UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`COSTCO WHOLESALE CORPORATION,
`Petitioner,
`
`¥,
`
`ROBERT BOSCH LLC,
`Patent Owner.
`
`DECLARATION OF MARTIN KASHNOWSKI
`
`Robert Bosch Exhibit 2007
`Page I
`COSTCO(Petitioner) v. ROBERT BOSCH(Patent Owner)
`IPR2016-00034; IPR2016-00036; IPR2016-00038;
`IPR2016-00039; [PR2016-00040; IPR2016-00041
`
`
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`COSTCO WHOLESALE CORPORATION,
`Petitioner,
`
`¥,
`
`ROBERT BOSCH LLC,
`Patent Owner.
`
`DECLARATION OF MARTIN KASHNOWSKI
`
`Robert Bosch Exhibit 2007
`Page I
`COSTCO(Petitioner) v. ROBERT BOSCH(Patent Owner)
`IPR2016-00034; IPR2016-00036; IPR2016-00038;
`IPR2016-00039; [PR2016-00040; IPR2016-00041
`
`
`
`I, Martin Kashnowski, hereby declare as follows:
`
`1.
`
`[am employed as Director, Commodities Management for Robert
`
`Bosch LLC.
`
`[ was previously employed by Robert Bosch LLC as Director of
`
`Product Management for Wiping Systems, and had been working to various
`
`degrees in that capacity since 1993.
`
`2.
`
`When I began working with wiping systems in 1993, I was working
`
`exclusively with what are now commonly referred to in the industry as
`
`“conventional” wiper blades. These blades have a numberof disadvantages
`
`compared to what are now commonly referred to as “beam”or“flat” wiper
`
`blades. For example, the conventional blades can be clogged with ice and snow,
`
`whichcan cause the blade to freeze and stick and lead to banding, which can result
`
`in poor visibility. For another example, conventional blades are also proneto
`
`wearing unevenly, with the portion of the wiper strip underneath the pressure
`
`points wearing first, which can lead to streaking and poorvisibility. All of these
`
`problems with conventional wiper blades were well known in the industry, but
`
`solutions to those problems were not.
`
`3.
`
`In 2002, Bosch introduced a wiper blade called Aerotwin to the
`
`automotive aftermarket, first in Europe and then in the United States. The
`
`Robert Bosch Exhibit 2007
`Page 2
`COSTCO(Petitioner) v. ROBERT BOSCH(Patent Owner)
`IPR2016-00034; IPR2016-00036; IPR2016-00038;
`IPR2016-00039; IPR2016-00040; IPR2016-00041
`
`
`
`Aerotwin blade wasthe first commercially successful beam blade in the U.S.
`
`aftermarket and it was given a numberof awards by industry groups, including
`
`both the Pace award and the Automechanika award. The Pace award particularly
`
`mentioned the use of a flexible spoiler on the Aerotwin blade. As far as I know,
`
`there were no commercially viable beam blades prior to 2002.
`
`4.
`
`One disadvantage of the Aerotwin product was that we needed
`
`approximately 75 to 80 different part numbers (physically different blades) to fit
`
`the different applications (car model years) for which we wereselling the Aerotwin
`
`wiperblades(at that time, these were primarily European cars). The different part
`
`numbers were necessary because different cars have differently shaped
`
`windshields, and because the Aerotwin blade was very sensitive both to air
`
`pressure and to the shape of the windshield. Some windshields are shaped in
`
`complicated ways and, for example, have depressions that can’t be seen with the
`
`naked eye yet affect wiping quality. So Bosch custom-made each different
`
`Aerotwin part number to work on a specific application.
`
`5.
`
`In 2005, Bosch introduced the Icon wiper blade to the U.S.
`
`aftermarket. The Icon blade was a beam blade designed to cover more applications
`
`with fewer part numbers than the Aerotwin blade. The demand from our
`
`Robert Bosch Exhibit 2007
`Page 3
`COSTCO(Petitioner) v. ROBERT BOSCH(Patent Owner)
`IPR2016-00034; IPR2016-00036; [PR2016-00038;
`JPR2016-00039; IPR2016-00040; IPR2016-00041
`
`
`
`customers for the Icon blade was considerably high, even though it was more
`
`expensive than conventional blades. Customers were more excited for the Icon
`
`product than for any other automotive product I had been involved with.
`
`6.
`
`Both the Aerotwin blade and the Icon blade included a flexible spoiler
`
`with diverging legs mounted on the top of the blade, as well as plastic end
`
`caps. Bosch tested these products extensively before releasing them. One aspect
`
`tested was noise. The Bosch beam blades were quiet in operation, including when
`
`the wiping direction changes and the wiperstrip flips from oneside to the other.
`
`Those features were part of the reason for the great customer demand for these
`
`products. Both products solved many of the problems associated with
`
`conventional blades.
`
`7.
`
`The commercial success of the Icon product was in contrast to the
`
`failure of a competitor’s beam-blade product, the Trico Innovision wiper
`
`blade. The Trico product was introduced in 2004, before Icon, but it failed in the
`
`marketplace. The Trico product included neither a flexible spoiler nor end caps.
`
`8.
`
`In 2006, Bosch’s sales of the Icon product were approximately $17M;
`
`in 2007, they were approximately $24M, and in 2008, approximately $28M. These
`
`sales figures are significant in the context of aftermarket wiper blades. In 2008,
`
`Robert Bosch Exhibit 2007
`Page 4
`COSTCO(Petitioner) v. ROBERT BOSCH (Patent Owner)
`IPR2016-00034; IPR2016-00036; IPR2016-00038;
`IPR2016-00039; [PR2016-00040; IPR2016-00041
`
`
`
`the Icon product was given the Frost & Sullivan award for innovation. At that time
`
`Frost & Sullivan was one of the more prominent automotive research
`
`organizations.
`
`9.
`
`Boschcreated an entirely new and tremendously successful market
`
`category when it introduced Aerotwin and Icon. But within a year, knockoff
`
`products that to me looked identical to Icon appeared in the United States. In
`
`particular, like the Icon blade, the knockoff products included spoilers with
`
`diverging legs similar to that shown on the cover of United States Patent No.
`
`6,944,905, as well as end caps.
`
`10.
`
`Ihave previously testified about many of the issues discussed above
`
`in connection with various lawsuits in which Robert Bosch LLC sought to defend
`
`its patent rights related to beam blades, including at the 2010 trial of Bosch’s case
`
`against a company called Pylon. Despite Bosch’s efforts, however, competitors
`
`continued to sell knockoff products that appeared to me to be copies of Bosch’s
`
`aftermarket beam blades, including Icon and its successor products such as the
`
`Evolution wiper blade.
`
`11.
`
`However, the industry is now largely respectful of Bosch’s beam-
`
`blade patent rights. All of Bosch’s major competitors have madelicensing
`
`Robert Bosch Exhibit 2007
`Page 5
`COSTCO(Petitioner) v. ROBERT BOSCH (Patent Owner)
`IPR2016-00034; IPR2016-00036; IPR2016-00038;
`IPR2016-00039; IPR2016-00040; IPR2016-00041
`
`
`
`agreements with Bosch related to Bosch’s beam-blade patents. Boschhas received
`
`more than ${in settlement and royalties from these agreements, as well as
`
`agreements with smaller competitors. The patents specifically licensed in most of
`
`these agreements include United States Patent Nos. 6,292,974; 6,944,905; and
`
`6,973,698.
`
`12.
`
`In signing this declaration, I recognize that the declaration will be
`
`filed as evidence in a contested case before the Patent Trial and Appeal Board of
`
`the United States Patent and Trademark Office.
`
`I also recognize that I may be
`
`subject to cross-examination in the case and that cross-examination will take place
`
`within the United States. If cross-examination is required of me, | will appear for
`
`cross-examination within the United States during the timeallotted for cross-
`
`examination.
`
`I hereby declare under the penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and
`
`correct.
`
`Dated: 7-22-ZolG
`
`ELLEZA
`
`Martin Kashnowski
`
`Robert Bosch Exhibit 2007
`Page 6
`COSTCO(Petitioner} v. ROBERT BOSCH (Patent Owner)
`IPR2016-00034; IPR2016-00036; [PR2016-00038;
`IPR2016-00039; IPR2016-00040; IPR2016-00041
`
`
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
