`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`HUGHES NETWORK SYSTEMS, LLC and
`HUGHES COMMUNICATIONS, INC.,
`
`Petitioners,
`
`v.
`
`CALIFORNIA INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY,
`
`Patent Owner.
`
`Case IPR2015-00059 (Patent 7,916,781)
`Case IPR2015-00060 (Patent 7,421,032)
`Case IPR2015-00061(Patent8,284,833)
`Case IPR2015-00067 (Patent 7,116,710)
`Case IPR2015-00068 (Patent 7, 116, 710)
`Case IPR2015-00081(Patent8,284,833)
`
`DECLARATION OF TIMOTHY JEZEK IN SUPPORT OF PETITIONERS'
`REPLY BRIEF REGARDING IDENTIFICATION OF REAL PARTIES-IN(cid:173)
`INTEREST
`
`Hughes, Exh. 1070, p. 1
`
`
`
`I, Timothy Jezek, declare:
`
`1.
`
`I am currently employed at Hughes Network Systems, LLC as in-
`
`house Intellectual Property Counsel.
`
`I have been working at Hughes since
`
`November, 2010. I have personal knowledge of the facts set forth herein, and, if
`
`called to testify in person, could and would testify competently thereto. I have been
`
`the Hughes in-house counsel responsible for the pending district comi case
`
`captioned California Institute of Technology v. Hughes Communications, Inc. et
`
`al., No. 13-CV-07245 (CACD) (the "Caltech litigation") since its filing.
`
`2.
`
`I am over the age of 18, have never been convicted of a felony or
`
`crime of moral turpitude and am legally competent to make this declaration.
`
`3.
`
`Hughes Network Systems, LLC and Hughes Communications, Inc.
`
`("Petitioners") are Delaware corporations, and both entities are subsidiaries of
`
`EchoStar Corporation ("EchoStar").
`
`4.
`
`The decision to file the above captioned Petitions for inter partes
`
`review (the "Petitions") was made entirely by Petitioners' in-house counsel
`
`responsible for litigation and intellectual property matters. The decision to file the
`
`Petitions was made independently of DISH Network Corporation, DISH Network
`
`L.L.C., or dishNET Satellite Broadband L.L.C. (collectively, "DISH").
`
`2
`
`Hughes, Exh. 1070, p. 2
`
`
`
`5.
`
`DISH did not direct, control, or suggest the filing of these Petitions.
`
`DISH did not provide any input into the content of the Petitions. DISH did not
`
`participate in the preparation or filing of the petitions.
`
`6.
`
`Petitioners did not receive any reimbursement, payment, or any other
`
`funding from DISH (or any other non-party) related to the filing of the Petitions.
`
`All attorneys' fees and costs incurred in preparing and filing the Petitions were
`
`borne by Petitioners alone.
`
`7.
`
`Neither EchoStar nor Petitioners sought or obtained approval to file
`
`the Petitions from any member of the Boards of EchoStar or DISH, including
`
`Charles Ergen.
`
`8.
`
`No person involved in the decision to file the Petitions, nor in the
`
`preparation of the petitions, is an employee of DISH.
`
`9.
`
`Petitioners have not acted as a proxy for DISH in these proceedings in
`
`any way.
`
`10. DISH and EchoStar are separate publicly-traded companies with
`
`different stock trading symbols ("DISH" and "SATS," respectively). Each
`
`company is governed by its own board of directors, has its own management team,
`
`and has separate budgets, financial statements, and operations.
`
`11. Attached as Exhibit I 071 is a non-confidential portion of a larger
`
`omnibus summary judgment filing made under seal in the pending Caltech
`
`3
`
`Hughes, Exh. 1070, p. 3
`
`
`
`litigation. The Exhibit contains that portion of the filing dealing with a motion for
`
`summary judgment to dismiss DISH from the pending Caltech litigation. The
`
`motion was filed on March 5, 2015 and lays out the basis for dismissal. The
`
`motion correctly states that Caltech failed to present any expert testimony in the
`
`district court case on the issue of infringement as to any DISH product. As a
`
`result, Petitioners anticipate that the patent owner's allegations directed to the
`
`DISH products will be dismissed from the Caltech litigation.
`
`I hereby declare that all statements made herein of my own knowledge are
`
`true and that all statements made on information or belief are believed to be true;
`
`and further that these statements were made with the knowledge that willful false
`
`statements and the like so made are punishable by fine or imprisonment, or both,
`
`under Section I 001 of Title 18 of the United States Code and that such willful false
`
`statements may jeopardize the results of these proceedings.
`
`March If, 2015
`
`4
`
`Hughes, Exh. 1070, p. 4
`
`