`_______________________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`_______________________
`
`TELEBRANDS CORP.,
`Petitioner
`
`v.
`
`TINNUS ENTERPRISES, LLC,
`Patent Owner
`_______________________
`
`Case PGR2016-00030
`U.S. Patent 9,242,749
`_______________________
`
`DECLARATION OF ANNA MOWBRAY
`
`
`
`1
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Tinnus Exhibit 2011
`Telebrands v. Tinnus
`PGR2016-00030
`1 of 4
`
`
`
`I, Anna Mowbray, declare:
`
`
`
`1.
`
`I am the Chief Operating Officer of ZURU Ltd. (“ZURU”). I make
`
`this declaration based on my personal knowledge and, if called upon to testify,
`
`would testify competently as to the matters contained herein.
`
`2.
`
`ZURU began as a grassroots family-owned toy company in New
`
`Zealand.
`
`3.
`
`In August 2014, ZURU and Josh Malone, the inventor of the Bunch O
`
`Balloons product, began negotiations to partner with each other for the
`
`manufacture, marketing, and sale of the Bunch O Balloons product. Mr. Malone is
`
`the founder and owner of a company named Tinnus Enterprises, LLC (“Patent
`
`Owner”).
`
`4. As I understand it, multiple companies sought a licensing arrangement
`
`with the Patent Owner. The Patent Owner ultimately chose to enter into an
`
`exclusive license agreement with ZURU on August 19, 2014 wherein the Patent
`
`Owner, as the licensor, agreed to license to ZURU use on a worldwide basis any
`
`present or future patent rights owned by the Patent Owner relating to the Bunch O
`
`Balloons product.
`
`5.
`
`ZURU valued an exclusive license, as opposed to a non-exclusive
`
`license, as ZURU thought the product was going to be extremely popular and
`
`wanted to secure legitimate exclusivity in the market.
`
`
`
`2
`
`Tinnus Exhibit 2011
`Telebrands v. Tinnus
`PGR2016-00030
`2 of 4
`
`
`
`6.
`
`ZURU is now manufacturing, marketing, and selling the Bunch O
`
`Balloons product.
`
`7.
`
`ZURU’s Bunch O Balloons has been an incredibly successful product.
`
`In fact, Bunch O Balloons has been ZURU’s number one selling product of all
`
`time. Indeed, ZURU has launched thousands of products and over 40 brands, and
`
`of these, Bunch O Balloons has been by far the most successful.
`
`8.
`
`In addition to being a huge commercial success in terms of sales,
`
`Bunch O Balloons has received numerous industry awards, including the 2016 Toy
`
`of the Year at the Nuremberg Toy Fair, the 2015 Toy of the Year by the Australian
`
`Toy Association, and winner of the 2016 National Parenting Product Awards
`
`(NAPPA), and is presently a finalist in the active/outdoor category for the Toy
`
`Industry Association’s 2017 Toy of the Year in the United States.
`
`9.
`
`Additionally, ZURU has been contacted by other parties, including
`
`the petitioner Telebrands, who were looking for a sublicense to the Bunch O
`
`Balloons product.
`
`10. The incredible success of Bunch O Balloons has significantly and
`
`positively impacted ZURU’s market position in the toy industry and has garnered
`
`great interest in the company.
`
`11. The success of Bunch O Balloons has spurred numerous knockoff
`
`products, including for example, on Alibaba, Taobao, eBay, and Amazon. ZURU
`
`
`
`3
`
`Tinnus Exhibit 2011
`Telebrands v. Tinnus
`PGR2016-00030
`3 of 4
`
`
`
`has invested and continues to invest significant resources to identify products that
`
`are knockoffs of Bunch O Balloons and have those listings removed.
`
`I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the Unites States of
`
`America that the foregoing is true and correct.
`
`Dated: November 21, 2016
`
`Anna Mowb
`
`Tinnus Exhibit 2011
`Telebrands v. Tinnus
`PGR2016-00030
`4 of 4
Accessing this document will incur an additional charge of $.
After purchase, you can access this document again without charge.
Accept $ Charge
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.
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.
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
