`
`_________________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`_________________
`
`GOOGLE LLC,
`Petitioner
`
`v.
`
`SEVEN Networks, LLC,
`Patent Owner
`
`_________________
`
`Case IPR2018-011(cid:19)(cid:21)(cid:3)
`Patent No. (cid:27)(cid:15)(cid:27)(cid:20)(cid:20)(cid:15)(cid:28)(cid:24)(cid:21)
`_________________
`
`Declaration of Joseph Shear
`
`Page 1 of 7
`
`GOOGLE EXHIBIT 104(cid:19)
`Google LLC v. Seven Networks, LLC
`IPR2018-011(cid:19)(cid:21)
`
`1
`
`Exhibit 1030
`Samsung v. Seven Networks
`Proceeding No. IPR2018-01108
`
`
`
`I, Joseph Shear, declare:
`
`1.
`
`I am an attorney for Google LLC (“Google”). I provide this
`
`Declaration in connection with the above-identified Inter Partes Review (“IPR”)
`
`proceeding. Unless otherwise stated, the facts stated in this Declaration are based
`
`on my personal knowledge.
`
`2.
`
`I am a member of Google’s Patent Litigation legal team and an
`
`employee of Google (and not Alphabet Inc. or XXVI Holdings Inc.).
`
`3.
`
`At Google, my work has involved managing patent litigation in
`
`federal court and supervising related proceedings before the USPTO at the time the
`
`petition was prepared and filed.
`
`Background
`
`4.
`
`Google is a Delaware limited liability company, having its principal
`
`place of business in California. Google is a wholly owned subsidiary of XXVI
`
`Holdings Inc. (“XXVI”).
`
`5.
`
`XXVI is a wholly owned subsidiary of Alphabet Inc. (“Alphabet”)
`
`that holds the equity of Alphabet’s subsidiaries, including Google.
`
`6.
`
`Alphabet is a publicly traded company. It is a holding company that
`
`owns a collection of subsidiary companies known as “Bets”.
`
`Page 2 of 7
`
`1
`
`2
`
`
`
`7.
`
`8.
`
`only named defendant in that district court proceeding; neither Alphabet nor XXVI
`
`are parties to that district court proceeding. Ex.1041; Ex. 1052.
`
`. Google is the
`
`9.
`
`This Underlying Litigation
`
`10.
`
` SEVEN Networks filed a Complaint on May 17, 2017, against
`
`Google Inc. in E.D. Texas. See Ex. 1041.
`
`11.
`
` At the time the complaint was filed (May 17, 2017), Google Inc. had
`
`already become a subsidiary of Alphabet. Neither Alphabet nor XXVI was named
`
`Page 3 of 7
`
`2
`
`3
`
`
`
`in SEVEN Network’s Complaint, or in its First Amended Complaint filed on
`
`August 22, 2017. See Ex. 1041; Ex. 1052.
`
`12.
`
` In August 2017, in the district court, Google filed its Rule 7.1.
`
`Corporate disclosure statement to indicate that “Google Inc. [was] a wholly owned
`
`subsidiary of Alphabet Inc., a publicly held corporation.” Ex. 1053.
`
`13.
`
` On October 5, 2017, Google submitted an unopposed Motion to the
`
`District Court to reflect the corporate name change from Google Inc. to Google
`
`LLC (see Ex. 1054), and a new corporate disclosure statement to state that “Google
`
`LLC is a wholly owned subsidiary of XXVI Holdings Inc., which is a wholly
`
`owned subsidiary of Alphabet Inc., a publicly traded company” (Ex. 1055).
`
`14.
`
` Neither Alphabet nor XXVI have agreed
`
`15. Google, and not Alphabet or XXVI, controls the underlying litigation
`
`strategy.
`
`This IPR Proceeding
`
`16.
`
`This IPR petition was filed only on behalf of Google—not on behalf
`
`of Alphabet or XXVI.
`
`Page 4 of 7
`
`3
`
`4
`
`
`
`HIGHLY CONFIDENTIAL - PROTECTIVE ORDER MATERIAL
`
`17. No individual or representative for Alphabet or XXVI has directed or
`
`informed the strategy for the SEVEN Networks litigation, or this IPR proceeding.
`
`Alphabet’s Board (Ex. 1046) has not directed, controlled, or funded this IPR
`
`proceeding.
`
`XXVI officer, director, or employee was consulted regarding the preparation of
`
`this IPR petition or the decision to file this IPR petition.
`
`. No Alphabet or
`
`18.
`
`
`
`Samsung’s Non-Participation in This Proceeding
`
`19.
`
`Seven also filed a district court litigation against Samsung. See
`
`SEVEN Networks, LLC v. Samsung Electronics America, Inc., et al., 2:17-cv-
`
`00441 (E.D. Tex. 2017)). The cases have been consolidated for pretrial
`
`proceedings. As a result, Google has jointly filed certain papers with Samsung in
`
`the consolidated cases (e.g., claim construction briefing and invalidity
`
`contentions). The jointly-filed papers and coordination in district court were made
`
`Page 5 of 7
`
`4
`
`5
`
`
`
`HIGHLY CONFIDENTIAL - PROTECTIVE ORDER MATERIAL
`
`
`
`
`
`Ex. 1048 at 1. Google has reiterated this in correspondence stating that
`
`20.
`
`Samsung has not played a role in this IPR proceeding. I know that
`
`because I directed the preparation and filing of this IPR petition.
`
`
`
` Ex. 1047 at 4.
`
`However, Google
`
`selected the prior art for this IPR petition, determined the grounds for this IPR
`
`petition, developed the positions for this IPR petition, and financed this IPR
`
`petition. Google did not inform Samsung of the specific patent(s) for which Google
`
`would file petition(s), the art or grounds for the petition(s), and did not provide
`
`Samsung with drafts of this IPR. Samsung did not provide input into this IPR and
`
`did not and does not have any control over this IPR and did not fund this IPR.
`
`21.
`
`I understand that SEVEN suggests that Google and Samsung are
`
`coordinating because Google and Samsung filed their IPRs “[i]n a period of four
`
`business days.” The timing of Google’s filing of this IPR was simply a
`
`consequence of 35 U.S.C. § 315(b). Specifically, Google filed an IPR petition
`
`Page 6 of 7
`
`5
`
`6
`
`
`
`within one year after it was “served with a complaint alleging infringement of the
`
`patent.” 35 use. § 315(b).
`
`“NW-—
`_ Ex- 1047
`
`(discussing, inter alia, Section 11.1.3 ofEx. 1051).
`
`Jurat
`
`23.
`
`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 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 oflhe United States Code.
`
`Dated: October 5,2018
`
`i
`
`/L{_ ,,,
`
`Jo
`
`ph Shear
`
`Page 7 or 7
`Page 7 or 7
`
`7
`
`