Case 2:15-cv-01274-JRG-RSP Document 125-2 Filed 07/21/16 Page 1 of 3 PageID #: 2660
`
`Exhibit 1
`
`

`
`
`
`Case 3:11-cv-07044-PGS-DEA Document 34 Filed 03/18/13 Page 1 of 2 PageID: 159Case 2:15-cv-01274-JRG-RSP Document 125-2 Filed 07/21/16 Page 2 of 3 PageID #: 2661
`
`
`EErnie L. Brooks
`1942-2007
`
`
`
`
`
`Marchh 15, 2013
`
`
`
`Brookks Kushman PP.C.
`
`
`
`1000 Town Center, TTwenty-Second Floor
`
`
`
`Southhfield, Michigan 48075-1238 UUSA
`
`
`
`www.
`
`● Fax (248) 358Tel (2248) 358-4400 ●
`
`-3351
`n.com
`brookskushman
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Dear Judgee Falk:
`
`
`
`
`Wee represent DDefendant FFord Motor
`
`
`
`
`Company (““Ford”) in tthe above-caaptioned pattent
`
`
`
`
`
`infringemeent action. FFord respectffully requestts leave to fiile a motion
`pursuant to
`
`Fed. R. Civv. P.
`11, which
`
`
`will dispose of the preesent action
`as well as
`
`lving the saame
`the related
`action invo
`
`
`patent, Maarlowe Patennt Holdings
`
`
`LLC v. Dicee Electronicss LLC et al.
`, Case No. 33:10-cv-011
`
`99-
`PGS-DEA
`
`
`(the “Dice LLitigation”).. The bases
`
`
`
`
`for Ford’s RRule 11 mottion are brieffly summarizzed
`
`as follows..
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Plaaintiff Marloowe Patent HHoldings LLLC (“MPH”)) has accuseed Ford of iinfringing UU.S.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Patent No. 7,489,786 ((the “’786 paatent”). Thee ’786 patentt relates to ann interface thhat connectss an
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`aftermarkeet audio devvice, such aas a CD changer, to ann existing ccar stereo ssystem that
`the
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`aftermarkeet audio deviice is not coompatible wiith. MPH hhas stated thaat an “imporrtant aspect”” of
`
`
`
`
`
`
`the ’786 paatent is a “ddevice presennce signal” wwhich lets thhe car stereoo know that
`
`the aftermarrket
`
`
`
`
`
`audio devicce is conneccted. (Dice LLitigation, DDkt. #149 at 22.)
`
`the
`
`
`
`
`Under U.S. paatent law, anny sale of a
`
`
`patented prroduct moree than one yyear before
`
`
`
`applicationn for patent iis filed rendeers the patennt invalid. SeSee, 35 U.S.CC. §102(b).
` Ira
`
`
`
`In this case,
`
`d product mmore
`
`Marlowe, tthe inventor
`of the ’786
`
`
`
`patent and tthe owner off MPH, soldd the patente
`
`than four yyears before
`
`
`
`
`
`
`filing his paatent applicaation – a dirrect violationn of §102(b)). This rendders
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`the ’786 paatent invalidd as a matter of law, and unenforceabble as a mattter of equity..
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Moore specificaally, Marlowwe owns Bliitzsafe of AAmerica, Incc. (“BlitzSaffe”). BlitzSSafe
`
`
`
`
`
`sells interffaces that coonnect aftermmarket audioo devices too car stereos
`
`
`. Beginningg in Septemmber
`
`1998, moree than four
`
`
`
`years beforee filing the aapplication ffor the ’786
`
`
`patent in DDecember 20002,
`has
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Marlowe ssold interfacees for conneecting Panasoonic CD-chaangers to Tooyota car steereos. Ford
`
`
`
`
`
`
`obtained BBlitzSafe Toyota-Panasoonic interfacces from thiss time periood, and has
`
`confirmed tthat
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`those interfaces includde the “devicce presence ssignal” as weell as other aaspects claimmed in the ’7786
`
`patent. Inddeed, the Toyyota car sterreo required
`
`
`if Marlowe wwas selling aany
`
`
`this signal.
` Therefore,
`
`
`
`VVia ECF Filling
`
`
`
`Company
`
`
`
`
`The Honorrable Mark FFalk, U.S.M..J.
`
`
`
`Frank R. LLautenberg UU.S. P.O. & CCourthouse
`Room 457
`
`1 Federal SSquare
`
`
`
`Newark, NNew Jersey 07102
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Re: MMarlowe Paatent Holdinngs LLC v. FFord Motor
`
`
`
`
`Civil Actionn No. 2:11-ccv-07044-WWJM-MF
`
`
`
`

`
`
`
`Case 3:11-cv-07044-PGS-DEA Document 34 Filed 03/18/13 Page 2 of 2 PageID: 160Case 2:15-cv-01274-JRG-RSP Document 125-2 Filed 07/21/16 Page 3 of 3 PageID #: 2662
`
`March 15, 22013
`
`
`Page 2
`
`
`
`interface thhat worked
`
`
`
`
`
`
`presence siignal.” Marlowe has no answer to thhis.
`
`with the TToyota stereoo, that interrface necess
`
`
`
`arily includded the “devvice
`
`
`
`
`is unenforcceable due
`
`786 patent valid, the ’7addition too being inv
`
`In
`
`
`to Marlowwe’s
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`inequitablee conduct duuring the Pattent Office’ss examinatioon of the ’7886 patent. WWhile his pattent
`
`
`
`applicationn was pendinng, Marlowe owed the
`
`
`
`
`Patent Offiice an affirmmative “dutyy of candor”” to
`
`
`disclose anny informatioon that is “mmaterial to [tthe] patentabbility” of hiss pending appplication. SSee,
`
`
`
`
`
`
`37 C.F.R.
`
`§1.56. Cleaarly, the fact
`
`
`
`that Marlowwe was sellinng the now-ppatented To
`
`yota-Panasoonic
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`years before hhe filed his aapplication wwas materiall to the patenntability of tthe ’786 pateent.
`interface y
`not inform
`the
`
`Marlow innformed the
`
`
`
`Patent Office that he hhad sold thee interfaces,
`but he did
`int!
`
`
`
`
`Patent Offfice that thoose interfacees included hhis alleged
`
`
`invention——the most immportant po
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Because MMarlowe desiigned and soold the interffaces, and beecause he wwas the invenntor of the ’7786
`
`
`
`patent, thee only logicaal conclusionn is that he
`
`
`failed to innform the Paatent Office
`to deceive
`the
`
`
`
`
`
`
`patent examminer and seecure a patennt Marlowe wwas not legaally entitled tto.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Maarlowe’s inteent to deceivve has continnued. Marloowe testifiedd at depositiion in the DDice
`Litigation
`
`
`
`
`that his earlly design doocuments weere destroyeed by water
`
`
`and mildeww, that his eaarly
`
`
`unrecoverablcomputer ffiles were u
`
`
`
`
`e due to a ccomputer faailure, and thhat he couldd not recall
`the
`
`
`
`
`
`details of tthe Toyota-PPanasonic innterface at isssue. Whilee that litigatiion was pennding, Marloowe
`
`
`
`requested
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`that the Intternet Archiive (web.arcchive.org) ddelete publiccly-availablee date-stampped
`
`
`archives of the BlitzSSafe website
`that would
`
`
`
`have establlished exacttly what inteerface versi
`ons
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`BlitzSafe wwas selling mmore than oone year prioor to the datte Marlow ffiled his pateent applicatiion.
`As far as
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Marlowe kknew, that wwas the lastt evidence uunder his ccontrol whicch would h
`ave
`confirmed
`
`
`
`
`the invalidity and uneenforceabilityy of the ’7886 patent.
`
`
`Fortunatelyy, Ford secuured
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`copies of thhe deleted wweb pages froom a backupp of the Interrnet Archivee located in EEgypt.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Maarlowe is noww seeking hiis third set oof counsel. SShortly afterr Ford’s counnsel confronnted
`
`
`
`
`Marlowe’ss first lawyeer with the
`
`
`
`
`
`evidence deescribed aboove, Marlowwe’s first lawwyer withdrrew
`
`
`
`
`
`stating “certain recentlly uncoveredd facts have ggiven rise too a belief on
`
`
`the part of aattorney Kapplan
`that he is
`
`ethically obbligated to
`withdraw.”
`
`
` (Dkt. #14,, ¶4.) Simiilarly, short
`
`ly after Forrd’s
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Marlowe’s seecond lawyeer with the eevidence deescribed aboove, Marlowwe’s
`counsel coonfronted M
`
`
`
`
`
`second lawwyer requestted withdrawwal stating ““sufficient bbases exist”
`
`
`for his withhdrawal. (DDice
`
`
`Litigation, Dkt. #184.) In each casse, Ford’s coounsel challeenged Marloowe to presennt any evidennce
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`contrary too the evidencce Ford has ppresented. MMarlowe hass provided noone.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Thiis case is friivolous. MMPH should bbe sanctioneed for its coontinued proosecution off an
`
`
`
`
`
`invalid andd unenforceaable patent. At the very least, this caase should b
`e dismissed
`
`with prejudiice.
`
`
`Ford also rrequests thatt MPH and
`
`Marlowe bee ordered to
`
`reimburse FFord for its
`
`fees and coosts,
`
`
`
`. Ford thus which currrently exceed $140,000.
`
`
`
`
`e its leave to filehis Court’s lrespectfullyy requests th
`
`
`motion forr Rule 11 sannctions.
`
`
`
`RRespectfully
`
`submitted,
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`BBROOKS KKUSHMAN PP.C.
`
`
`
`Joohn S. LeRooy