`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`Chanel, Inc.,
`Petitioner,
`
`v.
`
`Molo Design, LTD.,
`Patent Owner.
`
`Case No. IPR2022-00545
`U.S. Patent No.
`9,689,161
`
`DECLARATION OF SHANNON L. BJORKLUND IN SUPPORT OF
`PETITION FOR INTER PARTES REVIEW
`UNDER U.S.C. §§ 311-319 AND 37 C.F.R. § 42.1 et seq
`
`4875-1389-2108\1
`
`Petitioner Chanel, Inc. Exhibit 1032
`Page 1
`
`
`
`I, SHANNON L. BJORKLUND, declare:
`
`1.
`
`I am an attorney at the law firm Dorsey & Whitney LLP and counsel
`
`of record for Petitioner, Chanel, Inc. (“Chanel”) in Molo Design, Ltd. v. Chanel,
`
`Inc., Civ. Action No. 21-CV- 1578 (VEC), pending in the United States District
`
`Court for the Southern District of New York (“S.D.N.Y. Litigation”). I will also
`
`seek to be admitted in this matter pro hac vice.
`
`2.
`
`I have personal knowledge of the facts stated in this declaration and, if
`
`called as a witness, could and would testify competently to those facts.
`
`3. Within one business day of the filing of this declaration, Petitioner
`
`intends to file an already-drafted Motion to Stay Pending Inter Partes Review with
`
`corresponding Memorandum of Law, Declaration, and Exhibits in the S.D.N.Y.
`
`Litigation.
`
`4.
`
`Petitioner did not delay in filing its Petition. The Petition is filed
`
`within the statutory deadline and the district court action is still in its early stages.
`
`For example, in the S.D.N.Y Litigation, neither party has taken any depositions,
`
`the district court has not issued a claim construction order (nor set a date for a
`
`claim construction hearing), and significant deadlines (e.g., summary judgment,
`
`the close of expert discovery) remain unscheduled.
`
`5.
`
`Petitioner did not file its petition earlier because the district court
`
`action appeared likely to resolve early given the modest amount in dispute.
`
`4875-1389-2108\1
`
`2
`
`Petitioner Chanel, Inc. Exhibit 1032
`Page 2
`
`
`
`
`
`Specifically, the cost of the allegedly infringing products in the S.D.N.Y.
`
`Litigation, that Petitioner purchased from a third-party vendor and used for
`
`approximately two months, was less than the cost to prepare and file IPR petitions
`
`concerning the four patents-in-suit. Petitioner began preparing its IPR petitions
`
`after preliminary settlement discussions were unsuccessful and it became apparent
`
`that the district court action was unlikely to be resolved before the statutory
`
`deadline to file IPR petitions.
`
`Dated: February 4, 2022
`
`
`
`By: /Shannon L. Bjorklund/
`Shannon L. Bjorklund
`
`
`
`
`4875-1389-2108\1
`
`3
`
`Petitioner Chanel, Inc. Exhibit 1032
`Page 3
`
`