Free Brief - District Court of California - California

Case 4:08-cv-02781-SBA

Document 10

Filed 07/25/2008

Page 1 of 10

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

James E. Doroshow, Esq. (SBN: 112920) [email protected] Brian T. Hafter, Esq. (SBN: 173151) [email protected] Matthew Borden, Esq. (SBN: 214323) [email protected] LINER YANKELEVITZ SUNSHINE & REGENSTREIF LLP 199 Fremont Street, 20th Floor San Francisco, CA 94105-2255 Telephone: (415) 489-7700 Facsimile: (415) 489-7701 Dwayne K. Goetzel, Esq. (SBN: 08059500) Ryan T. Beard, Esq. (SBN: 24012264) MEYERTONS HOOD KIVLIN KOWERT & GOETZEL PC 700 Lavaca, Suite 800 Austin, TX 78701 Telephone: (512) 853-8800 Facsimile: (512) 853-8801 (pro hac vice to be filed) Attorneys for Defendant Vision Dynamics, LLC UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA SAN FRANCISCO DIVISION TOKUYAMA CORPORATION, Plaintiff, v. VISION DYNAMICS, LLC, Defendant. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) Case No. C08-02781 JL MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT OF DEFENDANT VISION DYNAMICS, LLC'S MOTION TO STAY THE LITIGATION FOR THE REEXAMINATION OF THE '017 PATENT Date: September 3, 2008 Time: 9:30 a.m. Department: Courtroom F, 15th Floor

Case No. C08-02781 JL MPA ISO VISION DYNAMICS' MOTION TO STAY LITIGATION FOR REEXAMINATION OF '017 PATENT
0030074/001/ 38870v01

Case 4:08-cv-02781-SBA

Document 10

Filed 07/25/2008

Page 2 of 10

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

I.

INTRODUCTION Defendant Vision Dynamics, LLC ("Vision Dynamics") moves the Court to stay this

litigation in favor of the reexamination of the asserted patent U.S. Patent No. 5,621,017 C1 (the "Reexamined Patent"). See Exhibit 1. On June 25, 2008, Vision Dynamics filed a request for reexamination of the Reexamined Patent with the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office ("PTO"). A copy of the reexamination is attached hereto as Exhibit 2. The reexamination establishes without question that there is significant prior art that invalidates the claims in the Reexamined Patent. Specifically, the reexamination establishes that all of the claims in the only patent asserted in this case are invalid. As such, there is a compelling and urgent need for reexamination. Given the clear invalidity of the only patent at issue, it simply does not make sense for the Court to move forward in this case without first allowing the PTO to reexamine the patent. This patent infringement case concerns one cause of action for infringement of one patent, and no other causes of action. The only substantive action in this case so far has been a filing of the Complaint. There has been no discovery, no claim construction, and no trial has been set. Given the significance of the prior art cited in the reexamination and the high likelihood that the claims will be invalidated or altered, this is an ideal time for the Court to stay this case. By staying this case, the Court and the parties will avoid expending a significant amount of their time and resources taking discovery and construing claims that will be declared invalid or amended as a result of the reexamination. Moreover, if some claims for the Reexamined Patent survive reexamination, the Court will have the benefit of the PTO's expert review of the asserted claims, and a richer prosecution history in order to construe the claim terms. In summary, a stay of this case with respect to the Reexamined Patent is warranted. Vision Dynamics therefore requests that this litigation be stayed. II. BACKGROUND. Plaintiff Tokuyama Corporation ("Tokuyama") filed the instant patent infringement Complaint on or about June 4, 2008, asserting a single patent infringement claim against Vision Dynamics. See Exhibit 3. There are no other causes of action asserted by Tokuyama. On June 25, 1 Case No. C08-02781 JL MPA ISO VISION DYNAMICS' MOTION TO STAY LITIGATION FOR REEXAMINATION OF '017 PATENT
0030074/001/ 38870v01

Case 4:08-cv-02781-SBA

Document 10

Filed 07/25/2008

Page 3 of 10

1

2008, Vision Dynamics filed with the PTO a request for reexamination of the Reexamined Patent.

2 See Exhibit 2. 3 4 With respect to the status of this case, Tokuyama has filed its Complaint, but Vision Dynamics has not yet filed a response to the Complaint. While the Court has scheduled a case

5 management conference, the Court has not entered a scheduling order, not held the case 6 management conference, there is no protective order, and no discovery has been submitted or 7 occurred. With respect to the substantive matters, the parties have not served infringement 8 contentions, invalidity contentions, or engaged in any claim construction whatsoever. Finally, the 9 Court has not set this case for trial. 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 III. In sum, this case involves one patent and is in its very initial stage. NATURE OF A REEXAMINATION PROCEDURE. 35 U.S.C. § 302 states: "Any person at any time may file a request for reexamination by the [PTO] of any claim of a patent on the basis of any prior art cited under the provisions of section 301." "Congress enacted the [USPTO] reexamination procedure to provide an inexpensive, expedient means of determining patent validity which, if available and practical, should be deferred to by the courts." ASCII Corp. v. STD Entm't USA, Inc., 844 F. Supp. 1378, 1380 (N.D. Cal. 1994) (emphasis added); see also Ho Keung Tse v. Apple Inc., No. C 06-06573 SBA,

18 2007 WL 2904279, at *1 (N.D. Cal. Oct. 4, 2007) (noting that "Congress instituted the 19 reexamination process to shift the burden of reexamination of patent validity from the courts to the 20 PTO" and to allow courts to utilize "the PTO's specialized expertise to reduce costly and timely 21 litigation"). 22 This Court has the authority to order a stay in a patent litigation pending the outcome of a

23 patent reexamination proceeding in the PTO. See Zilog, Inc. v. Quicklogic Corp., No. C 03-03725 24 JW, 2004 WL 2452850, at *1 (N.D. Cal. Mar. 31, 2004); ASCII Corp., 844 F. Supp. at 1380

25 (noting that the issue is within the Court's "sound discretion"); In re Cygus Telecomms. Tech., 26 27 28 LLC, 385 F. Supp. 2d 1022, 1023 (N.D. Cal. 2005); Nanometrics, Inc. v. Nova Measuring Instruments, Ltd., No. C 06-2252 SBA, 2007 WL 627920, at *1 (N.D. Cal. Feb. 26, 2007); Ho 2 Case No. C08-02781 JL MPA ISO VISION DYNAMICS' MOTION TO STAY LITIGATION FOR REEXAMINATION OF '017 PATENT
0030074/001/ 38870v01

Case 4:08-cv-02781-SBA

Document 10

Filed 07/25/2008

Page 4 of 10

1

Keung Tse, 2007 WL 2904279, at *1; Sorensen v. Digital Networks N. Am. Inc., No. C 07-05568

2 JSW, 2008 WL 152179, at *1 (N.D. Cal. Jan. 16, 2008); Target Therapeutics, Inc. v. Scimed Life 3 4 5 6 Sys., Inc., No. C-94-20775 RPA (EAI), 1995 WL 20470, at *1 (N.D. Cal. Jan. 13, 1995); Methode Elecs., Inc. v. Infineon Techs. Corp., No. C 99-21142 JW, 2000 WL 35357130, at *2 (N.D. Cal. Aug. 7, 2000). In this district, there is a "liberal policy in favor of granting motions to stay proceedings

7 pending the outcome of reexamination proceedings." ASCII Corp., 844 F. Supp. at 1381 8 9 (emphasis added); see also Photoflex Prods., Inc. v. Circa 3 LLC, No. C 04-03715 JSW, 2006 WL 1440363, at *1 (N.D. Cal. May 24, 2006); KLA-Tencor Corp. v. Nanometrics, Inc., No. C 05-

10 03116 JSW, 2006 WL 708661, at *2 (N.D. Cal. Mar. 16, 2006); Nanometrics, 2007 WL 627920, at 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 *1; Ho Keung Tse, 2007 WL 2904279, at *1; Sorensen, 2008 WL 152179, at *1; Target Therapeutics, 1995 WL 20470, at *1; Methode, 2000 WL 35357130, at *2. When considering a motion to stay pending reexamination, this Court considers the following three factors: (1) Whether a stay would unduly prejudice or present a clear tactical disadvantage to the non-moving party; (2) (3) Whether a stay will simplify the issues in question and trial of the case; and Whether discovery is complete or a trial has been set.

See Zilog, 2004 WL 2452850, at *1; Photoflex, 2006 WL 1440363, at *1; Cygus, 385 F. Supp. 2d at 1023; Nanometrics, 2007 WL 627920, at *1; Ho Keung Tse, 2007 WL 2904279, at *2; Sorensen, 2008 WL 152179, at *1; Research in Motion Ltd. v. Visto Corp., 545 F. Supp. 2d 1011, 1012 (2008); Target Therapeutics, 1995 WL 20470, at *1; Methode, 2000 WL 35357130, at *2. All three of these factors support granting a stay in this case. This Court has previously held that: "A stay is particularly appropriate for cases in the initial stages of litigation or in which there has been little discovery." Ho Keung Tse, 2007 WL 2904279, at *2 (emphasis added). Since this case is in its infancy, a stay in this case is particularly appropriate. 3 Case No. C08-02781 JL MPA ISO VISION DYNAMICS' MOTION TO STAY LITIGATION FOR REEXAMINATION OF '017 PATENT
0030074/001/ 38870v01

Case 4:08-cv-02781-SBA

Document 10

Filed 07/25/2008

Page 5 of 10

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

IV.

THE COURT SHOULD STAY THIS CASE. Applying the factors and case law recognized by this Court, the Court should find

that a stay is appropriate for at least the following reasons: A. This Case is Still in its Very Early Stages.

The case is in its very initial stage. Vision Dynamics has not responded to the Complaint. The Court does not have a scheduling order. There has been no discovery whatsoever. The case has not been set for trial and there is no scheduled Markman hearing. Neither party has proposed claim constructions, or filed claim construction briefing, dispositive motions, preliminary infringement or invalidity contentions, or initial disclosures. This Court has found in similar situations (and even in cases much farther along than this case) that this factor strongly favors

11 granting the motion for stay. See ASCII Corp., 844 F. Supp. at 1381; Methode, 2000 WL 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 4 Case No. C08-02781 JL MPA ISO VISION DYNAMICS' MOTION TO STAY LITIGATION FOR REEXAMINATION OF '017 PATENT
0030074/001/ 38870v01

35357130, at *2; Zilog, 2004 WL 2452850, at *3; Target Therapeutics, 1995 WL 20470, at *2; Research in Motion, 545 F. Supp. 2d at 1012; Sorensen, 2008 WL 152179, at *2; Ho Keung Tse, 2007 WL 2904279, at *2; Nanometrics, 2007 WL 627920, at *2; KLA-Tencor, 2006 WL 708661, at *2. B. A Stay Will Not Unduly Prejudice or Present a Clear Tactical Disadvantage for Tokuyama.

Tokuyama must provide this Court with evidence that Vision Dynamics brought the reexamination to unduly delay the case or for dilatory reasons. See Methode, 2000 WL 35357130, at *3; Ho Keung Tse, 2007 WL 2904279, at *4; KLA-Tencor, 2006 WL 708661, at *2. Tokuyama may not rely upon the delay inherently caused by a reexamination for this factor. See Research in Motion, 545 F. Supp. 2d at 1012 (finding that there is no prejudice due solely to the reexamination because "the delay in having such claims adjudicated in court, does not, by itself, constitute undue prejudice"); Sorensen, 2008 WL 152179, at *2; Ho Keung Tse, 2007 WL 2904279, at *4; Nanometrics, 2007 WL 627920, at *3; KLA-Tencor, 2006 WL 708661, at *2; Photoflex, 2006 WL 1440363, at *2.

Case 4:08-cv-02781-SBA

Document 10

Filed 07/25/2008

Page 6 of 10

1

As set forth in more detail above, the procedural status of this case demonstrates that Vision

2 Dynamics did not file its reexamination in order to unduly prejudice Tokuyama or to create a clear 3 tactical disadvantage for Tokuyama. To the contrary, Vision Dynamics filed its reexamination a 4 mere 21 days after the Complaint was filed and without delay. See Sorensen, 2008 WL 152179, at 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 *2 ("Granting a stay does not cause the nonmoving party undue prejudice when the party has not invested substantial expense and time in the litigation"). This Court has found prejudice due to delay only when reexamination is sought on the eve of trial or after protracted discovery. See Sorensen, 2008 WL 152179, at *2; KLA-Tencor, 2006 WL 708661, at *3. This is clearly not the case here. Furthermore, the merits of the reexamination demonstrate that there is significant prior art to the Reexamined Patent that will result in invalidity of the patent, or, at the very least, cancellation or substantial amendment of the claims for the Reexamined Patent. For example, claim 1 of the Reexamined Patent is directed to "a photochromic composition." See Exhibit 1. The photochromic composition includes polymerizable monomer, a photochromic compound and a photopolymerization initiator (the "photoinitiator"). The photochromic compound in claim 1 is limited to 0.001 to 0.2 part by weight of a chromene, a spiro-oxirane, and mixtures thereof per 100 parts by weight of polymerizable monomer. The photopolymerization initiator of claim 1 is limited to 0.01 to 0.1 part by weight of an -dicarbonyl photopolymerization initiator, an acylphosphine oxide photo polymerization initiator, and a bisacylphosphine oxide photo polymerization initiator, per 100 parts by weight of the polymerizable monomer. All of the features of claim 1 are taught by the prior art. For example, United States

22 Patent No. 4,780,393 (the "Frommeld Patent"), which issued years before the Reexamined Patent 23 was even filed, teaches a photochromic composition that includes the polymerizable monomer,1 the 24 25 The Frommeld Patent discloses "a compound that has at least one terminal ethylenic double bond 26 and a boiling temperature, at standard pressure, of above 100 °C., and that can form a polymer by (Continued...) 27 28 5 Case No. C08-02781 JL MPA ISO VISION DYNAMICS' MOTION TO STAY LITIGATION FOR REEXAMINATION OF '017 PATENT
0030074/001/ 38870v01 1

Case 4:08-cv-02781-SBA

Document 10

Filed 07/25/2008

Page 7 of 10

1 2 3

amounts of photochromic compound, and the amounts of -dicarbonyl photopolymerization initiator of the Reexamined Patent. See Exhibit 2, pp. 10-13, and a copy of the Frommeld Patent attached as Exhibit 4. Since all of the features of claim 1 are taught by the prior art, claim 1 is
3

2

4 invalid. Detailed analysis of the other claims in the Reexamined Patent demonstrates that such 5 other claims are also invalid. See Exhibit 2. 6 Given the clear invalidity of the Reexamined Patent, there is no evidence of undue

7 prejudice or that the reexamination results in a clear tactical disadvantage for Tokuyama. In fact, to 8 the contrary, the reexaminations will save time and effort for all concerned and thus will not 9 prejudice any party. Therefore, this factor supports the Court granting the stay. 10 11 C. A Stay Will Simplify the Issues in Question and Trial of the Case.

The PTO grants over 95% of all requests for ex parte reexaminations.

12 http://www.patentlyo.com/patent/2008/06/inter-partes-re.html. This Court has previously cited to 13 statistics that indicate that in about seventy-six percent (76%) of the cases, claims are cancelled or 14 amended. See Ho Keung Tse, 2007 WL 2904279, at *3 (stating that "the PTO cancels all claims in 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 6 Case No. C08-02781 JL MPA ISO VISION DYNAMICS' MOTION TO STAY LITIGATION FOR REEXAMINATION OF '017 PATENT
0030074/001/ 38870v01

(...Continued) polymerization initiated by a free-radical process." See Exhibit 4, col. 2, lines 21-24 and claim 1. "Polymerizable compounds useful for the purpose of this invention are known and are described, for example, in U.S. Pat. Nos. 2,760,863 and 3,060,023. Preferred examples are acrylic and methacrylic acid esters of dihydric and polyhydric alcohols, such as ethylene glycol diacrylate, polyethylene glycol dimethacrylate, acrylates and methacrylates of trimethylol ethane, trimethylol propane, pentaerythritol, dipentaerythritol, and of polyhydric alicyclic alcohols." See Exhibit 4, col. 5, lines 50-58. 2 The Frommeld Patent states: "The corresponding content of spiro compound generally varies between 0.01 and 2.0 percent by weight, preferably between 0.05 and 1.0 percent by weight, relative to the nonvolatile constituents of the composition." See Exhibit 4, col. 4, lines 17-20. 3 The Frommeld Patent discloses: "A large number of substances can be used as photopolymerization initiators in a composition according to the present invention. Examples are benzophenone, thioxanthone, benzoin and their derivatives." See Exhibit 4, col. 4, lines 24-27. Derivatives of benzoin are -dicarbonyl compounds. The Frommeld Patent also states that: "The initiators are generally employed in an amount ranging from 0.01 to 10.0 percent by weight, preferably from 0.05 to 4.0 percent by weight, relative to the nonvolatile constituents of the composition." See Exhibit 4, col. 5, lines 46-49.

Case 4:08-cv-02781-SBA

Document 10

Filed 07/25/2008

Page 8 of 10

1 2 3 4 5 6

approximately twelve percent of all reexaminations and changes some claims in approximately sixty-four percent"). Allowing the PTO an opportunity to complete its reexamination of the Reexamined Patent will greatly simplify this case, and will result in judicial economy and efficiency for the Court. Given the significant and substantial prior art presented by Vision Dynamics to the PTO in the reexamination (there are a total of five prior art references asserted by Vision Dynamics), it is

7 highly likely that the claims will be invalidated or, at the very least, significantly altered. See 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 7 Case No. C08-02781 JL MPA ISO VISION DYNAMICS' MOTION TO STAY LITIGATION FOR REEXAMINATION OF '017 PATENT
0030074/001/ 38870v01

Exhibit 2. If the PTO determines that the Reexamined Patent is invalid (or any of its claims are invalid), then the stay will eliminate the need for discovery and trial on those issues. See Methode, 2000 WL 35357130, at *2; Zilog, 2004 WL 2452850, at *3; Target Therapeutics, 1995 WL 20470, at *2; Ho Keung Tse, 2007 WL 2904279, at *3 ("Along these same lines, if the PTO finds some or all of the claims of the patent are invalid, the Court will have wasted resources and the parties will have spent funds addressing an invalid claim or claims if this action goes to trial prior to the reexamination"); Nanometrics, 2007 WL 627920, at *2-3; KLA-Tencor, 2006 WL 708661, at *4. Alternatively, if the reexamination results in amendments to or narrowing of the claims for the Reexamined Patent, then there will also be simplification of the patent issues before the Court. See Methode, 2000 WL 35357130, at *2; Target Therapeutics, 1995 WL 20470, at *2; Research in Motion, 545 F. Supp. 2d at 1012; Ho Keung Tse, 2007 WL 2904279, at *3; Nanometrics, 2007 WL 627920, at *2-3; KLA-Tencor, 2006 WL 708661, at *4; Photoflex, 2006 WL 1440363, at *2. Moreover, in this circumstance (where amendment or narrowing occurs), the Court will not have to engage in duplicative efforts with respect to the Reexamined Patent. For example, if the Court does not grant the stay, then the parties and the Court will spend a significant amount of time and resources (1) taking discovery on the Reexamined Patent, and (2) construing the meaning for the Reexamined Patent. If reexamination results in cancellation of any claims or amendment to any claims, then this effort will be wasted because the parties will then most likely have to re-do the

Case 4:08-cv-02781-SBA

Document 10

Filed 07/25/2008

Page 9 of 10

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11

discovery and claim construction efforts for the new claims. See Zilog, 2004 WL 2452850, at *3 (citing duplicative claim interpretation efforts as a reason to grant a motion to stay). Furthermore, the Court will benefit from waiting for completion of the reexamination. After completion of the reexamination, this Court will have the benefit of the PTO's expertise and analysis of the prior art and patent claims, which will assist both the parties and this Court in resolving the patent issues in this case. There are numerous cases from this Court citing this fact as a reason to grant a stay: ASCII Corp., 844 F. Supp. at 1381; Methode, 2000 WL 35357130, at *2; Target Therapeutics, 1995 WL 20470, at *2; Ho Keung Tse, 2007 WL 2904279, at *3; Nanometrics, 2007 WL 627920, at *3; KLA-Tencor, 2006 WL 708661, at *4. Moreover, waiting for completion of the reexamination will allow the Court to have a "richer prosecution history" upon which to base its claim construction. See Cygus, 385 F. Supp. 2d

12 at 1024. In other words, the Court and the parties will have the benefit of reviewing a complete 13 prosecution history for the Reexamined Patent prior to construing the asserted patent claims. 14 V. 15 CONCLUSION. Given the circumstances of this case, the case law for this Court strongly favors this Court

16 granting the stay. In fact, all of the factors cited in the Court's case law overwhelmingly favors this 17 Court granting a stay. By staying this case and waiting for the PTO to complete its reexamination, 18 this Court and the parties will clearly benefit. The case involves only one patent, and has barely 19 begun. Vision Dynamics has presented the PTO with substantial and significant prior art to the 20 Reexamined Patent, and has not delayed bringing this prior art to the attention of the PTO. If the 21 patent claims for the Reexamined Patent are invalidated or changed (as happens in over 3 out of 22 every 4 cases), then the need for this case to proceed may be totally eliminated or severely limited. 23 Finally, reexamination will simplify this case, provide the Court with the PTO's expertise of the 24 prior art and claims, and will provide the Court and the parties with a richer prosecution history for 25 claim construction. 26 /// 27 /// 28 8 Case No. C08-02781 JL MPA ISO VISION DYNAMICS' MOTION TO STAY LITIGATION FOR REEXAMINATION OF '017 PATENT
0030074/001/ 38870v01

Case 4:08-cv-02781-SBA

Document 10

Filed 07/25/2008

Page 10 of 10

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

For these reasons, Vision Dynamics respectfully requests this Court enter an Order staying further litigation regarding the Reexamined Patent until the reexamination proceedings before the PTO are complete.

Dated: July 25, 2008

LINER YANKELEVITZ SUNSHINE & REGENSTREIF LLP /s/Matthew Borden Matthew Borden Attorneys for Defendant Vision Dynamics, LLC Dwayne K. Goetzel Ryan T. Beard MEYERTONS HOOD KIVLIN KOWERT & GOETZEL PC 700 Lavaca, Suite 800 Austin, TX 78701 (pro hac vice to be filed) By:

9 Case No. C08-02781 JL MPA ISO VISION DYNAMICS' MOTION TO STAY LITIGATION FOR REEXAMINATION OF '017 PATENT
0030074/001/ 38870v01

Case 4:08-cv-02781-SBA

Document 10-2

Filed 07/25/2008

Page 1 of 13

EXHIBIT 1

Case 4:08-cv-02781-SBA

Document 10-2

Filed 07/25/2008

Page 2 of 13

Case 4:08-cv-02781-SBA

Document 10-2

Filed 07/25/2008

Page 3 of 13

Case 4:08-cv-02781-SBA

Document 10-2

Filed 07/25/2008

Page 4 of 13

Case 4:08-cv-02781-SBA

Document 10-2

Filed 07/25/2008

Page 5 of 13

Case 4:08-cv-02781-SBA

Document 10-2

Filed 07/25/2008

Page 6 of 13

Case 4:08-cv-02781-SBA

Document 10-2

Filed 07/25/2008

Page 7 of 13

Case 4:08-cv-02781-SBA

Document 10-2

Filed 07/25/2008

Page 8 of 13

Case 4:08-cv-02781-SBA

Document 10-2

Filed 07/25/2008

Page 9 of 13

Case 4:08-cv-02781-SBA

Document 10-2

Filed 07/25/2008

Page 10 of 13

Case 4:08-cv-02781-SBA

Document 10-2

Filed 07/25/2008

Page 11 of 13

Case 4:08-cv-02781-SBA

Document 10-2

Filed 07/25/2008

Page 12 of 13

Case 4:08-cv-02781-SBA

Document 10-2

Filed 07/25/2008

Page 13 of 13

Case 4:08-cv-02781-SBA

Document 10-3

Filed 07/25/2008

Page 1 of 61

Case 4:08-cv-02781-SBA

Document 10-3

Filed 07/25/2008

Page 2 of 61

Case 4:08-cv-02781-SBA

Document 10-3

Filed 07/25/2008

Page 3 of 61

Case 4:08-cv-02781-SBA

Document 10-3

Filed 07/25/2008

Page 4 of 61

Case 4:08-cv-02781-SBA

Document 10-3

Filed 07/25/2008

Page 5 of 61

Case 4:08-cv-02781-SBA

Document 10-3

Filed 07/25/2008

Page 6 of 61

Case 4:08-cv-02781-SBA

Document 10-3

Filed 07/25/2008

Page 7 of 61

Case 4:08-cv-02781-SBA

Document 10-3

Filed 07/25/2008

Page 8 of 61

Case 4:08-cv-02781-SBA

Document 10-3

Filed 07/25/2008

Page 9 of 61

Case 4:08-cv-02781-SBA

Document 10-3

Filed 07/25/2008

Page 10 of 61

Case 4:08-cv-02781-SBA

Document 10-3

Filed 07/25/2008

Page 11 of 61

Case 4:08-cv-02781-SBA

Document 10-3

Filed 07/25/2008

Page 12 of 61

Case 4:08-cv-02781-SBA

Document 10-3

Filed 07/25/2008

Page 13 of 61

Case 4:08-cv-02781-SBA

Document 10-3

Filed 07/25/2008

Page 14 of 61

Case 4:08-cv-02781-SBA

Document 10-3

Filed 07/25/2008

Page 15 of 61

Case 4:08-cv-02781-SBA

Document 10-3

Filed 07/25/2008

Page 16 of 61

Case 4:08-cv-02781-SBA

Document 10-3

Filed 07/25/2008

Page 17 of 61

Case 4:08-cv-02781-SBA

Document 10-3

Filed 07/25/2008

Page 18 of 61

Case 4:08-cv-02781-SBA

Document 10-3

Filed 07/25/2008

Page 19 of 61

Case 4:08-cv-02781-SBA

Document 10-3

Filed 07/25/2008

Page 20 of 61

Case 4:08-cv-02781-SBA

Document 10-3

Filed 07/25/2008

Page 21 of 61

Case 4:08-cv-02781-SBA

Document 10-3

Filed 07/25/2008

Page 22 of 61

Case 4:08-cv-02781-SBA

Document 10-3

Filed 07/25/2008

Page 23 of 61

Case 4:08-cv-02781-SBA

Document 10-3

Filed 07/25/2008

Page 24 of 61

Case 4:08-cv-02781-SBA

Document 10-3

Filed 07/25/2008

Page 25 of 61

Case 4:08-cv-02781-SBA

Document 10-3

Filed 07/25/2008

Page 26 of 61

Case 4:08-cv-02781-SBA

Document 10-3

Filed 07/25/2008

Page 27 of 61

Case 4:08-cv-02781-SBA

Document 10-3

Filed 07/25/2008

Page 28 of 61

Case 4:08-cv-02781-SBA

Document 10-3

Filed 07/25/2008

Page 29 of 61

Case 4:08-cv-02781-SBA

Document 10-3

Filed 07/25/2008

Page 30 of 61

Case 4:08-cv-02781-SBA

Document 10-3

Filed 07/25/2008

Page 31 of 61

Case 4:08-cv-02781-SBA

Document 10-3

Filed 07/25/2008

Page 32 of 61

Case 4:08-cv-02781-SBA

Document 10-3

Filed 07/25/2008

Page 33 of 61

Case 4:08-cv-02781-SBA

Document 10-3

Filed 07/25/2008

Page 34 of 61

Case 4:08-cv-02781-SBA

Document 10-3

Filed 07/25/2008

Page 35 of 61

Case 4:08-cv-02781-SBA

Document 10-3

Filed 07/25/2008

Page 36 of 61

Case 4:08-cv-02781-SBA

Document 10-3

Filed 07/25/2008

Page 37 of 61

Case 4:08-cv-02781-SBA

Document 10-3

Filed 07/25/2008

Page 38 of 61

Case 4:08-cv-02781-SBA

Document 10-3

Filed 07/25/2008

Page 39 of 61

Case 4:08-cv-02781-SBA

Document 10-3

Filed 07/25/2008

Page 40 of 61

Case 4:08-cv-02781-SBA

Document 10-3

Filed 07/25/2008

Page 41 of 61

Case 4:08-cv-02781-SBA

Document 10-3

Filed 07/25/2008

Page 42 of 61

Case 4:08-cv-02781-SBA

Document 10-3

Filed 07/25/2008

Page 43 of 61

Case 4:08-cv-02781-SBA

Document 10-3

Filed 07/25/2008

Page 44 of 61

Case 4:08-cv-02781-SBA

Document 10-3

Filed 07/25/2008

Page 45 of 61

Case 4:08-cv-02781-SBA

Document 10-3

Filed 07/25/2008

Page 46 of 61

Case 4:08-cv-02781-SBA

Document 10-3

Filed 07/25/2008

Page 47 of 61

Case 4:08-cv-02781-SBA

Document 10-3

Filed 07/25/2008

Page 48 of 61

Case 4:08-cv-02781-SBA

Document 10-3

Filed 07/25/2008

Page 49 of 61

Case 4:08-cv-02781-SBA

Document 10-3

Filed 07/25/2008

Page 50 of 61

Case 4:08-cv-02781-SBA

Document 10-3

Filed 07/25/2008

Page 51 of 61

Case 4:08-cv-02781-SBA

Document 10-3

Filed 07/25/2008

Page 52 of 61

Case 4:08-cv-02781-SBA

Document 10-3

Filed 07/25/2008

Page 53 of 61

Case 4:08-cv-02781-SBA

Document 10-3

Filed 07/25/2008

Page 54 of 61

Case 4:08-cv-02781-SBA

Document 10-3

Filed 07/25/2008

Page 55 of 61

Case 4:08-cv-02781-SBA

Document 10-3

Filed 07/25/2008

Page 56 of 61

Case 4:08-cv-02781-SBA

Document 10-3

Filed 07/25/2008

Page 57 of 61

Case 4:08-cv-02781-SBA

Document 10-3

Filed 07/25/2008

Page 58 of 61

Case 4:08-cv-02781-SBA

Document 10-3

Filed 07/25/2008

Page 59 of 61

Case 4:08-cv-02781-SBA

Document 10-3

Filed 07/25/2008

Page 60 of 61

Case 4:08-cv-02781-SBA

Document 10-3

Filed 07/25/2008

Page 61 of 61

Case 4:08-cv-02781-SBA

Document 10-4

Filed 07/25/2008

Page 1 of 49

Case 4:08-cv-02781-SBA

Document 10-4

Filed 07/25/2008

Page 2 of 49

Case 4:08-cv-02781-SBA

Document 10-4

Filed 07/25/2008

Page 3 of 49

Case 4:08-cv-02781-SBA

Document 10-4

Filed 07/25/2008

Page 4 of 49

Case 4:08-cv-02781-SBA

Document 10-4

Filed 07/25/2008

Page 5 of 49

Case 4:08-cv-02781-SBA

Document 10-4

Filed 07/25/2008

Page 6 of 49

Case 4:08-cv-02781-SBA

Document 10-4

Filed 07/25/2008

Page 7 of 49

Case 4:08-cv-02781-SBA

Document 10-4

Filed 07/25/2008

Page 8 of 49

Case 4:08-cv-02781-SBA

Document 10-4

Filed 07/25/2008

Page 9 of 49

Case 4:08-cv-02781-SBA

Document 10-4

Filed 07/25/2008

Page 10 of 49

Case 4:08-cv-02781-SBA

Document 10-4

Filed 07/25/2008

Page 11 of 49

Case 4:08-cv-02781-SBA

Document 10-4

Filed 07/25/2008

Page 12 of 49

Case 4:08-cv-02781-SBA

Document 10-4

Filed 07/25/2008

Page 13 of 49

Case 4:08-cv-02781-SBA

Document 10-4

Filed 07/25/2008

Page 14 of 49

Case 4:08-cv-02781-SBA

Document 10-4

Filed 07/25/2008

Page 15 of 49

Case 4:08-cv-02781-SBA

Document 10-4

Filed 07/25/2008

Page 16 of 49

Case 4:08-cv-02781-SBA

Document 10-4

Filed 07/25/2008

Page 17 of 49

Case 4:08-cv-02781-SBA

Document 10-4

Filed 07/25/2008

Page 18 of 49

Case 4:08-cv-02781-SBA

Document 10-4

Filed 07/25/2008

Page 19 of 49

Case 4:08-cv-02781-SBA

Document 10-4

Filed 07/25/2008

Page 20 of 49

Case 4:08-cv-02781-SBA

Document 10-4

Filed 07/25/2008

Page 21 of 49

Case 4:08-cv-02781-SBA

Document 10-4

Filed 07/25/2008

Page 22 of 49

Case 4:08-cv-02781-SBA

Document 10-4

Filed 07/25/2008

Page 23 of 49

Case 4:08-cv-02781-SBA

Document 10-4

Filed 07/25/2008

Page 24 of 49

Case 4:08-cv-02781-SBA

Document 10-4

Filed 07/25/2008

Page 25 of 49

Case 4:08-cv-02781-SBA

Document 10-4

Filed 07/25/2008

Page 26 of 49

Case 4:08-cv-02781-SBA

Document 10-4

Filed 07/25/2008

Page 27 of 49

Case 4:08-cv-02781-SBA

Document 10-4

Filed 07/25/2008

Page 28 of 49

Case 4:08-cv-02781-SBA

Document 10-4

Filed 07/25/2008

Page 29 of 49

Case 4:08-cv-02781-SBA

Document 10-4

Filed 07/25/2008

Page 30 of 49

Case 4:08-cv-02781-SBA

Document 10-4

Filed 07/25/2008

Page 31 of 49

Case 4:08-cv-02781-SBA

Document 10-4

Filed 07/25/2008

Page 32 of 49

Case 4:08-cv-02781-SBA

Document 10-4

Filed 07/25/2008

Page 33 of 49

Case 4:08-cv-02781-SBA

Document 10-4

Filed 07/25/2008

Page 34 of 49

Case 4:08-cv-02781-SBA

Document 10-4

Filed 07/25/2008

Page 35 of 49

Case 4:08-cv-02781-SBA

Document 10-4

Filed 07/25/2008

Page 36 of 49

Case 4:08-cv-02781-SBA

Document 10-4

Filed 07/25/2008

Page 37 of 49

Case 4:08-cv-02781-SBA

Document 10-4

Filed 07/25/2008

Page 38 of 49

Case 4:08-cv-02781-SBA

Document 10-4

Filed 07/25/2008

Page 39 of 49

Case 4:08-cv-02781-SBA

Document 10-4

Filed 07/25/2008

Page 40 of 49

Case 4:08-cv-02781-SBA

Document 10-4

Filed 07/25/2008

Page 41 of 49

Case 4:08-cv-02781-SBA

Document 10-4

Filed 07/25/2008

Page 42 of 49

Case 4:08-cv-02781-SBA

Document 10-4

Filed 07/25/2008

Page 43 of 49

Case 4:08-cv-02781-SBA

Document 10-4

Filed 07/25/2008

Page 44 of 49

Case 4:08-cv-02781-SBA

Document 10-4

Filed 07/25/2008

Page 45 of 49

Case 4:08-cv-02781-SBA

Document 10-4

Filed 07/25/2008

Page 46 of 49

Case 4:08-cv-02781-SBA

Document 10-4

Filed 07/25/2008

Page 47 of 49

Case 4:08-cv-02781-SBA

Document 10-4

Filed 07/25/2008

Page 48 of 49

Case 4:08-cv-02781-SBA

Document 10-4

Filed 07/25/2008

Page 49 of 49

Case 4:08-cv-02781-SBA

Document 10-5

Filed 07/25/2008

Page 1 of 19

Case 4:08-cv-02781-SBA

Document 10-5

Filed 07/25/2008

Page 2 of 19

Case 4:08-cv-02781-SBA

Document 10-5

Filed 07/25/2008

Page 3 of 19

Case 4:08-cv-02781-SBA

Document 10-5

Filed 07/25/2008

Page 4 of 19

Case 4:08-cv-02781-SBA

Document 10-5

Filed 07/25/2008

Page 5 of 19

Case 4:08-cv-02781-SBA

Document 10-5

Filed 07/25/2008

Page 6 of 19

Case 4:08-cv-02781-SBA

Document 10-5

Filed 07/25/2008

Page 7 of 19

Case 4:08-cv-02781-SBA

Document 10-5

Filed 07/25/2008

Page 8 of 19

Case 4:08-cv-02781-SBA

Document 10-5

Filed 07/25/2008

Page 9 of 19

Case 4:08-cv-02781-SBA

Document 10-5

Filed 07/25/2008

Page 10 of 19

Case 4:08-cv-02781-SBA

Document 10-5

Filed 07/25/2008

Page 11 of 19

Case 4:08-cv-02781-SBA

Document 10-5

Filed 07/25/2008

Page 12 of 19

Case 4:08-cv-02781-SBA

Document 10-5

Filed 07/25/2008

Page 13 of 19

Case 4:08-cv-02781-SBA

Document 10-5

Filed 07/25/2008

Page 14 of 19

Case 4:08-cv-02781-SBA

Document 10-5

Filed 07/25/2008

Page 15 of 19

Case 4:08-cv-02781-SBA

Document 10-5

Filed 07/25/2008

Page 16 of 19

Case 4:08-cv-02781-SBA

Document 10-5

Filed 07/25/2008

Page 17 of 19

Case 4:08-cv-02781-SBA

Document 10-5

Filed 07/25/2008

Page 18 of 19

Case 4:08-cv-02781-SBA

Document 10-5

Filed 07/25/2008

Page 19 of 19