`
`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
`
`
`
`
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
