UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`AMERICAN NATIONAL MANUFACTURINGINC.,,
`Petitioner,
`
`V.
`
`SLEEP NUMBER CORPORATION
`f/k/a SELECT COMFORT CORPORATION,
`Patent Owner.
`
`Case No. IPR2019-00514
`
`Patent No. 5,904,172
`
`DECLARATION OF CRAIG MILLER,JR.
`
`WA1418475801.2
`
`WA14231564.1
`
`American National Manufacturing,Inc.
`EXHIBIT 1072
`IPR2019-00514
`Page 1
`
`
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`AMERICAN NATIONAL MANUFACTURINGINC.,,
`Petitioner,
`
`V.
`
`SLEEP NUMBER CORPORATION
`f/k/a SELECT COMFORT CORPORATION,
`Patent Owner.
`
`Case No. IPR2019-00514
`
`Patent No. 5,904,172
`
`DECLARATION OF CRAIG MILLER,JR.
`
`WA1418475801.2
`
`WA14231564.1
`
`American National Manufacturing,Inc.
`EXHIBIT 1072
`IPR2019-00514
`Page 1
`
`
`
`Case No. IPR2019-00514
`Patent No. 5,904,172
`
`I, Craig Miller Jr., declare and state as follows:
`
`1.
`
`Lam the President of Petitioner American National Manufacturing,Inc.
`
`(“ANM”) and am familiar with the allegations that have been put forward by Sleep
`
`Number Corporation f/k/a Select Comfort Corporation (“Sleep Number’).
`
`In
`
`addition, I am a managing memberof Dires, LLC, a retailer of mattress systems
`
`manufactured and distributed by ANM.
`
`I have personal knowledge of the facts
`
`stated in this declaration.
`
`I make this declaration in response to the declaration of
`
`Carl G. Degen, dated October 23, 2019 (Exhibit 2055). My declaration presents
`
`facts that perhaps were not known to Mr. Degen andto correct assumptions made in
`
`his declaration.
`
`2.
`
`Mr. Degen’s declaration includes calculations he made based on unit
`
`sales data produced by ANM in these IPR proceedings. The data is referred to by
`
`the parties as “raw data”. The raw datais in the form of a spreadsheet with columns
`
`whichlist each sale of a manifold, software (“source code”) and mattresses sold by
`
`ANM to its customers. The products sold are further described under the heading
`
`“description”.
`
`The further descriptions
`
`include pumps and air controllers
`
`(“controller”) and mattresses. ANM customersare identified as “Inner Company”
`
`and “Third Party”.
`
`(The raw data also distinguishes between sale of units for
`
`“consumer” and “medical” use.) The spreadsheetlisting of units sold was created
`
`WA14231564.1
`
`American National Manufacturing,Inc.
`EXHIBIT 1072
`IPR2019-00514
`Page 2
`
`
`
`Case No. IPR2019-00514
`Patent No. 5,904,172
`
`from ANM invoices to its customers. For exemplary purposes, I have attached
`
`Exhibit 1073 which showseachof the column headings.
`
`3.
`
`Within the raw data, manifolds, source code and mattresses are
`
`identified as either “accused” or “not accused” based solely on whether Sleep
`
`Numberalleges that the manifold reads on one ofits patents. As to source codes,
`
`“accused” meansonly that the source code is associated with a manifold that Sleep
`
`Number accused. ANM purchased andresold controllers that included source code
`
`and it resold the controllers. Overtime, various versions of source code were
`
`included in the controllers purchased and resold by ANM. ANM is without any
`
`ability to distinguish between source code versionsthat it purchased from suppliers
`
`and resold. As to mattresses, “accused” means only that the mattress was sold with
`
`an accused manifold. ANM understands Sleep Numberto contendthat a mattressis
`
`accusedif it was sold with an accused manifold.
`
`4.
`
`Myreview of Mr. Degen’s declaration reveals that he organized
`
`ANM’s unit sales per the raw data spreadsheet into four time periods. Mr. Degen
`
`contends that his time periods 2 and 4 show substantial increases in ANM’s unit
`
`sales and Mr. Degenattributes those sales to ANM’s sale of accused manifolds and
`
`source code. In his deposition of January 8, 2020, Mr. Degensaysherelied on the
`
`raw data which Sleep Number’s counsel provided to him, that he did not ask Sleep
`
`WA 14231564.1
`
`American National Manufacturing,Inc.
`EXHIBIT 1072
`IPR2019-00514
`Page 3
`
`
`
`Case No. IPR2019-00514
`Patent No. 5,904,172
`
`Number’s counsel to provide other information and he did not conduct independent
`
`research into any facts relevant to the unit sales stated on the raw data spreadsheet.
`
`In the following paragraphs,I state facts regarding the raw data that Mr. Degen may
`
`not have understood and facts regarding ANM’s business and Sleep Number’s anti-
`
`competitive conduct that Sleep Number maynothave described to Mr. Degen.
`
`5.
`
`Regarding his Period 1, Mr. Degen under-counted the number of
`
`controllers sold by ANM_ This under-count occurred in connection
`
`with ANM sales ofmattresses to Dires, LLC (“Dires”). Dires re-sells ANM mattress
`
`systems to consumersand each system includesat least one mattress and a controller.
`
`This is necessary because the controller is the device that inflates the mattress.
`
`Between August 2012 and late June or early July 2014, ANM invoices to Dires did
`
`notlist the controllers separately from the mattress. The raw data entries come from
`ANM’sinvoice records, so the raw data reflected BERnattresses without an
`
`accompanying controller, although, in fact, each mattress had a controller in the
`
`same delivery box.
`
`In addition, Mr. Degen over-counts the number of mattresses
`
`sold in his Period 1. ANM sold to Dires in Period 1 (carrying over for two months
`
`in Degen’s Period 2) split double mattresses (branded as split Eastern King or
`
`split California King). These split mattresses appear on the invoice as two mattresses
`
`WA14231564.1
`
`American National Manufacturing,Inc.
`EXHIBIT 1072
`IPR2019-00514
`Page 4
`
`
`
`Case No. IPR2019-00514
`Patent No. 5,904,172
`
`(for a totalfl) although,in fact, they are a split king mattress system with a single
`
`controller.
`
`6.
`
`Another important fact related to Mr. Degen’s Period 1
`
`is that it
`
`corresponds with the conclusion of an agreement under which Sleep Numberpaid
`
`me and ANM tostay out of the adjustable firmness consumerbed market except for
`
`sales to a few pre-approved and existing customers. Accordingly, Period 1 sales
`
`reflect the time that ANM was starting to build awareness among consumers
`
`purchasing such beds and preparing for controlled and manageable growth.
`
`7.
`
`Regarding Mr. Degen’s Period 2, he likely over-counted the number of
`
`controllers sold by ANM that
`
`included source code accused by ANM. The
`
`controllers ANM sold in this Period were supplied with source code described by
`
`the supplier as a range of versions between version 1.5 and version 1.8. ANM had
`
`no information of which version wasinstalled within any controller. Accordingly,
`
`ANM’s raw data described the versionsas 1.5-1.8. However, Sleep Number accuses
`
`only version 1.8 in Period 2. According to the raw data, there are more than 9,800
`
`controllers with versions 1.5-1.8. ANM (and apparently, Mr. Degen) does not know
`
`how manyare the accused version 1.8.
`
`8.
`
`During Mr. Degen’s Period 2, ANM changedthe supplier of controllers
`
`from Arco to Providence. This change, in part, was due to production issues that
`
`WA14231564.1
`
`American National Manufacturing,Inc.
`EXHIBIT 1072
`IPR2019-00514
`Page 5
`
`
`
`Case No. IPR2019-00514
`Patent No. 5,904,172
`
`constrained Arco’s supply of products to ANM. After switching to Providence,
`
`ANM did not encounter supply issues that affected its sales. Also, the Providence
`
`product was morereliable than the Arco product.
`
`9.
`
`Also in Mr. Degen’s Period 2, Sleep Numbersubstantially increasedits
`
`efforts to ban Dires from Google ads and other media. Exhibit 1074 is a Dires
`
`record made of Sleep Number’s actions that resulted in particular ads not being
`
`placed online and also the complete suspension of all Dires ads on Google for
`
`periods of time. One Google suspension occurred in Mr. Degen’s Period 2. All the
`
`complaints by Sleep Numberrelated to alleged trademark infringement. This was a
`
`false accusation by Sleep Numberas demonstrated by a jury verdict of no trademark
`
`infringement by Dires. This is explained further in connection with my statement of
`
`facts related to Mr. Degen’s Period 4.
`
`10.
`
`In connection with Mr. Degen’s Period 3, ANM had changesto the
`
`source code and the controllers it sold. Sleep Number made the accusation that
`
`software in ANM’s controllers infringed a claim of the 172 patent regarding
`
`continuous monitoring of air pressure in the mattress. ANM could not immediately
`
`determine whether the claim was accurate so, pending an investigation, ANM
`
`removed the portion of the source code that it believed might have related to
`
`continuous monitoring. Later,
`
`in a proceeding before the International Trade
`
`WA14231564.1
`
`American National Manufacturing,Inc.
`EXHIBIT 1072
`IPR2019-00514
`Page 6
`
`
`
`Case No. IPR2019-00514
`Patent No. 5,904,172
`
`Commission, the Administrative Law Judge determined that the ANM controller did
`
`not practice the continued monitoring limitations ofthe ‘172 patent.
`
`11. Also in Mr. Degen’s Period 3, ANM switchedto a different supplier for
`
`its manifolds, but the new manifolds did not properly interface with the source code.
`
`A slight modification to the source code was necessary which was accomplished by
`
`a local programmer. The modified software is not accused by Sleep Number.
`
`12.
`
`Sleep Number’s anti-competitive activity continued in Period 3. Sleep
`
`Number’s allegations of trademark infringement caused Google ads to refuse
`
`advertisements by Dires and to suspend Dires from any advertisements from June 6
`
`to June 26, 2017. The suspension (and “disapprovals” by Google ads) affected ANM
`
`sales to Dires from June through at least August. In this timeframe, ANM sales to
`Diresa: 2017.
`In my opinion, based on my
`experience, the2s due largely to the 20 day suspensioninstigated by
`
`Sleep Number. Exhibit 1075 is a summary of the advertising spending for Dires
`
`which has been broken down bytimeperiod.
`
`13.
`
`Inconnection with Mr. Degen’s Period 4, ANM salesto Dires increased
`
`substantially.
`
`In October 2017, just two months into Mr. Degen’s Period 4, a jury
`
`in Minneapolis ruled against Sleep Numberandin favor of Dires. Sleep Number
`
`had sued Dires, alleging trademark infringement, the same claim it had made to
`
`WA 14231564.1
`
`American National Manufacturing,Inc.
`EXHIBIT 1072
`IPR2019-00514
`Page 7
`
`
`
`Case No. IPR2019-00514
`Patent No. 5,904,172
`
`Google ads in an effort to suppress sales by Dires. Sleep Numberalso claimed false
`
`advertising by Dires. (The jury found “false advertising” caused by the statements
`
`of one person whoI fired, but the false statements had nothing to do with the patents
`
`involved in this proceeding. The jury awarded $120,812 due to the false statements.
`
`Sleep Numberasked the jury to award it $17 million. At the trial, I conducted a
`
`demonstration for the jury that compared the features of the ANM bed(sold by
`
`Dires) to the Sleep Numberbed. The jury’s verdict was for Dires that no trademark
`
`infringement had occurred. Dires madea video that presented the same comparison
`
`of features that I presented to the jury. Dires published the video on YouTube and
`
`on its website. There were 241,195 viewsofthis video while it was posted, between
`
`12-31-2017 and 6-25-2018. See, https:/youtu.be/Wjib4tL-TYY,last viewed January
`
`17,2020. Mr. Degen’s Appendix B showsthe tremendousincreasein sales by Dires
`
`after the jury’s verdict and the premier of the YouTubevideo.
`
`14. Mr. Degen’s Period 4 over-counts the numberof accused manifolds by
`|| This relates to manifolds/controllers that ANM sold to its customer m7
`p| These manifolds should not have been counted for two reasons. First, the
`
`172 patent had already expired by the time Mr. Degen’s period 4 began so Sleep
`
`Numberhas nobasis to contend the sales were improper. Second, there was no
`
`printed circuit board or any source code accompanying these manifolds. The
`
`WA 14231564.1
`
`American National Manufacturing,Inc.
`EXHIBIT 1072
`IPR2019-00514
`Page 8
`
`
`
`Case No. IPR2019-00514
`Patent No. 5,904,172
`
`product ANMsellsae only a manifold with solenoids attachedtoit
`
`and an outer housing. The product has no circuitry, no compressor and no source
`
`code.
`
`15. Another important factor that lead to increased ANM sales in Mr.
`
`Degen’s Period 4 wasthe effect of a Sleep Numberdecision to stop selling the
`
`Comfortaire adjustable firmness beds to mattress retailers. Comfortaire was the
`
`number2 selling line of adjustable firmness beds in the industry (behind Sleep
`
`Number) when purchased by Sleep Number in 2013. Sleep Number continued to
`
`market the Comfortaire line until June 30, 2017. Comfortaire sold bedsto retailers
`
`that later sold ANM beds(identified in the raw data as “third party”). Theseretailers
`
`increased their purchases of ANM beds when the Comfortaire bed was no longer
`
`available to them.
`
`16.
`
`Based onthefacts, it is inaccurate to contend that the patents allegedly
`
`affecting ANM source code versions or manifolds had any effect on ANM’s sales to
`
`its customers, or through its customers to consumers. As to the accused source
`
`codes, ANM mattresses, when adjusted to be more firm from
`GEcached the selected
`
`po Asto the accused manifolds, a manifold is merely a pathway
`
`
`
`WA 14231564.1
`
`American National Manufacturing,Inc.
`EXHIBIT 1072
`IPR2019-00514
`Page 9
`
`
`
`Case No. IPR2019-005 14
`Patent No. 5,904,172
`
`for compressed air that
`
`is enclosed within the controller.
`
`Source codes and
`
`manifolds are not visible to the consumer.
`
`I have no information that either of them
`
`affect ANM’s sales. In fact, consumer reviews of the ANM beds do not mention the
`
`source codes or manifolds accused by Sleep Number(or any other source code or
`
`manifold). These reviews can be viewed at www.Trustpilot.com and entering
`
`Personalcomfortbed.com.
`
`Indeed, because the sales by Dires are “on-line,” the
`
`consumerhas no opportunity to check how fast a mattress adjusts pressures before
`
`making a purchase.
`
`17.
`
`Throughout my career,
`
`I have observed that increased spending on
`
`effective advertising correlates positively with increased sales. Sales trends observed
`
`in Mr. Degen’s four periods correspond with increased spending by Dires on
`
`ee: advertising on Mr. Degen’s Period 1. Mr.
`
`Degen observed a sharp increase in ANM salesin his Period 2 and during that time,
`Dires increased its advertising spendingae
`
`Degen observed that ANM sales increased, but at a slowerrate, in his Period 3 and
`during that time, Dires increased its advertising spendingpo
`
`10
`
`WA 14231564.1
`
`American National Manufacturing,Inc.
`EXHIBIT 1072
`IPR201 9-00514
`Page 10
`
`
`
`Case No. IPR2019-00514
`Patent No. 5,904,172
`
`po Mr. Degen observed another sharp increase in ANM salesin
`his Period 4, and during that time, Dires increased its advertising spending
`eesexnivic 107s.
`
`18. As mentioned, advertising must be efficient in order to drive sales.
`
`Dires used on-line advertising and focused on Google ads which I believe to reach
`
`the largest on-line audience. Further, Dires’ advertising focused on price, ease of
`
`assembly, construction and quality which I believe to be the most important factors
`
`to on-line purchasing of adjustable
`
`firmness beds.
`
`Dires
`
`also focused
`
`on comparing the ANM product
`
`to the product
`
`sold by Sleep Number.
`
`This
`
`comparison
`
`can
`
`be
`
`observed
`
`oon
`
`the
`
` Dires’
`
`website,
`
`www.personalcomfortbed.com/comparetosleepnumber
`
`(last viewed January 17
`
`2020). Dires did not advertise the component parts which Sleep Numberaccusesin
`
`these proceedings.
`
`19.
`
`From 2006 to 2011, I provided my services to Sleep Number under a
`
`consultant agreement. I gave advice regarding the construction and configuration of
`
`their mattress components and how to manufacture air chambers to avoid issues of
`
`mold and other quality control issues.
`
`20.
`
`I was neverretained to provide any advice into the programming or
`
`configuration oftheir air controllers. That is due to the fact that I do not have any
`
`1]
`
`WA14231564.1
`
`American National Manufacturing,Inc.
`EXHIBIT 1072
`IPR2019-00514
`Page 11
`
`
`
`Case No. IPR2019-00514
`Patent No. 5,904,172
`
`knowledge regarding computer code or how to program any of the electronic
`
`components. At no time have I or anyone else at American National Manufacturing
`
`ever seen or examined any of Sleep Number’s source code for any of their air
`
`controllers.
`
`21.
`
`To the extent air controllers had anything to do with my consultancy
`
`agreement, it was Sleep Number who soughtour air controllers.
`
`Indeed, per their
`
`demand,I provided three of our air controllers to Sleep Numberin 2006 aspart of
`
`the agreement. Tothe best of myrecollection, these controllers were Gen. 2, Ver. 3
`
`air controllers which are referenced on page 6 of Ex. 2077. These controllers were
`
`developed andcreated prior to my consultancy beginning with Sleep Number2006.
`
`I declare under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct.
`
`aeSJVEL
`
`Craig S. Miller, Jr.
`
`/-29.2020
`
`Date
`
`12
`
`WA 14231564.1
`
`American National Manufacturing,Inc.
`EXHIBIT 1072
`IPR2019-00514
`Page 12
`
`
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
