1600
`(248) 641-0270 Fax
`gdmoustakas@hdp.com
`tdmacintyre@hdp.com
`bluchsinger@hdp.com
`sdowdy@hdp.com
`
`
`
`11
`
`

`

`2:13-cv-10444-AJT-MAR Doc # 61 Filed 04/21/14 Pg 18 of 18 Pg ID 1152
`
`CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
`
`
`
`I hereby certify that on April 21, 2014, the foregoing document was filed
`
`electronically and will be served by operation of the Court’s electronic filing
`
`system on all counsel of record.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`By:
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`s/ George D. Moustakas /
`HARNESS, DICKEY & PIERCE, P.L.C.
`George D. Moustakas (P41631)
`Timothy D. MacIntyre (P53100)
`J. Bradley Luchsinger (P76115)
`Stephanie L. Dowdy (P77225)
`5445 Corporate Drive, Ste. 200
`Troy, MI 48098
`(248) 641-1600
`(248) 641-0270 Fax
`gdmoustakas@hdp.com
`tdmacintyre@hdp.com
`bluchsinger@hdp.com
`sdowdy@hdp.com
`
`Attorneys for Plaintiff
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`18519477.1
`
`
`
`12
`
`