Free Statement - District Court of Arizona - Arizona

Robert. HOPOHEE 3G3H1"rZ:su1i ,n,,;.,.:...,...,.,....
1 Michael S. Rubin (#005131)
David Bray (#014346)
2 MARISCAL WEEKS MCINTYRE & FRIEDLANDER, PA
2901 North Central Avenue, Suite 200
3 Phoenix, Arizona 85012~2705
4 Robert R- Brunclli (#20070)
Benjamin B. Lieb (#28724)
5 SHERIDAN ROSS P.C. _
1560 Broadway, Suite 1200
6 Denver, Colorado 80202-5141
7 Attorneys for Robert E. Moroney, LLC, Robert Moroney,
and A Major Difference, Inc.
8
9 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
10 FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA
11 Erchonia Medical, Inc., et al. )
)
12 Plaintiffs, ) No. CIV 0Z—2036—PHX—MHM
- )
I3 v. )
) DECLARATION OF
I4 Miki Smith, ct al, ROBERT E. MORONEY
IN FURTHER SUPPORT OF
15 Defendantsi g ROBERT MORONEY'S AND
ROBERT E. MORONEY LLC'S
16 ) CONSOLIDATED MOTION
Erchonia Medical, Luc. et al. g
17 - *
Plaintiffs, g U.S. PATENT NO. 6,013,096
18
v. )
19 )
Miki Smith, et al. )
20
Defendants. {
21 ______________________,_______________________________________g
22 Robert E,. Morozney, LLC, et al. g
23 Plaintiffs, g
24 v. §
25 Erchonia Medical, Inc., et al. g
26 Defendants, g
27
I, Robert E. Moroney, hereby declare as follows:
28
1. I am over the a e of eighteen. I have ersonal knowledge ofthe facts set
8 P
forth below, and ifcailed upon to do so, could and would competently testify thereto,
Case 2:O2—cv—O2036-I\/IHI\/I Document 346-3 08Ijy,epZQ,36/2§,g@0g,§ ,,8 Pageqtggoihiz 1;ws1 @001

Robert; Moreno;-5 """`°"" "“"`""" ""`"““"‘"""'““““"“"“`“'“`"”
1 2. I am President of Robert E. Moroeey LLC ("REM"), a party to the
2 above—styled action. I am also a named party to the above··styled action.
3 3. I provide this Declaration in further support of my Consolidated Motion for
4 Summary Jud? ent ofNon—infringernent of`U`,S. Patent No. 6,0l3,096i
5 4.. I understand from Kevin Tucelc and Erchonia Medical, Inc.‘s 1{esponse to
6 my Motion for Summary Judgment, that Erchonia claims that the two laser devices which
7 I purchased from Flitton Engineers and brought back from England in May or June of
8 2002 were prototypes and may have included laser diode modules with a line generating
9 prism or other optical device that would generate a planar beam. This is not true. The
10 only difference between those two laser devices and the production version of the
11 Quantum IV Laser was the absence of a keyed lock. A keyed lock was added to the
12 production Quantum IV Laser to conform with United States safety requirements.
13 5. ‘ Attached hereto as Exhibit 1 are three photographs showing the beam spot
14 shape projected by the Quantum IV Laser at distances of one foot, two feet, and tive feet.
15 As can be seen from the photographs, the spot shape is elliptical, indicating abeam having
T 16 an ellipticailyehaped cross section. Although difticuit to see from the attached
-ri 17 photographs, when the Quantum IV Laser is moved away from the surface upon which it
18 is projecting, the laser beam spot shape increases in size, indicating that the laser beams
19 are also diverging.
. 20
21 I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws ofthe United States of America
22 that the foregoing is true and correct.
23
24 Executed this 24th day of Augu w
2 as
26 4 L
“ R.o il- E. Morone
- 27
28
-2-
Case 2:02-cv-02036-I\/IHIVI Document 346-3 ¤I§iIedx@8i$25FB®Oi3i = °*Pa@"éX2‘idf 20 7375] if 002

Case 2:02-cv-02036-MHM

Document 346-3

Filed 08/25/2006

Page 1 of 2

Case 2:02-cv-02036-MHM

Document 346-3

Filed 08/25/2006

Page 2 of 2