CBM2017-00008 Ex. 1007
`Broadsign International, LLC Petitioner
` 1
`
`
`Broadsign International, LLC Petitioner
` 1
`
`
`
`CBM2017-00008
`
`U.S. Pat. No. 6,43 0,603
`
`I, Burr R. Smith, declare the following facts:
`
`1.
`
`I am the Chairman, President, and Chief Executive Officer at
`
`Broadsign International, LLC (“Broadsign”).
`
`I have personal knowledge of the
`
`facts set forth herein, and can testify competently thereto.
`
`2.
`
`Broadsign supplies hardware and software solutions to customers,
`
`including operators of networks of digital displays.
`
`3.
`
`Since 2012, T-Rex Property AB has filed at least 58 cases against
`
`digital signage media owners and vendors, including our customers, alleging
`
`infringement of one or more of the following patents: U.S. Patent Number
`
`6,430,603 (“the ’603 Patent”), U.S. Patent Number 7, 382,334 (“the ’334 Patent”),
`
`and U.S. Patent Number RE39,470 (“the ’470 Patent”).
`
`4.
`
`So far, T-Rex Property AB has filed at least five patent-infringement
`
`lawsuits against Broadsign customers.
`
`5.
`
`One Broadsign customer, Health Media Network, LLC was sued by
`
`T—Rex Property AB on May 27, 2016 in the United States District for the Northern
`
`District of Illinois (Case No. 1:16-cv-05673). T-Rex Property AB accused
`
`Broadsign’s customer of infringing the ’603 Patent, the ’334 Patent, and the ’470
`
`Patent and identified the infringing devices and systems as the “digital health
`
`media advertising network.” Broadsign sold and delivered the “digital health
`
`media advertising network” product to Health Media Network, LLC.
`
`2
`
`2
`
` 2
`
`
`
`CBM20 1 7—O0008
`
`US. Pat. No. 6,430,603
`
`6.
`
`Another Broadsign customer, ContextMedia Health, LLC, was sued
`
`by T—Rex Property AB on July 1 1, 2016 in the United States District Court for the
`
`Northern District of Illinois (Case No. 1:16-cv—04826). T—Rex Property AB
`
`accused Broadsign’s customer of infringing the ’603 Patent, the ’334 Patent, and
`
`the ’47O Patent and identified the infringing devices and systems as the “Digital
`
`Waiting Room Screen.” Broadsign sold and delivered the “Digital Waiting Room
`
`Screen” product to Contextlvledia.
`
`7.
`
`T—Rex Property AB has had direct discussions, including an in-person
`
`meeting, with representatives of Broadsign.
`
`I have been involved with the
`
`discussions with T-Rex Property AB and, in July 2016, I personally attended a
`
`meeting with T-Rex principals at T—Rex Property AB’s offices in Sweden to
`
`discuss T-Rex Property AB’s proposal that Broadsign take a license to the ’603
`
`Patent, the ’334 Patent, and the ’470 Patent in order to protect Broadsign and its
`
`customers from litigation and future law suits. In those discussions, T-Rex
`
`Property AB produced a form of license agreement which Broadsign did not agree
`
`to sign. In addition to myself, the meeting in Sweden was attended by Sandra
`
`Beauchesne on behalf of Broadsign. Since the meeting in Sweden in July, 2016,
`
`T-Rex Property AB has contacted Broadsign threatening to sue additional
`
`Broadsign customers unless Broadsign takes a license to the '603 Patent, '334
`
`Patent and the '470 Patent.
`
` 3
`
`
`
`CBM20 l 7-00008
`
`U.S. Pat. No. 6,43 0,603
`
`8.
`
`As a result of the T-Rex Property AB lawsuits filed against
`
`Broadsign’s customers over the past year accusing Broadsign’s products and
`
`services of infringing each of the patents-in-suit, as well as T-Rex Property AB’s
`
`demands that Broadsign take a license to the ‘603 Patent, the ‘334 Patent and the
`
`‘470 Patent in order to resolve pending litigation against Broadsiglfs customers
`
`and to prevent future litigation against Broadsign and its customers, I believe that
`
`there is a real, immediate controversy between T-Rex Property AB and Broadsign
`
`concerning T—Rex Property AB’s assertions that the Broadsign products and
`
`services are infringing. Moreover, I believe that there is a real and palpable threat
`
`of suit by T—Rex Property AB against Broadsign and against additional Broadsign
`
`customers arising from their use of Broadsign’s products. This threat is real and
`
`not idle, not only because of the suits against Broadsign’s existing customers, but
`
`also because T-Rex Property AB has filed approximately 58 patent infringement
`
`suits asserting one or more of these same patents in 17 separate judicial districts
`
`throughout the United States.
`
`9.
`
`The lawsuits against Broadsign’s customers, the demand for a license
`
`from Broadsign and T-Rex Property AB’s litigious business model and conduct
`
`have placed a cloud over Broadsign and its business and have injured or are
`
`injuring Broadsign’s business, creating a concrete and immediate justiciable
`
`controversy between Broadsign and T-Rex Property AB. Broadsign cannot simply
`
`4
`
`4
`
` 4
`
`
`
`CBM20 1 7-00008
`
`U.S. Pat. No. 6,430,603
`
`stand by while its business suffers irreparable harm.
`
`10.
`
`T-Rex Property AB’s patent—assertion campaign against the digital
`
`display industry has affected and continues to harm Broadsign’s business and
`
`customers. On June 16, 2016, Broadsign filed a complaint in the United States
`
`District Court for the Southern District of New York (Case No. l:l6—cV-045 86)
`
`seeking a declaratory judgment of non-infringement against T-Rex Property AB as
`
`to the ’603 Patent, the ’334 Patent, and the ’470 Patent. On September 15, 2016,
`
`Broadsign filed an Amended Complaint.
`
`1 1.
`
`The lawsuits brought by T-Rex Property AB against Broadsign’s
`
`customers have adversely affected Broadsign’s business by, for example, causing
`
`strain on the relationships between T-Rex Property AB and its customers.
`
`12.
`
`I declare that all statements made herein of my knowledge are true,
`
`and that all statements made on information and belief are believed to be true, and
`
`that these statements were made with the knowledge that willful false statements
`
`and the like are punishable by fine or imprisonment, or both, under Section 1001 of
`
`Title 18 of the United States Code.
`
` 5
`
`
`
`I0/‘as’/)6
`
`CBM2017-00008
`
`U.S. Pat. No. 6,430,603
`
`Signature
`
`Date
`
`gflo/(L
`Printed Name
`
`. Sm LTK}
`
`(fix).
`Title
`
` 6
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
