UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`___________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`____________
`
`RED DIAMOND, INC.,
`Petitioner,
`v.
`SOUTHERN VISIONS, LLP,
`Patent Owner.
`___________
`Case PGR2019-00045
`Patent 10,071,852
`___________
`
`Declaration of Juelene Beck
`in Support of Patent Owner’s Revised Motion to Amend
`
`Page 1 of 5
`
`Southern Visions
`Exhibit 2051
`
`
`___________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`____________
`
`RED DIAMOND, INC.,
`Petitioner,
`v.
`SOUTHERN VISIONS, LLP,
`Patent Owner.
`___________
`Case PGR2019-00045
`Patent 10,071,852
`___________
`
`Declaration of Juelene Beck
`in Support of Patent Owner’s Revised Motion to Amend
`
`Page 1 of 5
`
`Southern Visions
`Exhibit 2051
`
`
`
`I. INTRODUCTION
`
`A. Engagement
`
`1.
`
`My name is Juelene Beck. I have been retained by counsel for Southern
`
`Visions, LLP (“Southern Visions”) as an expert witness in the above-captioned
`
`proceeding. I have been asked to supplement my analyses and opinions about the
`
`technology described in U.S. Patent No. 10,071,852 (the “’852 Patent”) and U.S.
`
`Patent Application No. 13/867,526 (the “’526 App”), which I previously provided
`
`in the Declaration of Juelene Beck in Support of Patent Owner’s Preliminary
`
`Response, signed on July 17, 2019 and bearing Patent Owner’s Exhibit No. 2001
`
`(the “First Juelene Beck Declaration”), as well as the Declaration of Juelene Beck in
`
`Support of Patent Owner’s Motion to Amend, signed on January 7, 2020 and bearing
`
`Patent Owner’s Exhibit No. 2027 (the “Second Juelene Beck Declaration”).
`
`B. Background, Qualifications, and Compensation
`
`2.
`
`My education, background, and compensation are all stated in the First
`
`Juelene Beck Declaration and the Second Juelene Beck Declaration and have not
`
`changed.
`
`C. Materials and Information Considered
`
`3.
`
`In addition to my education and experience in the food service and consumer
`
`packaged goods industries, I relied on personal knowledge as gained from my review
`
`of the documents identified in this declaration.
`
`Page 2 of 5
`
`Southern Visions
`Exhibit 2051
`
`
`
`4.
`
`My opinions are based on my experience and information I have reviewed to
`
`date, including those documents identified in the First Juelene Beck Declaration and
`
`the Second Juelene Beck Declaration. I reserve the right to supplement, change, or
`
`amend those opinions should I become aware of additional information.
`
`5.
`
`I also understand that I may be asked to provide additional opinions, which
`
`may require me to review additional information. The fact that any specific opinion
`
`does not appear in this report does not suggest that I am not qualified to provide such
`
`an opinion, nor should it suggest that I agree with any specific statement in Red
`
`Diamond’s Petition for Post Grant Review (the “Petition”), Exhibit 1004 to the
`
`Petition (the “Coffield Report”), by Mr. Coffield, or Red Diamond’s Opposition to
`
`Southern Visions Motion to Amend.
`
`6.
`
`My opinions are presented for the purpose being used in the above-captioned
`
`proceedings, and I understand that the Patent Trial and Appeal Board will be asked
`
`to rely on my opinions in evaluating issues in the above-captioned dispute.
`
`However, the facts of any specific factual matter may differ. Thus, my opinions
`
`stated herein should not be relied upon by parties outside the present proceedings or
`
`for matters unrelated to the proceedings.
`
`7.
`
`My opinions stated in the First Juelene Beck Declaration and the Second
`
`Juelene Beck Declaration have not changed and are merely supplemented herein.
`
`Page 3 of 5
`
`Southern Visions
`Exhibit 2051
`
`
`
`II. Analysis
`
`A. The Person of Ordinary Skill in the Art
`
`8.
`
`In the Second Juelene Beck Declaration, I discussed the Person of Ordinary
`
`Skill in the Art (POSA).
`
`9.
`
`In my opinion, as of April 22, 2013, a POSA would know that, when freshly
`
`brewing iced tea using commercial restaurant iced tea brewing machines, 3-gallon
`
`batches of iced tea are most commonly brewed using 4 ounces of loose tea and 1.5-
`
`gallon batches of iced tea are most commonly brewed using 2 ounces of loose tea.
`
`This is because 4 ounces and 2 ounces have been, for many years, the most common
`
`amounts of loose tea used in restaurants for 3-gallon and 1.5-gallon batches of iced
`
`tea, respectively. I am aware that these amounts of loose tea are the most commonly
`
`used amounts in restaurants due to my experience with restaurant iced tea brewing
`
`systems, obtained through my employment with Burger King Corporation, the North
`
`American Association of Subway Franchisees, Sara Lee Coffee & Tea, and Dunkin
`
`Donuts Incorporated, as well as my consulting with many other chain restaurants
`
`that sell freshly brewed iced tea. This experience included, without limitation, (a)
`
`supervision and creation of product specifications for iced tea, and (b) management
`
`of beverage product categories in chain restaurants.
`
`Page 4 of 5
`
`Southern Visions
`Exhibit 2051
`
`
`
`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,
`
`Executed on: ______________
`
`Juelene Beck
`
`Page 5 of 5
`
`Southern Visions
`Exhibit 2051
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`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 ofperjury
`
`under the laws of the United States that the foregoing is true and correct.
`
` Juelene Bec
`
`Executed on: 0 E [M @70
`
`Page 5 of5
`
`Southern Visions
`
`'
`
`it 2051
`
`Southern Visions
`Exhibit 2051
`
`
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
