`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`
`ARRIS GROUP, INC.
`Petitioner
`
`v.
`
`C-CATION TECHNOLOGIES, LLC
`Patent Owner
`
`
`
`Case IPR2014-00746
`
`Patent 5,563,883
`
`
`
`DECLARATION OF ANDREW R. SOMMER IN SUPPORT OF
`PETITIONER’S MOTION TO EXPUNGE ORIGINAL EXHIBIT 1009 AND
`TO ACCEPT THE SUBMISSION OF CORRECTED EXHIBIT 1009
`
`
`
`I, Andrew R. Sommer hereby declare as follows:
`
`1.
`
`I am lead counsel for Petitioner ARRIS Group, Inc. (“ARRIS”) in
`
`connection with IPR2014-00746. I am a partner at the law firm of Winston &
`
`Strawn LLP and am registered to practice before the United States Patent and
`
`Trademark Office, as well as in the Commonwealth of Virginia and the District of
`
`Columbia. I have personal knowledge of the facts set forth herein and if called
`
`upon to testify to them I can do so.
`
`2.
`
`I personally handled the filing of the petition for IPR filed in
`
`connection with IPR2014-00746. I also personally handled the exhibit numbering,
`
`but not the Bates numbering of the Exhibits submitted on May 13, 2014 in
`
`connection with the petition. I also was the primary draftsman of the petition for
`
`IPR I filed on behalf of ARRIS.
`
`3. While I was drafting the petition filed in connection with IPR2014-
`
`00746, I was keeping a running list of exhibits to be filed to support the proposed
`
`grounds for trial. During the drafting process, I overlooked the fact that I had
`
`cited the same version of Newton’s Telecom Dictionary for different definitions
`
`and identified those different definitions as being included as Exhibits 1005 and
`
`1009. Since the petition and the supporting declaration were essentially complete,
`
`rather than re-number all of the exhibits after 1009, or leave exhibit 1009 blank, I
`
`
`
`decided I would submit exhibits 1005 and 1009 with the same cover page and
`
`copyright page, but include the different definitions that corresponded to the
`
`appropriate citations in the petition and supporting declaration.
`
`4.
`
`After I made this decision, I asked my secretary to scan the dictionary
`
`definitions as separate exhibits, but to include the same cover page and copyright
`
`page. Based on my email records, my secretary complied with my request. As I
`
`was opening the scanned images, I was applying the appropriate exhibit numbers to
`
`the various exhibits to prepare them for filing. During this process, rather than
`
`open the two different files corresponding to different excerpts from Newton’s
`
`Telecom Dictionary, I opened the same file twice and gave it two different exhibit
`
`labels (numbers 1005 and 1009, respectively).
`
`5.
`
`I then sent all of the exhibits to my secretary so that they could be
`
`bates numbered. When I checked the bates numbering at the bottom of the pages
`
`to ensure compliance with the Board’s rules, I overlooked the fact that Exhibits
`
`1005 and 1009 were identical. This oversight was unintentional and was due to the
`
`fact that I had two exhibits with the same cover page.
`
`6.
`
`I was advised of the clerical error in the submission of exhibit 1009 on
`
`the morning of May 14, 2014, and I promptly contacted the Board to request
`
`authorization to file a replacement exhibit. I received an email back from the
`
`Board instructing me to file a corrected version of Exhibit 1009 promptly, which I
`
`
`
`did. I also instructed staff in my office to ensure that the replacement exhibit was
`
`properly served on Patent Owner.
`
`7.
`
`I hereby declare that all statements made herein of my own
`
`knowledge are true, and that all statements made on information and belief are
`
`believed to be true. I further declare that these statements were made with the
`
`knowledge that willful false statements are punishable by fine or imprisonment, or
`
`both, under Section 1001 of Title 18 of the United States Code.
`
`
`
`Respectfully Submitted,
`
`
`
`
`
`__/s Andrew R. Sommer/
`
`Andrew R. Sommer
`
`Dated: June 10, 2014
`
`
`
`