Exhibit 1025
`
`IN THE UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`§ Att’y Docket Nos.: LMIC—021—801
`
`Customer No. 28120
`
`§ §
`
`§
`§ Petitioner: Liberty Mutual
`§
`Insurance Company
`§
`
`Covered Business Method Review Petition
`of United States Patent No.: 8,140,358
`
`Patent Owner: Progressive Casualty
`Insurance Co.
`
`DECLARATION OF SCOTT ANDREWS
`
`I, Scott Andrews, hereby declare under penalty of perjury:
`
`I.
`
`1.
`
`Qualifications
`
`I am currently the Technical Partner of Cogenia Partners, LLC (“Cogenia” , an
`
`independent consulting firm specializing in systems engineering and services
`
`for intelligent transportation systems, safety applications, mobile devices, and
`
`vehicle technologies, which I founded in 2001.
`
`I have over 35 years of
`
`experience developing and managing high technology projects, and 20 years of
`
`experience focusing on intelligent transportation systems. My CV is attached at
`
`Ex. 1026.
`
`2.
`
`Cogenia Partner’s clients include the automotive industry, Fortune 100 service
`
`enterprises,
`
`telecommunications
`
`equipment manufacturers,
`
`the U.S.
`
`Department of Transportation, state and local transportation entities, university
`
`transportation centers, and startups seeking to enter the broad mobility and
`
`transportation technology and location based services market.
`
`Liberty Mutual
`Exhibit 1025
`
`Page 000001
`
`
`
`IN THE UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`§ Att’y Docket Nos.: LMIC—021—801
`
`Customer No. 28120
`
`§ §
`
`§
`§ Petitioner: Liberty Mutual
`§
`Insurance Company
`§
`
`Covered Business Method Review Petition
`of United States Patent No.: 8,140,358
`
`Patent Owner: Progressive Casualty
`Insurance Co.
`
`DECLARATION OF SCOTT ANDREWS
`
`I, Scott Andrews, hereby declare under penalty of perjury:
`
`I.
`
`1.
`
`Qualifications
`
`I am currently the Technical Partner of Cogenia Partners, LLC (“Cogenia” , an
`
`independent consulting firm specializing in systems engineering and services
`
`for intelligent transportation systems, safety applications, mobile devices, and
`
`vehicle technologies, which I founded in 2001.
`
`I have over 35 years of
`
`experience developing and managing high technology projects, and 20 years of
`
`experience focusing on intelligent transportation systems. My CV is attached at
`
`Ex. 1026.
`
`2.
`
`Cogenia Partner’s clients include the automotive industry, Fortune 100 service
`
`enterprises,
`
`telecommunications
`
`equipment manufacturers,
`
`the U.S.
`
`Department of Transportation, state and local transportation entities, university
`
`transportation centers, and startups seeking to enter the broad mobility and
`
`transportation technology and location based services market.
`
`Liberty Mutual
`Exhibit 1025
`
`Page 000001
`
`
`
`In my role at Cogenia, I have consulted with many of the major carmakers, and
`
`leading consumer products and services companies in support of the creation
`
`and delivery of mobile vehicle services.
`
`My previous work experience includes positions at TRW, Inc. and Toyota
`
`Motor Corp.
`
`At Toyota Motor Corporation in Japan, my responsibilities included the
`
`conceptualization and development of multimedia and new technology
`
`products and services for Toyota’s future generations of passenger vehicles in
`
`the United States and Europe. Heavy emphasis was placed on strategy for
`
`information systems, and on development of technical concepts for computing
`
`and Internet oriented systems. Working under the direction of Toyota board
`
`members, I established the Automotive Multimedia Interface Collaboration, a
`
`partnership of the world’s car makers to develop a uniform computing
`
`architecture for vehicle multimedia systems, and led all early technical, planning
`
`and organizational work.
`
`At TRW, Inc., I held a series of positions dealing with emerging transportation
`
`products such as in—vehicle information systems.
`
`In 1991 and 1992, while
`
`employed in the Space and Defense sector, I worked with the automotive
`
`division to develop location—based information delivery systems. The first
`
`Page 000002
`
`
`
`system TRW developed used the Teletrac vehicle location system. This used a
`
`“return link” Time Difference of Arrival (TDOA) triangulation scheme (the
`
`system determines the position of the device using signals returned from the
`
`device). This is slightly different from LORAN, which is a “forward link”
`
`TDOA system (the terminal determines its location from the base station
`
`signals), although the two systems are technically similar.
`
`In early 1996, I was in the TRW Automotive Electronics Group and was
`
`working on a variety of automotive electronic systems,
`
`including wireless
`
`vehicle location and information systems,
`
`such as Mayday and remote
`
`diagnostics, navigation systems, and various driver information and vehicle
`
`safety systems.
`
`In April of 1996, I moved to Japan and was employed by
`
`Toyota Motor Corporation and continued to work on a variety of wireless
`
`Intelligent Transportation Systems (ITS).
`
`I have also worked with several
`
`law firms in a consulting and/ or expert
`
`capacity. My attached CV lists all the matters in which I was involved,
`
`including my testimonial experience. EX. 1026.
`
`I am also a member of the following professional societies: Society of
`
`Automotive Engineers
`
`(SAE),
`
`International
`
`Institute of Electrical and
`
`Electronic Engineers
`
`(IEEE),
`
`IEEE Standards Association,
`
`Intelligent
`
`Page 000003
`
`
`
`Transportation Society of America (ITSA), Intelligent Transportation Society
`
`of California (ITSC), Institute of Navigation (ION), and International Counsel
`
`on Systems Engineering (INCOSE).
`
`10.
`
`My education includes a B.S. in Electrical Engineering from the University of
`
`California,
`
`Irvine, and an M.S.
`
`in Electronic Engineering from Stanford
`
`University.
`
`11.
`
`I have been retained on behalf of Petitioner and real party in interest, Liberty
`
`Mutual Insurance Company (“Petitioner” or “Liberty Mutual”),
`
`to offer
`
`statements and opinions regarding the understanding of a person of ordinary
`
`skill in the art (discussed below) as it relates to the identified patent assigned to
`
`Progressive Casualty Insurance Company (“Progressive”), as well as other
`
`references presented to me by counsel for Petitioner.
`
`12.
`
`I am being compensated at a rate of $300 per hour for my services, exclusive of
`
`any third party expert service fees. My compensation does not depend on the
`
`outcome of this Business Method Review Petition or the pending litigation
`
`between Petitioner and Progressive in the U.S. District Court for the Northern
`
`District of Ohio.
`
`II.
`
`Materials Considered
`
`Page 000004
`
`
`
`13.
`
`In developing my opinions below relating to Progressive’s ‘358 Patent, I have
`
`considered the following materials:
`
`0 Progressive’s U.S. Patent No. 8,140,358 (“the ‘358 Patent”)
`
`1001);
`
`0 A certified English translation of Japanese Patent Publ’n H4—182868
`
`(“Kosaka”)
`
`1003);
`
`0 UK Patent Application GB 2286369 (“Herrod”)
`
`1004);
`
`0 United States Patent Application Publication No. 2002/ 0128882
`
`(“Nakagawa”)
`
`1005);
`
`o OBD—II
`
`Background—Where’d
`
`It
`
`Come
`
`From?,
`
`http://www.OBDii.com/background.html (under “\X/here’d it come
`
`from?”)
`
`1027);
`
`0 Excerpt
`
`from Shuji
`
`Mizutani, Car Electronics,
`
`page
`
`250
`
`(Nippondenso Co. Ltd. 1992)
`
`1028); and
`
`o Excerpt from David S. Boehner, Automotive Microcontrollers, in
`
`Automotive Electronics Handbook, pages 11.24-11.29 (Ronald K.
`
`Jurgen ed., 1995)
`
`1029).
`
`Level of Ordinagg Skill for the ‘358 Patent
`
`I have read Progressive’s ‘358 Patent and understand it was filed on June 3,
`
`2008 and issued on March 20, 2012, and claims priority to an application filed
`
`on January 29, 1996.
`
`I have been informed, however, that Petitioner disputes
`
`the 1996 priority date claimed by the ‘358 Patent.
`
`III.
`
`14.
`
`Page 000005
`
`
`
`15.
`
`The ‘358 Patent purports to cover a telematics system used for insurance that
`
`contains a “data logging device [for] track[ing] the operation of a vehicle,” a
`
`storage device, a “processor [that] reads data from an automotive bus,” a
`
`“communication device [that] links the data logging device to a network of
`
`computers,” and “software [that] allows a user to access files related to a level
`
`of risk or safety.” EX. 1001 at 1:33-49, Abstract, claim 1.
`
`I understand this
`
`system ultimately operates to “generate a rating factor based on |] selected
`
`vehicle data” for insurance purposes. See id. at claim 1.
`
`I also understand that
`
`several of the dependent claims are devoted to certain implementation choices
`
`(mainly related to an in—vehicle device or a wireless transmitter), including,
`
`among others, using a wireless “pulse position protocol” (claim 2), a “wireless
`
`transaction facilitator”
`
`(claim 3),
`
`a “mobile broadband communication
`
`network” (claim 5), “multiple packet architectures” (claim 6), a “single—chip
`
`cellular base—band processor,” (claim 10), “integrated interface drivers” (claim
`
`13), an “embedded antenna element” (claim 14), installing “updated firmware |]
`
`transferred .
`
`.
`
`.
`
`through the wireless network” (claim 4), “indicat[ing] an
`
`available [wireless] channel capacity” (claim 7), and “receiv[ing] continuously
`
`transmitted trilateral encoded signals” (claim 8).
`
`16.
`
`I understand that the factors that may be considered in determining the
`
`ordinary level of skill
`
`in the art include:
`
`(1)
`
`the levels of education and
`
`Page 000006
`
`
`
`experience of persons working in the field;
`
`(2)
`
`the types of problems
`
`encountered in the field; and (3)
`
`the sophistication of the technology.
`
`I
`
`understand that a person of ordinary skill in the art is not a specific real
`
`individual, but rather a hypothetical individual having the qualities reflected by
`
`the factors above.
`
`17.
`
`The field of art relevant to the ‘358 patent is insurance, and more particularly
`
`insurance rating based on telematics data. In my opinion, a person of ordinary
`
`skill in the vehicle telematics aspects pertinent to the ‘358 patent (apart from
`
`the insurance cost aspects), as of January 1996, would have at least a B.S.
`
`degree in electrical engineering, computer engineering, computer science or the
`
`equivalent thereof and at least one to two years of experience with telematics
`
`systems for vehicles, particularly, telematics systems including communications
`
`and locations technologies.
`
`18.
`
`I base this opinion: on the level of technical training I believe is required to
`
`reduce to practice the concepts described in the ‘358 patent and the relevant
`
`prior art; my own experience in hiring and supervising about 30 engineers
`
`engaged in the development of these types of systems by January 1996; my
`
`experience working with developers of these types of systems at Toyota Motor
`
`Corporation in Japan; and my experience working with a technical staff drawn
`
`Page 000007
`
`
`
`from about 20 different automaker and automotive electronic suppliers as a
`
`part of the development of a set of industry telematics standards.
`
`19.
`
`For purposes of this Declaration, in general, and unless otherwise noted, my
`
`statements and opinions below, such as those regarding my experience and the
`
`understanding of a person of ordinary skill in the art generally (and specifically
`
`related to the references I consulted herein), reflect the knowledge that existed
`
`in the field as of January 1996. However, my statements and opinions
`
`concerning the Nakagawa reference below reflect the knowledge that existed in
`
`the field as of September 2002, when Nakagawa was published.
`
`IV.
`
`20.
`
`State of the Art in the Vehicle Telematics Industgg by Ianuagg 1996
`
`By 1996, several companies had developed vehicle telematics systems that
`
`measured vehicle data, such as speed, acceleration, time of day, etc. These
`
`systems commonly included in—vehicle data monitoring devices that would
`
`monitor the data, store it, and/ or transmit it to a remote location outside of the
`
`vehicle. The telematics data could be used for a variety of purposes, including
`
`insurance purposes, such as for setting insurance premiums.
`
`21.
`
`These in—vehicle data monitoring devices were well known in the art and
`
`included a variety of functions. For example, depending on the type or
`
`purpose of an in—vehicle monitoring device, it may have had sensors and other
`
`components within the device (e.g., an accelerometer) able to measure and
`
`-3-
`
`Page 000008
`
`
`
`collect operating data, or it may have been designed to collect data from
`
`sensors in the vehicle using a hardwire connection or through a vehicle bus. In
`
`the latter scenario, the device would interface with a vehicle bus (or data bus
`
`performing functions similar to a vehicle bus) that interconnects components
`
`(e.g., sensors) inside a vehicle to collect, for example, speed and acceleration
`
`data from sensors inside the vehicle that monitor these types of data. For
`
`example,
`
`the On—Board Diagnostics H (OBD—H) vehicle bus was used in
`
`vehicles since 1994 and has, in fact, been required in passenger vehicles and
`
`light duty trucks since January 1996, as mandated by the Environmental
`
`Protection Agency. Ex. 1027, OBD—H Background—Where’d It Come From?,
`
`http://www.OBDii.com/background.html (under “\X/here’d it come from?”).
`
`Moreover, multiplex networks, such as vehicle buses, have been in use in
`
`vehicles to connect components in a vehicle since the 1980s. The Society of
`
`Automotive Engineers, for example, released the draft specification for a serial
`
`automotive data bus designated SAE ]—1850 in December of 1989. Ex. 1028,
`
`Shuji Mizutani, Car Electronics 250 (Nippondenso Co. Ltd. 1992.)
`
`22.
`
`It was also well known that such in—vehicle monitoring devices would have
`
`memory, including volatile and non—volatile memory.
`
`Indeed, storing data in
`
`memory has been an integral part of any data processing system (including a
`
`telematics system) since long before 1996. Ex. 1029, David S. Boehner,
`
`Page 000009
Accessing this document will incur an additional charge of $.
After purchase, you can access this document again without charge.
Accept $ Charge
Still Working On It
This document is taking longer than usual to download. This can happen if we need to contact the court directly to obtain the document and their servers are running slowly.
Give it another minute or two to complete, and then try the refresh button.
A few More Minutes ... Still Working
It can take up to 5 minutes for us to download a document if the court servers are running slowly.
Thank you for your continued patience.
This document could not be displayed.
We could not find this document within its docket. Please go back to the docket page and check the link. If that does not work, go back to the docket and refresh it to pull the newest information.
Your account does not support viewing this document.
You need a Paid Account to view this document. Click here to change your account type.
Your account does not support viewing this document.
Set your membership
status to view this document.
With a Docket Alarm membership, you'll
get a whole lot more, including:
- Up-to-date information for this case.
- Email alerts whenever there is an update.
- Full text search for other cases.
- Get email alerts whenever a new case matches your search.
One Moment Please
The filing “” is large (MB) and is being downloaded.
Please refresh this page in a few minutes to see if the filing has been downloaded. The filing will also be emailed to you when the download completes.
Your document is on its way!
If you do not receive the document in five minutes, contact support at support@docketalarm.com.
Sealed Document
We are unable to display this document, it may be under a court ordered seal.
If you have proper credentials to access the file, you may proceed directly to the court's system using your government issued username and password.
Access Government Site
