`Parrot, Inc. v. Drone
`Technologies, Inc.
`IPR2014-00730
`
`
`
`1, James E. Hopenfeld, do hereby declare and state, that all statements made
`
`herein of my own knowledge are true and correct and all statements made on
`
`information and belief are believed to be true and correct; and fimher that the
`
`statements were made with the knowledge that willful false statements and the like
`
`so made are punishable by fine or imprisonment, or both, under the laws of the
`
`United States of America.
`
`Dated: February9,2015
`
`31», V}
`
`‘
`
`.
`
`
`
`1.
`
`I am a Partner at Osha Liang LLP and represent Petitioners Parrot S.A
`
`and Parrot, Inc. (collectively, “Parrot” or “Petitioner”).
`
`I am also lead counsel in
`
`IPR2014—00730 and IPR2014—00732.
`
`2.
`
`Due to clerical errors in the assembly of certain exhibits in both
`
`proceedings, Petitioner is seeking authorization to file corrected exhibits.
`
`3.
`
`Exhibit 1010 to the Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent
`
`No. 7,584,071 is the declaration of Prof. Raffaello D’Andrea,
`
`in which he sets
`
`forth his opinions of unpatentability of the claims of the ‘O71 patent. On behalf of
`
`Osha Liang LLP I prepared and represented Prof. D’Andrea at his deposition in
`
`this proceeding, which occurred on January 8, 2015.
`
`4.
`
`In the course of preparing for the deposition,
`
`I
`
`learned that Prof.
`
`D’Andrea’s CV was inadvertently not included in the declaration in Exhibit 1010
`
`when it was filed, even though the declaration clearly describes the CV and refers
`
`to it as being attached as “Appendix B” to the declaration. Upon further
`
`investigation, I learned this was an error that was made during the assembly of the
`
`exhibit prior to filing in PRPS, as we had received Prof. D’Andrea’s CV for his
`
`declaration prior to the time of filing the IPR petitions.
`
`5.
`
`The
`
`above-described
`
`recently—discovered
`
`clerical
`
`error was
`
`unintentional, is being promptly corrected, and has not caused any prejudice or
`
`harm to Patent Owner. Indeed, it was not until Patent Owner’s counsel sent a letter
`
`
`
`dated January 22, 2015, that it became apparent that Patent Owner intended to
`
`challenge Prof. D’Andrea’s declaration in the related proceeding (IPR2014-00732)
`
`on the basis of a clerical error. Although under no obligation to do so, Petitioner
`
`immediately investigated the issue and, on January 26, served copies of corrected
`
`versions of the exhibits on Patent Owner.