TimeBase Pty Ltd. v. Thomson Corporation, The et al

Filing 17

RESPONSE re 12 MOTION to Consolidate Cases filed by TimeBase Pty Ltd.. (Attachments: # 1 Muldoon Dec.# 2 Hosteny Dec.# 3 Exh 1 to Hosteny Dec.# 4 Exh 2 to Hosteny Dec.# 5 Exh 3 to Hosteny Dec.# 6 Exh 4 to Hosteny Dec.# 7 Exh 5 to Hosteny Dec.# 8 Exh 6 to Hosteny Dec.# 9 Exh 7A to Hosteny Dec.# 10 Exh 7B to Hosteny Dec.# 11 Exh 8A to Hosteny Dec.# 12 Exh 8B to Hosteny Dec.# 13 Exh 8C to Hosteny Dec.# 14 Exh 8D to Hosteny Dec.# 15 Exh 8E to Hosteny Dec.# 16 Exh 9 to Hosteny Dec.# 17 Exh 10 to Hosteny Dec.# 18 Exh 11 to Hosteny Dec.# 19 Exh 12A to Hosteny Dec.# 20 Exh 12B to Hosteny Dec.# 21 Exh 13 to Hosteny Dec.# 22 Exh 14 to Hosteny Dec.# 23 Exh 15 to Hosteny Dec.# 24 Exh 16A to Hosteny Dec.# 25 Exh 16B to Hosteny Dec.)(Hosteny, Joseph)

TimeBase Pty Ltd. v. Thomson Corporation, The et al

Doc. 17 Att. 2

DECLARATION OF JOSEPH N. HOSTENY
In Support of Timebase's Response to Thomson's Motion to Stay

Dockets.Justia.com

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF MINNESOTA TIMEBASE PTY LTD., Plaintiff, vs. THE THOMSON CORPORATION, WEST PUBLISHING CORPORATION, AND WEST SERVICES, INC., Defendants. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) Civil Action No. 07-CV-04551(JNE/JJG) Honorable Joan N. Ericksen Magistrate Judge Jeanne J. Graham

DECLARATION OF JOSEPH N. HOSTENY I, Joseph N. Hosteny, declare: 1. I am one of the attorneys for TimeBase Pty Ltd. in this case. 2. Exhibit 1 is a true and accurate copy of reexamination data for U.S. Patent No. 4,924,078, one of the patents asserted in VData LLC v. Aetna, Inc., No. 06-1701, 2006 WL 3392889, (D. Minn. Nov. 21, 2006), a case cited at page 7 of Thomson's memorandum in support of its motions to consolidate and stay. 3. Exhibit 2 is a true and accurate copy of reexamination data for U.S. Patent No. 5,612,524, one of the patents asserted in VData LLC v. Aetna, Inc., No. 06-1701, 2006 WL 3392889, (D. Minn. Nov. 21, 2006). 4. Exhibit 3 is a true and accurate copy of reexamination data for U.S. Patent No. 5,253,341, a patent reexamination which was handled by our firm. 5. Exhibit 4 is a true and accurate copy of reexamination data for U.S. Patent No. 5,253,341, a second reexamination of the same patent as in Exhibit 3.

1

6. Exhibit 5 is a true and accurate copy of reexamination data for U.S. Patent No. 4,213,121, a patent reexamination which was handled by our firm. 7. Exhibit 6 is a true and accurate copy of reexamination data for U.S. Patent No. 4,697,932, a patent reexamination which was handled by our firm. 8. Exhibit 7 is a true and accurate copy of U.S. Patent No. 6,233,592. 9. Exhibit 8 is a true and accurate copy of U.S. Patent No. 7,293,228. 10. Exhibit 9 is a true and accurate copy of Ex Parte Reexamination Filing Data September 30, 2007. 11. Exhibit 10 is a true and accurate copy of Ex Parte Reexamination Data from the USPTO Annual Report. 12. Exhibit 11 is a true and accurate copy of Gladish v. Tyco Toys, Inc., 29 USPQ 2d 1718 (E.D. Cal. 1993). 13. Exhibit 12 is a true and accurate copy of American Ceramicraft, Inc. v. Eisenbraun Reiss, Inc., 28 USPQ 2d 1241(D. N.J. 1993). 14. Exhibit 13 is a true and accurate copy of Emprotech Corp. v. Autotech Corp., 15 USPQ 2d 1319 (N.D. Ill. 1990). 15. Exhibit 14 is a true and accurate copy of a published TimeBase application, 2007/0074107. 16. Exhibit 15 is a true and accurate copy of a list from the PTO's website of patents where Mr. Stephen Hong was the primary or assistant examiner. 17. Exhibit 16 includes true and accurate copies of portions of the prosecution history for the `228 patent, Exhibit 8.

2

18. Exhibit 17 is true and accurate copies of the Joint Stipulation to Lift Stay, and the Defendants' Opening Markman Brief in the Pacesetter case. I declare under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct to the best of my knowledge and belief. Executed on January 17, 2008. _/s/Joseph N. Hosteny

3