`
`BEFORE T}IE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`TERREMARKNORTH AMERICA LLC, VERIZON BUSINESS NETWORK
`SERVICES INC., VERIZON SERVICES CORP., TIME WARNER CABLE INC.,
`ICONTROL NETWORKS, fNC., AND COXCOM, LLC,
`Petitioners,
`
`v.
`
`JOAO CONTROL & MONITORING SYSTEMS, LLC,
`Patent Owner
`
`INTERPARTES REVIEWNO:
`
`IPR20 1 5 -01 482 (P at. 7,397,363)
`
`DECLARATION OF RENE A. VAZOUEZ
`
`
`
`I, Ren6 A. Vazquez, declare as follows:
`1.
`back-up counsel for Patent Owner Joao Control & Monitoring Systems, LLC
`
`I am a lawyer at the law firm of Heninger, Garrison Davis, LLC. I am
`
`(hereinafter, "JCMS") in the request for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent
`7,397,363 in case IPR2015-01482. I submit this declaration in opposition to
`
`Petitioners Terremark North America LLC, et al.'s Motion to Recognize Iune 23,
`
`2015 as Filing Date of Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent 7,397,363
`
`("the '363 petition") in case IPR2015-1482.I have knowledge of the facts set forth
`
`in this declaration and could and would competently testify to the facts stated
`
`herein.
`2. On June 23,2014, Yenzon Communications, Inc. was served with a
`
`Complaint alleging infringement of the '363 Patent. See JCMS v. Terremark North
`
`America LLC, C.A. No. L4-525-GMS, D.I. 5 (D. Del.)("Proof of Service," attached
`
`hereto as Exhibit 2002).
`3. After service, by stipulation of the parties, Petitioner Terremark North
`
`America LLC was substituted as a defendant in place of Verizon Communications
`
`Inc. Id. at D.I. 11 (Stipulation attached hereto as Exhibit 2004). Petitioner
`Terremark North America LLC is a wholly-owned subsidiary of Verizon
`
`Communications Inc. See JCMS v. Terremark North America LLC, C.A. No. 14-
`
`525-GMS, D.I. 10 (D. Del. 2014)(Terremark's Rule 7.1 Disclosure Statement,
`
`Page 2 of 5
`
`Patent Owner JCMS's Exhibit No. 2001
`IPR20 1 5-0 1 482 (P at. 7,397,363)
`
`
`
`attached hereto as Exhibit 2003). Petitioners here have identified Verizon
`
`Communications Inc. as areal party in interest to the present petition. Paper 1 at 1-
`
`2.
`
`4. On June 23,2014, Petitioner Time Warner Inc. was also served with a
`
`Complaint alleging infringement of the '363 Patent. See JCMS, LLC v. Time
`
`Warner, Inc., C.A. No. |4-524-GMS, D.I. 5 (D. Del.)("Proof of Service," attached
`
`hereto as Exhibit 2005).
`5. The USPTO's Public PAIR records show that the "AttorneylAgent"
`
`for the '363 Patent is Mr. Raymond Joao. The same record provides Mr. Joao's
`
`coffespondence address and telephone number.
`6. Attached hereto as Exhibit 2006 is a true and correct copy of the
`
`U.S.P.S. tracking data demonstrating service of IPR2015-01482, IPR2015-01485
`
`and IPR2015-01486 via Priority Mail Express to the Patent Owner on June 24,
`
`2015.
`
`7. Auached hereto as Exhibit 2007 is a true and correct copy of the
`
`FedEx tracking data demonstrating service of IPR2015-01466, IPR2015-01477,
`
`2015-01478 and IPM015-01484 via FedEx to the Patent Owner on June 24,2015.
`8.
`
`I am registered to practice before the U.S.P.T.O. and am fully aware
`
`of the regulations and rules for filing procedure with the PRPS.
`9. The Board's trial practice rules, particularly 37 C.F.R. 42.6(d)
`
`Page 3 of5
`
`Patent Owner JCMS's Exhibit No, 2001
`IPR20 1 5-0 I 482 (P at. 7,397,3 63)
`
`
`
`requires that each paper be filed one time in a proceeding.
`10. On information and belief Petitioners were required to submit the
`
`Exhibits for each Petition in each proceeding; Petitioners could not refer back to a
`
`previously filed an exhibit in a separate proceeding as evidence in support of the
`
`IPR2015-0L482IPR proceeding. Thus, on information belief, statements made by
`
`the paralegal Ms. Robinson, who was experienced with the IPR proceedings before
`
`the PTAB were incorect and did not adhere to the Board's procedures.
`11. In my years of experience, I have completed many filings with the
`
`USPTO including filings using the PRPS system.
`12. Patent Owner did not discover that Petitioners' originally-filed
`
`Certificate of Service was false until my colleague took the tracking number on the
`
`box sent to Mr. Joao and looked it up in U.S.P.S. tracking system as set forth in
`
`Exhibit 2006.
`13. Attached hereto as Exhibit 2008 is a true and correct copy of an email
`
`I sent to Petitioners' counsel Clay Holloway on July 17,2015, inquiring about the
`
`accuracy of Petitioners' certificates of service.
`14. On July 29,2015, I received an email from Petitioner's counsel that
`
`the Expert Declaration in support of the '363 Petition was not yet filed with the
`
`PTAB and was never served on Patent Owner.
`15. Attached hereto as Exhibit2009 is a true and correct copy of the email
`
`Page 4 of5
`
`Patent Owner JCMS's Exhibit No. 2001
`IPR201 5-01482 (Pat. 7,397,363)
`
`
`
`&om petitioner's counsel Clay Holloway informing me of the omission of the
`
`Declaration (Petitioner's Exhibit 1002).
`16. Agached hereto as Exhibit 2010 is a true and correct copy of the email
`
`of July 31,2A15 from Clay Holloway confirming that the Declaration was never
`
`served on Patent Owner.
`
`I 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; 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 1001 of Title 18 of the United States Code.
`
`Rene A. Vaquez
`Heninger Garrison Davis LLC
`
`Date: August 19,2015
`
`Page 5 of5
`
`Patent Owner JCMS's Exhibit No. 2001
`IPR201 5-01482 (Pat. 7,391,363)