The Board, however, considered the Kuttenkeuler declaration and found “a reasonable likelihood that the EvoloReport is a printed publication and prior art.” Foil IPR, Paper 12, 25, 44.

Moreover, the Foil IPR relies on different grounds (e.g., EvoloReport + Woolley) and new prior art references (e.g., EvoloVideos, TorqeedoManual, Gleason, and Manning) that the jury never considered (all under a lower burden of proof—preponderance of the evidence).

Thus, the invalidity issues raised here do not overlap with those considered by the jury, and granting Petitioner’s motion would not “undermine the jury’s verdict… [or] the integrity of the judicial process” as PO wrongly contends.

Opp., 10; see also Cisco, Paper 12, 59 (finding no prejudice suffered by PO because “Patent Owner will address that prior art and respond to those unpatentability theories regardless of joinder.”).

Even if Foil ceases to participate, joinder serves the public interest against “leaving bad patents enforceable” by allowing Petitioner to continue the proceeding.

Pursuant to 37 C.F.R. § 42.63(e) and the Board’s Notice of Filing Date Accorded to Petition (Paper 4), Petitioner Shenzhen Waydoo Intelligence Technology Co., Ltd. hereby submits a current listing of its exhibits.

1007 1008 1009 1010 Exhibit Description (New Exhibits in Italics) 1001 U.S. Patent No. 9,586,659 (“’659 Patent”) 1002 Declaration of Stefan Brizzolara, Ph.D. 1003 Certified English Translation of Evolo slutrapport (“EvoloReport”) 1004 Affidavit of Bjorn Lofgren Regarding Translation of EvoloReport 1005 Swedish-Language Version of Evolo slutrapport YouTube.com, Evolo prototype run 1006 [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a-_OCN50aWo&t=10s] (“EvoloPrototypeRun”) Screenshot of EvoloPrototypeRun Page Information YouTube.com, Evolo movie [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zL9fO8tFl18] (“EvoloMovie”) Screenshot of EvoloMovie Page Information YouTube.com, Test run – the new Torqeedo 4.0 R installed on Evolo!!!

[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fKOQ0JwQnjc] (“EvoloTorqeedo”) U.S. Patent No. 6,443,786 (“Woolley”) U.S. Patent No. 4,020,782 (“Gleason”) U.S. Patent No. 8,290,636 (“Manning”) Torqeedo Motor Operating Manual for Torqeedo Cruise 2.0 S/L U.S. Patent No. 9,359,044 (“’044 Patent”) Prosecution History of ‘044 Patent Prosecution History of ‘659 Patent Declaration of Jakob Kuttenkeuler 1011 1012 1013 1014 1015 1016 1017 1018 1019 1020 1021 1022 1023 1024 1025 1026 1027 Affidavit of Ingmarie Rohdin Regarding English Language Translation of Batnytt Magazine Article; Swedish Language Version of Batnytt; English Translation of Båtnytt Magazine Article (“Batnytt”) Affidavit of Ingmarie Rohdin Regarding Translation of Batnytt Magazine Viewership Information for 2009; Swedish Language Version of Batnytt Viewership Information; English Language Translation of Batnytt Viewership Information (“BatnyttViewership”) Internet Archive Declaration of Nathaniel E Frank-White Screenshot of EvoloTorqeedo Page Information Claim Construction Order from MHL CUSTOM, INC. v. WAYDOO USA, INC. and SHENZHEN WAYDOO INTELLIGENCE TECHNOLOGY CO., LTD, C.A.

No. 21-0091-RGA Email Correspondence with Foil’s Counsel MHL Custom, Inc. v. Waydoo USA, Inc. et al DDE-1-21-cv-00091, Dkt. No. 220, Redacted Jury Veridct MHL Custom, Inc. v. Waydoo USA, Inc. et al DDE-1-21-cv-00091, Dkt. No. 212, Amended Final Joint Pretrial Order Declaration of Ping Wang from Shenzhen Waydoo Intelligence Technology Co., Ltd.

Dated: August 5, 2024 Respectfully submitted, / Alexander B. Stein / Alexander B. Stein (Reg. No. 71,397)

The Board, however, considered the Kuttenkeuler declaration and found “a reasonable likelihood that the EvoloReport is a printed publication and prior art.” Foil IPR, Paper 12, 25, 44.

Moreover, the Foil IPR relies on different grounds (e.g., EvoloReport + Woolley) and new prior art references (e.g., EvoloVideos, TorqeedoManual, Gleason, and Manning) that the jury never considered (all under a lower burden of proof—preponderance of the evidence).

Thus, the invalidity issues raised here do not overlap with those considered by the jury, and granting Petitioner’s motion would not “undermine the jury’s verdict… [or] the integrity of the judicial process” as PO wrongly contends.

Opp., 10; see also Cisco, Paper 12, 59 (finding no prejudice suffered by PO because “Patent Owner will address that prior art and respond to those unpatentability theories regardless of joinder.”).

Even if Foil ceases to participate, joinder serves the public interest against “leaving bad patents enforceable” by allowing Petitioner to continue the proceeding.

U.S. Patent and Trademark Office; U.S. DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE Under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, no persons are required to respond to a collection of information unless it displays a valid OMB control number.

The document was recorded in the United States Patent and Trademark Office at Reel ____________, Frame ____________, or for which a copy thereof is attached*.

U.S. Patent and Trademark Office; U.S. DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE Under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, no persons are required to respond to a collection of information unless it displays a valid OMB control number.

The document was recorded in the United States Patent and Trademark Office at Reel ____________, Frame ____________, or for which a copy thereof is attached*.

records is used to manage all applicant and owner information including name, citizenship, residence, post office