Case No. |PR2013-00010
`Case No. IPR2013-00010
`
`Patent No. 7,516,484
`
`Patent No. 7,516,484
`Exhibit 2006
`Exhibit 2006
`
`0 MOTOROLA MOBILITY
`
`August 30, 2011
`
`By Email: lmeier@drm.com
`
`Lawrence H. Meier, Esq.
`Downs Rachlin Martin PLLC
`
`Courthouse Plaza
`199 Main Street
`
`PO. Box 190
`
`Burlington, VT 05402~0190
`
`Re: Arnonse Digitial Devices Corp. v. Alarm-01a WIobility, Inc. , 5:11-CV-155
`(D. Vt. 2011).
`
`Dear Lan‘y:
`
`We are in receipt of your letter of August 22, 2011, regarding the above-
`referenced matter, and I write in response to it.
`
`We have analyzed the infringement theory contained in your August 22nd letter
`and strongly disagree with your interpretation of the relevant claim language. Indeed,
`your arguments are in such direct contradiction of both black letter law and the patent’s
`prosecution history as to be frivolous.
`
`However, there is an even more disturbing deficiency in Amouse’s infringement
`claim. You candidly admit that, to prevail on your flawed theory, you first “would ask
`your expert to disable the screen of [an] Atrix phone” to confirm whether your theory of
`infringement would be viable even if your strained construction of the claims were
`adopted. This statement reveals that Amouse has failed to conduct a reasonable pro-suit
`investigation as Rule 1 1 requires, and instead filed its lawsuit (a) on mere speculation that
`the accused device might infringe if it could be operated in a certain way, and (b) in the
`absence of any confirmation whatsoever that the device in fact operates in the way you
`believe it must for infringement to occur.
`
`Filing an infi’ingement suit without testing the accused device for infringement
`violates Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 11. See View Eng ’g, Inc. v. Robolic Vision Sys,
`Inc, 208 F.3d 981, 985 (Fed. Cir. 2000) (upholding Rule 1 l sanctions for inadequate pre-
`suit
`investigation where plaintist counsel admitted that belief of infi‘ingement was
`formed merely “‘based on what we could learn about [defendant’s] machines from pub-
`licly available information, and [defendant’s] literature,” without testing device in ques-
`tion); Jndin v. United States, 110 F.3d 780, 784 (Fed. Cir. 1997) (vacating as abuse of
`discretion district court’s denial of Rule 11 sanctions where plaintiff and counsel “failed
`to obtain, or attempt[] to obtain, a sample of the accused device .
`.
`. so that its actual de-
`sign and functioning could be compared with the patent. .
`.
`. Under these circumstances,
`
`Motorola Mobility, Inc.
`600 North U. S. Highway 45
`Libertyvtfle. IL 60048-1286
`Tel (847) 523-6588 - Fax {847) 523-0727
`
`

`

`0 MOTOROLA MOBILITY
`
`Lawrence H. Meier, Esq.
`August 30, 2011
`Page 2
`
`there is no doubt that [plaintiff] failed to meet the minimum standards imposed by Rule
`11.”).
`
`Here, just as in View Engineering and Judi", Amouse has failed to conduct an
`adequate pro-suit investigation.
`
`Motorola Mobility has had to expend resources in analyzing and defending Ar-
`nouse’s baseless allegations. If Amouse continues to pursue its claims against Motorola
`Mobility, we will seek reimbursement of Motorola Mobility’s fees.
`
`We agree to forgo seeking reimbursement of such fees if your client dismisses the
`cun‘ent lawsuit within 10 days. Please let us have your response to this demand as soon as
`possible.
`
`Very truly yours,
`
`Timothy M. Kowalski
`Lead Intellectual Property Counsel
`
`00: Molly Peck, Motorola Mobility, Inc.
`
`Motorola Mobility, Inc.
`600 North U. S. Highway 45
`Libertyw'fle, IL 60048-1286
`Tel (847) 523-6588 - Fax (847) 523-0727
`
`