throbber
Filed on behalf of: LG Display Co., Ltd.
`
`Entered: December 10, 2020
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`__________________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`__________________
`
`LG DISPLAY CO., LTD.,
`Petitioner,
`
`v.
`
`SOLAS OLED LTD.,
`Patent Owner.
`__________________
`Case IPR2020-01238
` Patent 7,573,068
`__________________
`
`DECLARATION OF GABRIEL S. GROSS IN SUPPORT OF
`PETITIONER’S REPLY TO THE PATENT OWNER PRELIMINARY
`RESPONSE
`
`LG Display
`Exhibit 1035
`LG Display v. Solas
`IPR2020-01238
`
`Ex. 1035-001
`
`

`

`IPR2020-01238 (USP 7,573,068)
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`I, Gabriel S. Gross, declare as follows:
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Declaration In Support of
`Reply
`
`1.
`
`I am an attorney at the firm of Latham & Watkins LLP, counsel of rec-
`
`ord for Petitioner LG Display Co., Ltd. (“Petitioner”). I have personal knowledge of
`
`the facts set forth in this declaration and, if called as a witness, could and would
`
`testify competently to them under oath.
`
`2.
`
`On May 22, 2020, during the Markman hearing, after consultation with
`
`and input from the parties and their counsel, the Court set the trial date in the co-
`
`pending district court action involving the ’068 patent for May 17, 2021. Ex. 1037
`
`at 106:4-109:9.
`
`3.
`
`On August 20, 2020, the Court sua sponte changed the trial date and set
`
`it for March 29, 2021, without input from the parties or their counsel. Ex. 2004.
`
`4.
`
`Petitioner promptly informed the Clerk of Court that its lead trial coun-
`
`sel, Douglas E. Lumish of Latham & Watkins LLP, has an unmovable conflict with
`
`the rescheduled March 29, 2021 trial date. Mr. Lumish is set to begin another trial
`
`in the District Court of Tarrant County, Texas, 17th Judicial District, on March 22,
`
`2021 in the matter of Cardone Industries, Inc. v. Joel Farina, et al., Cause No. 017-
`
`271617-14.
`
`5.
`
`Upon being advised of this, the Clerk requested that Petitioner revisit
`
`the trial date with the Court in late January or early February 2021, and advised
`
`Petitioner that he was sure the Court would be happy to move the trial date if the
`
`1
`
`Ex. 1035-002
`
`

`

`IPR2020-01238 (USP 7,573,068)
`
`Declaration In Support of
`Reply
`
`conflict remained. The conflict remains.
`
`6.
`
`On August 31, 2020, Petitionerfiled with the District Court a Notice of
`
`Conflict with Current Trial Setting to ensure that neither the Court nor Solas would
`
`be surprised by the trial date conflict it had already raised with the Court. Ex. 1036.
`
`Petitioner informed Solas of the conflict and provided notice that Petitioner may
`
`movefor a continuanceofthetrial date.
`
`7.
`
`I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the United States
`
`of America, including fines and/or imprisonment under 18 U.S.C. § 1001, that the
`
`foregoingis true and correct.
`
`Executed on December8, 2020 in Hillsborough, California.
`
`=
`
`Gabriel S. Gross
`
`Ex. 1035-003
`
`Ex. 1035-003
`
`

This document is available on Docket Alarm but you must sign up to view it.


Or .

Accessing this document will incur an additional charge of $.

After purchase, you can access this document again without charge.

Accept $ Charge
throbber

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.

throbber

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.

Become a Member

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

We are redirecting you
to a mobile optimized page.





Document Unreadable or Corrupt

Refresh this Document
Go to the Docket

We are unable to display this document.

Refresh this Document
Go to the Docket