Software Rights Archive, LLC v. Google Inc. et al

Filing 118

SUR-REPLY to Reply to Response to Motion re 66 MOTION to Dismiss for Lack of Standing filed by Software Rights Archive, LLC. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Table of Exhibits, # 2 Exhibit Exhibit 1, # 3 Exhibit Exhibit 2, # 4 Exhibit Exhibit 3, # 5 Exhibit Exhibit 4, # 6 Exhibit Exhibit 5, # 7 Exhibit Exhibit 6, # 8 Exhibit Exhibit 7, # 9 Exhibit Exhibit 8, # 10 Exhibit Exhibit 8, # 11 Exhibit Exhibit 10, # 12 Exhibit Exhibit 11, # 13 Exhibit Exhibit 12, # 14 Errata Exhibit 13, # 15 Exhibit Exhibit 14, # 16 Exhibit Exhibit 15, # 17 Exhibit Exhibit 16, # 18 Exhibit Exhibit 17, # 19 Exhibit Exhibit 18, # 20 Exhibit Exhibit 19, # 21 Exhibit Exhibit 20, # 22 Exhibit Exhibit 21, # 23 Exhibit Exhibit 22, # 24 Exhibit Exhibit 23, # 25 Exhibit Exhibit 24, # 26 Exhibit Exhibit 25, # 27 Exhibit Exhibit 26, # 28 Errata Exhibit 27)(Duvvuri, Narasa)

IN THE UNITED

STATES DISTiuCT COURT F9R THE EASTERN DISTRCT OF TEXAS

MARHALL DIVISION

SOFTAR iuGHTS ARCHIVE, LLC §

v. §
lAC SEARCH&. MEDIA, (" I, J. Chnstopher Lynch, under penalty of

Plaintiff, §
§ §

§

Civil Action No. 2:07'"v..511..TJW

GOOGLE INC., YAHOO! INC., §

and LYCOS, INC. §
§

INC., AOL LLC, §

JURY TiuAL DEMANDED

Qefeildant§. §
DECLARTION QF J. CHRSTOPHER LYNCH
perjury, hereby make the following declaration.
upon my peronal

All faēts set forth herein are tre and correct, and r make this declartion based

knowledge and upnn review of available records.
l.";~ I am l: parer

at Wyrck Robbins Yątes & Ponton LLP and my. practice is.

primarl; outside general counsel representation of tec~ology-based businesses. I assisted .
Dan'el.. Egger in asects of the i 998 acquisition of the V ~Search Technology and patents from

Site Technologies, Inc. (the "V -Search Acquisition'') and in the subsequent fiing of an

assignent in 200S (the "2005 Assignent''). A tre and correct copy of the 2005 Assignent
is attached hereto

as Exhibit A.

2. I understand that certain defendants in the Software Rights Archive LLC v.

Google, et al., case pending in the Eastern Distrct of Texas have accused Danel Egger of

fraudulently filig the 2005 Assignent for the express purose of correcting a defect with
respect to the pame of the par conveying the patents he acquired in the V -Search Acquisition.

"

This allegation is based upon a number of factual inaccur~cies.
16573.5-547719 v2

EXHIBIT 21

3. I was the attorney who superviseclmy staff

in the preparatioii of, and who advised

Daničl Egger to file; the 200S Assignent. The purose of filing the 2005 Assignent was not

to correct any defect in the munč of the par 'on the instrent. I did not understand there to be
any distinction between the entity from which Daniel Egger purchased the pat~nts in question..,
("Site Technologies, Inc.'') and "Site/TechnologieslInc. at the time of the 2005 assignent. The
first time I'heard of this issue was afer the filing of

(t

the-Defendants' Motion to Dismiss. Nor did

Daniei. Egger raise this issue with me in 2005 or anytme prior to the defendants' allegation.

Daniel Egger never raised any issue with respect to the validity of the 1998 Bil of Sale or .
assignents with me ąnd never questioned the validity of

4. The 2005 Assignent was filed to replace the then-misplaced 1998 Bil of Sale
and the .199,8 Assignent used hi the V -Search Acquisition. In or prior to October 2004, Danel
.~ .

",

his chain of

title.

Eggerhad~!asKed me to assign the patents to an entity named Softare Rights Archive, Inc.
When my ,staff reviewed the records at the

Patent and Trademark 'Offce (the "PrO"), we
'

~~., discoveredft)at no previous assignent tiad yet bē.en fied. I did not have a copy of

the 1998

Bil of Sale or 1998 Assignent, so I asked Daniel Egger to locate them. He told-me that he

could not locate them. I advised him to file a replacement assigment reflecting the previous
J

transaction: I then supervised my staff in the preparation of the 2005 Assignent and Danel
Egger executed it without fuer r~vision. I understand. that Danel Egger later found the

missing i 998 Bil of Sale and the 1998 Assignent and filed them with. the Patent and
Trldemark Office.
'--

5. My understanding is th~t the Defendants allege that Danel Egger intentionally
/ repre~ented that he was a president of Site/Technologies/Inc. and filed the 2005 Assignent to
mislead others as to his ownership rights. I had advised"Daniel Egger to sign as the president of

165735-547719 v2

2

/

Site/TecanologļeslIc. The basis. for such advice was that,. in 2005, the Site entities were no

i longer operating companes and a former offcer or other... agent needed to sign the 2005
Assignent. It was my belief that Danel Egger retained a right to execute documents related to

windig up past business, transactions because he was a fonner president of
Site/Technologies/Inc. Becl,use we were in~rely attempting to replicate the lost 1998
Assignent that we understood had already been made, it was my understanding that these
"

actions were .fairly with the winding up authoIity,of the companies, which were no longer
operating.
6. I was not aware of anż issue

with respect to whether the 1998 Assignent

properly conveyed legal title to Danel Egger. I undertood it was a valid transfer. My
recommendation to make SitelTechnologies/lnc. a pary to the 2005 Assignent was drven by

j

Daniel Egger's status as a former officer and not an attempt to correct any error with respect to
'.f..

the name of the pary ~n the 1998 Assignent.

.i

.--.

I declare under penalty. of .perur under the laws of the United States of Amerca that the
foregoing is true and correct.

~e~ ~ ~ rL

Execut on . ~n. 2008

'1

(,

16573.5-5471 i 9 v2
J
/

3.