UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`BEFORE TI IE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`RED DIAMOND, INC,
`
`Petitioner,
`
`v.
`
`SOUTHERN VISIONS. LLP,
`
`Patent Owner.
`
`Case PGR2019-00045
`
`Patent 10,071,852
`
`Declaration of Adam Stewart
`in Support of Patent Owner’s Revised Motion to Amend
`
`Page 1 of O
`
`——__——__—_———————-
`
`Southern Visions
`
`Exhibit 2050
`
`Southern Visions
`Exhibit 2050
`
`
`
`BEFORE TI IE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`RED DIAMOND, INC,
`
`Petitioner,
`
`v.
`
`SOUTHERN VISIONS. LLP,
`
`Patent Owner.
`
`Case PGR2019-00045
`
`Patent 10,071,852
`
`Declaration of Adam Stewart
`in Support of Patent Owner’s Revised Motion to Amend
`
`Page 1 of O
`
`——__——__—_———————-
`
`Southern Visions
`
`Exhibit 2050
`
`Southern Visions
`Exhibit 2050
`
`
`
`1.
`
`My name is Adam Stewart.
`
`1 am over eighteen years of age and am competent
`
`to testify to the matters stated herein. The statements in this declaration are made
`
`based upon personal knowledge, and where l lacked personal knowledge, I have
`
`undertaken eiTorts to verify the information, in my capacity as an authorized agent
`
`of Southern Visions, LLP (“Southern Visions”), based on the records and books of
`
`Southern Visions and the knowledge of its products, to confirm the information
`
`contained herein is true and correct.
`
`I have knowledge of the facts and opinions
`
`stated in this declaration and make this Declaration in Support of Patent Owner’s
`
`revised Motion to Amend.
`
`2.
`
`I received a Bachelor’s Degree in Business Management and Marketing from
`
`Spring Hill College.
`
`3.
`
`Since 2010, I have been Head of Research and Development and a salesman
`
`for Southern Visions’ products. Since Southem Visions introduced its Sweet Brew
`
`product in 2014, promoting, marketing, and selling the Sweet Brew product has been
`
`my primary job responsibility.
`
`4.
`
`5.
`
`6.
`
`I became an owner of Southern Visions as of January 1, 2018.
`
`I am a named inventor of US. Patent No. 10,071,852 (the “’852 Patent”).
`
`1 am being paid my standard salary as an employee of Southern Visions for
`
`my work in this matter, and 1 am not being compensated in any particular or other
`
`way with respect to the testimony of this declaration.
`
`Page20f6
`
`__—__—_—___—__—_—_————-—————
`
`Southern Visions
`
`Exhibit 2050
`
`Southern Visions
`Exhibit 2050
`
`
`
`7.
`
`Based on my experience as a sales representative and Head of Research and
`
`Development for Southern Visions, I have observed that commercial food service
`
`providers, since at
`
`least April 22, 2013, have most commonly brewed 3-gallon
`
`batches of iced tea using four ounces of tea and have most commonly brewed 1.5-
`
`gallon batches of iced tea using two ounces of tea.
`
`8.
`
`In my view, any person familiar with the operation of restaurant iced tea
`
`brewing machines, as of April 22, 2013, would also know that commercial food
`
`service providers most commonly brew 3-gallon batches of iced tea using four
`
`ounces of tea and most commonly brew 1.5-gallon batches of iced tea using two
`
`ounces of tea.
`
`9.
`
`As an employee and owner of Southem Visions, l have personal knowledge
`
`of Southcm Visions’ quality control program for, and its operations for
`
`manufacturing, its Sweet Brew product.
`
`10.
`
`All of Southern Visions’ sales of Sweet Brew product have been subject to
`
`this quality control program.
`
`ll. As part of this quality control program, one or more of Southem Visions
`
`employees uses a Ro—Tap machine to test samples from leak of granulated sugar
`
`received from Southern Visions’ vendors. The results of these tests are recorded, in
`
`the ordinary course of business, in Southern Visions’ business records.
`
`Page 3 of 6
`
`—_—_——_—_——————-——
`
`Southern Visions
`
`Exhibit 2050
`
`Southern Visions
`Exhibit 2050
`
`
`
`12.
`
`Based on my personal knowledge of Southern Visions’ quality control
`
`program and its manufacturing operations to make the Sweet Brew product, my
`
`knowledge of granulated sugar products, and on my review of Southern Visions”
`
`quality control business records, all of Southern Visions’ sales of its Sweet Brew
`
`product have contained at least 88% sugar larger than US. mesh sieve no. 18 or at
`
`least 83% larger than US. mesh sieve no. 16, and, in both cases, at most trace
`
`amounts (less than 1%) of sugar larger than US mesh sieve no. 3.
`
`13. Most of Southem Visions’ sales of its Sweet Brew product are for products
`
`that contain between 1.25 pounds and 3.75 pounds of sugar. Products containing 3
`
`pounds, 2.75 pounds, 2.5 pounds, 1.5 pounds, and 1.25 pounds are the most popular.
`
`14.
`
`Because of the preceding two paragraphs, most of Southern Visions’ sales of
`
`its Sweet Brew product embody claims 23-25 of the ‘852 Patent as such claims are
`
`newly presented in Southern Visions revised Motion To Amend in the PGR
`
`proceeding referenced by the caption above.
`
`15. Other than Red Diamond, the Petitioner in this PGR proceeding, 1 am not
`
`aware of any other companies that sell products that combine tea and sugar in a mesh
`
`bag in the amounts and percentages claimed by such claims 23-25 ofthe ‘852 Patent.
`
`16. My understanding is that Paul Stewart and John Holcomb visited Tom
`
`Ruszkowski, Neil Bogart, and Jason Padgett at Red Diamond’s facility on January
`
`26, 2016. My understanding is also that, at that time, after demonstrating the Sweet
`
`Page 4 of 6
`
`__——___—_—__—._—————————
`
`Southern Visions
`
`Exhibit 2050
`
`Southern Visions
`Exhibit 2050
`
`
`
`Brew product, Paul Stewart left one or more samples of Southern Visions’ standard
`
`Sweet Brew product with Red Diamond.
`
`17.
`
`In other words, because the product left with Red Diamond was Southern
`
`Visions standard product, the product left with Red Diamond contained between 1 .5
`
`and 3 pounds of sugar, with at least 83% larger than US mesh sieve no. [6, and at
`
`most trace amounts (less than 1%) of sugar larger than US mesh sieve no. 3. Thus,
`
`the product left with Red Diamond embodied such claims 23-25 of the ‘852 Patent.
`
`18.
`
`Sometime between January 27, 2016 and February I], 2016, Red Diamond
`
`delivered some of its loose tea to Southem Visions.
`
`I personally prepared variants
`
`of the Sweet Brew product, which are the same as Southern Visions normal Sweet
`
`Brew product, but containing Red Diamond’s tea. Before February I l, 2016,
`
`Southem Visions delivered these sample products to Red Diamond, for Red
`
`Diamond‘s sampling and consideration.
`
`I9-
`
`Because these products contained Southem Visions’ standard sugar used with
`
`its Sweet Brew product, the products Southern Visions delivered to Red Diamond
`
`contained between 1.5 and 3 pounds of sugar, with at least 83% larger than U-S.
`
`mesh sieve no. 16, and at most trace amounts (less than 1%) of sugar larger than US
`
`mesh sieve no. 3. Thus. the product delivered to Red Diamond embodied such
`
`claims 23-25 of the ‘852 Patent.
`
`Page 5 of 6
`
`__—_____—____—————————
`
`Southern Visions
`
`Exhibit 2050
`
`Southern Visions
`Exhibit 2050
`
`
`
`20.
`
`The documents appearing as Exhibit F to my Declaration in Support of Patent
`
`Owner’s Motion to Amend, executed on January 7, 2020, which appears as Exhibit
`
`2028 in this PGR proceeding, are true and correct copies of e-mails Southern Visions
`
`kept in the ordinary course of business and which were obtained from Southern
`
`Visions c-mail system.
`
`The matters stated in this declaration are true and acCurate to the best of my personal
`
`knowledge. Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1746, I declare under penalty of perjury under
`
`the laws of the United States that the foregoing is true and correct.
`
`Respectfully submitted,
`(-
`
`4)
`
`M \
`
`if:
`
`Adam Stewart
`
`Executed on: VS‘“‘ «3030 _
`
`Page 6 of 6
`
`—___—___—_____—_————————
`
`Southern Visions
`
`Exhibit 2050
`
`Southern Visions
`Exhibit 2050
`
`
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
