C&A Mktg. v. GoPro - Opp'n To MSJ of Noninfringement

Case 1:15-cv-07854-RMB-JS Document 99 Filed 06/20/17 Page 1 of 34 PageID: 1931
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY
C&A MARKETING, INC.,
Plaintiff, Case No. 1:15-7854-RMB-JS
v.
GOPRO, INC.,
Defendant.
REDACTED
C&A MARKETING, INC.S MEMORANDUM IN OPPOSITION TO GOPRO, INC.S

MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT OF NON-INFRINGEMENT
MICHAEL A. JACOBS (CA SBN 111664)

(Admitted Pro Hac Vice)
mjacobs@mofo.com
NATHAN B. SABRI (CA SBN 252216)
nsabri@mofo.com
ESTHER KIM CHANG (CA SBN 258024)
echang@mofo.com
MORRISON & FOERSTER LLP
425 Market Street
San Francisco, CA 94105-2482
Telephone: (415) 268-7000
Facsimile: (415) 268-7522
MARK S. OLINSKY
SILLS CUMMIS & GROSS P.C.
One Riverfront Plaza
Newark, New Jersey 07102-5400
Telephone: (973) 643-7000
Facsimile: (973) 643-6500
Attorneys for Plaintiff C&A MARKETING, INC.
sf-3782147
TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
Page(s)
Cases
Amini Innovation Corp. v. Anthony Cal., Inc.,

439 F.3d 1365 (Fed. Cir. 2006)..........................................................................................1, 6, 8
Anderson v. Liberty Lobby,

477 U.S. 242 (1986) ............................................................................................................5, 28
Apple, Inc. v. Samsung Elecs. Co.,

No. 11-cv-1846-LHK, 2012 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 90877
(N.D. Cal. June 30, 2012) ..........................................................................................................4
Applied Arts Corp. v. Grand Rapids Metalcraft Corp.,

67 F.2d 428 (6th Cir. 1933) .....................................................................................................15
Arner v. Sharper Image Corp.,

No. CV 94-1713, 1995 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 21156 (C.D. Cal. Oct. 5, 1995) .......................11, 12
Braun, Inc. v. Dynamics Corp. of Am.,

975 F.2d 815 (Fed. Cir. 1992)................................................................................................6, 8
Catalina Lighting, Inc. v. Lamps Plus,

295 F.3d 1277 (Fed. Cir. 2002)................................................................................................27
In re Clay,
966 F.2d 656 (Fed. Cir. 1992)..............................................................................................6, 15
Crocs, Inc. v. ITC,

598 F.3d 1294 (Fed. Cir. 2010)..................................................................................................6
Egyptian Goddess, Inc. v. Swisa,

543 F.3d 665 (Fed. Cir. 2008)..................................................................................6, 14, 15, 17
Ethicon Endo-Surgery, Inc. v. Covidien, Inc.,

796 F.3d 1312 (Fed. Cir. 2015)................................................................................................13
Gorham Co. v. White,

81 U.S. 511 (1872) ...........................................................................................................4, 6, 10
Intl Seaway Trading Corp. v. Walgreens Corp.,

589 F.3d 1233 (Fed. Cir. 2009)............................................................................................8, 11
Jack Schwartz Shoes, Inc. v. Skechers U.S.A., Inc.,

No. 00 Civ. 7721 (RMB) (THK) 2002 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 25699
(Sept. 10, 2002) ........................................................................................................................10
sf-3782147 ii
L.A. Gear, Inc. v. Thom McAn Shoe Co.,

988 F.2d 1117 (Fed. Cir. 1993)............................................................................................5, 10
Leatherman Tool Grp. v. Cooper Indus.,

131 F.3d 1011 (Fed. Cir. 1997)..................................................................................................4
Marino v. Indus. Crating Co.,

358 F.3d 241 (3d Cir. 2004).......................................................................................................5
OddzOnProducts v. Just Toys,

122 F.3d 1396 (Fed. Cir. 1997)................................................................................................27
Oralabs, Inc. v. The Kind Group LLC

No. 13-cv-00170-PAB-KLM, 2015 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 98246
(D. Colo. July 28, 2015)...............................................................................................15, 16, 17
Rapha Prods. Group, LLC v. Skullcandy, Inc.,

No. 1:10-cv-3388-JEC, 2012 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 188837
(N.D. Ga. Aug. 13, 2012).........................................................................................................12
Sears, Roebuck & Co. v. Talge,

140 F.2d 395 (8th Cir. 1944) ...................................................................................................15
Solar Sun Rings, Inc. v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc.,

No. CV 11-6990 PSG, 2012 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 156373
(C.D. Cal. Oct. 31, 2012) .........................................................................................................12
Sport Dimension, Inc. v. Coleman Co.,

820 F.3d 1316 (Fed. Cir. 2016)..................................................................................................6
Summit 6, LLC v. Samsung Elecs. Co.,

802 F.3d 1283 (Fed. Cir. 2015)................................................................................................18
Tristar Products, Inc. v. E. Mishan & Sons, Inc.,

Civil No. 17-1204 (RMB/JS), 2017 WL 1404315 (D.N.J. Apr. 19, 2017) .............................14
Wallace v. Ideavillage Products Corp.,

No. 06-cv-5673-JAD, 2014 WL 4637216 (D.N.J. Sept. 15, 2014) ...................................13, 14
Zidell v. Dexter,
262 F. 145 (9th Cir. 1920) .......................................................................................................15
Other Authorities
Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(a) ........................................................................................................................5
iii
sf-3782147
I. INTRODUCTION
GoPros motion for summary judgment fails the threshold test every such motion must
meet: is the dispute purely legal in nature, such that it does not turn on any genuine dispute of
fact? Or is the dispute fundamentally a factual one, involving the clashing of expert opinion and
other questions of fact that must be resolved by the jury?
Here, the question of whether the overall appearance of GoPros Hero Session and Hero5
Session is substantially the same in the eyes of the ordinary observer to C&A Marketings
design patent falls squarely in the latter category. That question is a classic fact issue, one to be
put before the jury in this case. Amini Innovation Corp. v. Anthony Cal., Inc., 439 F.3d 1365,
1371 (Fed. Cir. 2006) (reversing summary judgment of non-infringement and stating, [T]his
court perceives again that conclusions about reasonable jurors are difficult to make on an issue of
this factual dimension.). It is not properly the subject of a summary judgment motion.
The Courts prior ruling highlights the burden GoPro cannot meet. GoPro insists that the
asserted and accused designs are plainly dissimilar, but this Court earlier observed that the
Polaroid Cube (the commercial embodiment of the asserted design patent) and the accused Hero
Session cameras are not plainly dissimilar. (Dkt. No. 42 at 3 (emphasis added).)
GoPro also omits the compelling evidence obtained through discovery that defeats
GoPros motion:
Industry reviewers and consumer comments consistently
1
sf-3782147
referencing the similarity between the designs with language as unmistakable as long lost twin,
looks literally exactly like the Polaroid Cube, and copy.
GoPro glosses over these and other material factual issues that defeat GoPros motion.
GoPros motion for summary judgment should be denied.
II. STATEMENT OF FACTS
A. C&A Marketing Designed a New Action Camera with an Innovative

Design.
C&A Marketing, Inc. (C&A Marketing) is an innovative manufacturer, retailer, and
distributor that offers an extensive inventory of products ranging from housewares to electronics
and gadgets. (Declaration of Ryan Gatzemeyer in Support of C&A Marketings Opposition to
GoPros Motion for Summary Judgment (Gatzemeyer Decl.) Ex. A.) It has partnerships with
iconic brands that include Golds Gym, Kodak, and Polaroid. (Id. Ex. B.) C&A Marketings
electronics products include ink-free printers, point-and-shoot cameras, and action cameras.
C&A Marketing engaged Ammunition, LLC (Ammunition), an award-winning
California-based design studio responsible for well-known designs such as Beats headphones
and the Lyft moustache logo, to design an action camera. C&A Marketings singular directive
was this: Make something different. (Id. Ex. C at 70:16-18; 82:13-18.) Action cameras were
becoming a relevant product category, and C&A Marketing wanted Ammunition to create
something that no one has ever seen. (Id. at 75:10-15; 82:16-18.) Ammunition took the
challenge to heart. Designer Gregoire Vandenbussche spent months obsessing over the design of
the product, working late hours and communicating with the factory to ensure his design vision
was not sacrificed. (Id. Ex. D at 212:9-18; 280:3-282:12.)
C&A Marketing revealed the resulting designthe Polaroid Cubeat the January 2014
Consumer Electronics Show (CES) in Las Vegas. (Id. Ex. C at 87:24-88:4.) The reaction to
2
sf-3782147
C. GoPro Introduced Its First Cubic Camera in July 2015, and the
Public Immediately Recognized Its Similarity to the Polaroid Cube.
A year and a half after the Cubes announcement, in
July 2015, GoPro released the Hero4 Session. (Id. Ex. J at 131:18-22; Dkt. No. 86-4 8.)1 This
was GoPros first cubic-shaped action camera; its previous products shared a rectangular design
theme. (Declaration of Alan D. Ball in Support of C&A Marketings Opposition to GoPro,
Inc.s Motion for Summary Judgment of Non-Infringement (Ball Decl.) 21.)
Industry commentators and consumers alike immediately recognized
the GoPro product was extremely similar in appearance to the Polaroid Cube. The Motley
Fool reported: At first glance, the Hero 4 Session looks like a copy of the Polaroid Cube, a $100
camera which turned heads with its cute form factor and retro design aesthetics. . . . [I]ts tiny
1
GoPro cites its own subsequently obtained design patent (Mot. at 5), but issuance of a patent
for an accused product provides no protection for an infringer. In fact, in the seminal Gorham
Co. v. White, the Supreme Court held that separately patented spoon and fork handle designs
used by White infringed Gorhams patents. 81 U.S. 511, 528-31 (1872); see also Leatherman
Tool Grp. v. Cooper Indus., 131 F.3d 1011, 1015 (Fed. Cir. 1997) (patent conveys right to
exclude others, not affirmative right to practice claimed invention). Moreover, a patent examiner
is not an ordinary observer, nor is he or she applying the ordinary observer test. See Apple, Inc.
v. Samsung Elecs. Co., No. 11-cv-1846-LHK, 2012 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 90877, at *20 (N.D. Cal.
June 30, 2012) (testimony relating to patent examiners understanding of patent scope has no
relevance under FRE 401 to the perspective of an ordinary observer, and consideration of
subsequently issued patents was legal error.)
4
sf-3782147
form factor apparently convinced GoPro to create the Hero 4 Session. (Gatzemeyer Decl. Ex.
M at 34.) Mashable reviewed the product and showed an image of the Hero Session next to the
Polaroid Cube, with the caption, Long lost twin?, stating, The Hero 4 Session looks a lot like
the Polaroid Cube action camera. (Ball Decl. 36.) An online reviewer published a video
review of the Hero Session, stating that it was not original, obviously, cause it looks literally
exactly like the Polaroid Cube. (Gatzemeyer Decl. 15, Ex. N; Ball Decl. 36.) The
recognition of close design similarity was ubiquitous in product reviews. (Ball Decl. 36, Ex. 1
142.) Comments from consumers expressed similar views, including, So its a copy of the
Polaroid Cube? . . . I think so . . . look like the polaroid cube [sic]. (Gatzemeyer Decl. Ex. O);
It also copies the design of the less popular polaroid cube! (Id. Ex. P); and Pool [sic]
Polaroid . . . here comes go pro blatantly copying them off. (Id. Ex. Q.)
In October 2016, GoPro released the Hero5 Session. (Id. Ex. K at 174:15-17.) The
parties agree that the external appearances of the Hero Session and Hero5 Session are nearly
identical, and that any slight differences are irrelevant for purposes of evaluating C&A
Marketings allegations of infringement. (Dkt. No. 86-7 11; Ball Decl. 10.)
III. LEGAL STANDARD
Summary judgment is appropriate only when the movant shows that there is no genuine
dispute as to any material fact and the movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. Fed.
R. Civ. P. 56(a). A district court may not make credibility determinations or engage in any
weighing of the evidence; instead, the non-moving partys evidence is to be believed and all
justifiable inferences are to be drawn in his favor. Marino v. Indus. Crating Co., 358 F.3d 241,
247 (3d Cir. 2004) (quoting Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, 477 U.S. 242, 255 (1986)).
Design patent infringement is a question of fact, to be proven by a preponderance of the
evidence. L.A. Gear, Inc. v. Thom McAn Shoe Co., 988 F.2d 1117, 1124 (Fed. Cir. 1993). A
5
sf-3782147
design patent is infringed [i]f, in the eye of an ordinary observer, giving such attention as a
purchaser usually gives, two designs are substantially the same, if the resemblance is such as to
deceive such an observer, inducing him to purchase one supposing it to be the other. Egyptian
Goddess, Inc. v. Swisa, 543 F.3d 665, 670 (Fed. Cir. 2008) (citation omitted). Where designs are
not plainly dissimilar, the analysis will benefit from a comparison of the claimed and accused
designs with the prior art. Id. at 677-78. The application of the ordinary observer test and
questions regarding the proper scope of prior art are questions of fact for the jury. Amini
Innovation Corp., 439 F.3d at 1371; see also Gorham Co., 81 U.S. at 524; In re Clay, 966 F.2d
656, 658 (Fed. Cir. 1992) (scope of analogous art is question of fact).
It is error to consider merely isolated portions of the patented design, as the proper
comparison involves the design as a whole. Sport Dimension, Inc. v. Coleman Co., 820 F.3d
1316, 1322 (Fed. Cir. 2016) ([D]esign patents protect the overall ornamentation of a design, not
an aggregation of separable elements.); Braun, Inc. v. Dynamics Corp. of Am., 975 F.2d 815,
820 (Fed. Cir. 1992); see also Amini Innovation Corp., 439 F.3d 1365 at 1372 (reversing grant of
summary judgment of non-infringement where trial court applied element-by-element
comparison). [M]inor differences between a patented design and an accused articles design
cannot, and shall not, prevent a finding of infringement. Crocs, Inc. v. ITC, 598 F.3d 1294,
1303 (Fed. Cir. 2010) (citation omitted).
IV. ARGUMENT
A. There Are Material Disputes of Fact Regarding Whether the Accused

Design Is Substantially the Same as the D423 Patent.
1. A Visual Comparison of the Claimed and Accused Designs

Shows That They Are Substantially the Same.
As this Court has previously and correctly held, the claimed and accused designs are not
plainly dissimilar. (Dkt. No. 42 at 3.) An orthographic comparison view, allowing one to view
6
sf-3782147
all sides without undue emphasis on any particular angle, is shown below. (Id.) Full-page
versions for easier reference are attached as Exhibits C and D to Ball Decl. Exhibit 1.
(Ball Decl. 10.) A comparison of Figure 1 of the D423 patent to a similar perspective view of
the Session is also instructive, as an ordinary observer is more likely to see a design in
perspective than by scrutinizing individual elevation or plan views. (Id. 11.)
7
sf-3782147
C&A Marketings expert Alan Ball opined that the ordinary observer in this case is a
teen, active young adult, parent, or active adult interested in purchasing and using an action
camera for family or sport activities. (Ball Decl. 12.) They would take the purchasing process
somewhat seriously, with a moderate amount of attention, as this is unlikely to be an impulse
purchase but also is not the most expensive level of product in the category. (Id.)
Mr. Ball compared all figures of the protected design to the overall appearance of the
accused products. (Id. 9.) He considered the degree to which characteristics contribute to the
overall design, and what similarities and differences would be significant as opposed to minor or
trivial. (Id. 13); Intl Seaway Trading Corp. v. Walgreens Corp., 589 F.3d 1233, 1243 (Fed.
Cir. 2009) (The mandated overall comparison is a comparison taking into account significant
differences between the two designs, not minor or trivial differences that necessarily exist
between any two designs that are not exact copies of one another.) (emphasis added). By
contrast, GoPro has followed an approach rejected by the Federal Circuit, walking through a list
of differences without regard to whether they are significant or minor, stating only in a
conclusory manner that the differences lead[] to a distinct overall visual impression. (Mot. at
13-14); Amini Innovation Corp., 439 F.3d at 1372 ([T]he trial court mistakenly analyzed each
element separately instead of analyzing the design as a whole from the perspective of the
ordinary observer.); Braun, 975 F.2d at 820 ([A] trier of fact must consider the ornamental
aspects of the design as a whole and not merely isolated portions of the patented design. Also,
8
sf-3782147
patent infringement can be found for a design that is not identical to the patented design.)
(internal citation omitted).
Here, as Mr. Ball concluded, an ordinary observer would perceive the accused design to
be substantially the same as the D423 design. (Ball Decl. 9, 14; Supplemental Statement of
Disputed Materials Facts (Supp. Statement) 1.) Although the visual comparison is the best
evidence, Mr. Ball recounted some of the similarities in words. (Ball Decl. 14.) The ordinary
observer would see that the asserted and accused designs are both cube-shaped cameras with
rounded edges. (Id.) They would see that both designs have a large, rounded square face panel
in front with a round lens in the center. (Id.) Even at a distance or a quick glance, an ordinary
observer would observe these major characteristics. (Id.) Upon closer examination, an ordinary
observer would also notice the presence of a prominent round button on the top of both designs.
(Id.) The slight difference in size does not diminish its presence and similarity in appearance.
(Id.) The ordinary observer would notice the presence of horizontal line or band elements on
both sides of both designs. (Id.) Viewing the designs side by side, one can see that the width is
different, but an ordinary observer looking at the accused products would primarily notice the
presence of the features, not the dimensional difference. (Id.; Supp. Statement 3-8.)
GoPro seeks to highlight minor distinctions between the asserted and accused designs by
presenting a top view with the electronic display turned on, but omits that the display element is
barely visible when turned off (see supra at 8) and does not deny that both designs feature a
prominent circular design element on top. (See Supp. Statement 5.) GoPro similarly asserts
that the line design elements on the sides of the accused products are simply a horizontal band-
shaped door, but omits that the design only frames a door on one side the other is simply a
matching line design that continues around from the first side, as with the asserted D423 design.
9
sf-3782147
(See Response to GoPros Statement of Material Facts Not in Dispute, No. 13.) Fundamentally,
GoPros arguments reinforce the heavily factual nature of the dispute.
2. A Comparison of the Accused Design to the Embodiment of the

Asserted Design Reinforces That They Are Substantially the
Same.
Comparing the Hero Session to the Polaroid Cube, the commercial embodiment of the
asserted D423 patent, underscores the substantial similarity of the accused products to the
asserted patent. When the patented design and the design of the article sold by the patentee are
substantially the same, it is not error to compare the patentees and the accused articles directly,
indeed, such comparison may facilitate application of the Gorham criterion of whether an
ordinary purchaser would be deceived into thinking that one were the other. L.A. Gear, 988
F.2d at 1125-26 (internal citation omitted); Supp. Statement 9. Mr. Ball presented this
comparison in black and white, as (a) the D423 patent is not limited by color, and (b) the
rainbow coloring on the side of the Cube is not shown in the D423 patent and is a branding
element akin to a logo that would be disregarded in the analysis. (Ball Decl. 16); L.A. Gear,
988 F.2d at 1126; Jack Schwartz Shoes, Inc. v. Skechers U.S.A., Inc., No. 00 Civ. 7721 (RMB)
(THK) 2002 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 25699, at *37-38 (Sept. 10, 2002) (comparing accused product to
design patent embodiment and disregarding logos.)2
2
GoPro presents views of a blue version of the Cube, even though there are black versions of the
Cube and Cube+; the Session cameras are black; and the D423 patent is not limited to action
camera designs of any particular color. GoPro also lodged only blue and red specimens of the
Cube and Cube+, omitting black. C&A Marketing has lodged specimens of the black Polaroid
Cube and Cube+ for purposes of comparison.
10
sf-3782147
As Mr. Ball opined, this comparison provides further support to the conclusion that the
accused design is substantially the same as the asserted design. (Ball Decl. 17.) Both the
accused cameras and the Polaroid Cube have a rounded cube shape, with a large, rounded square
bezel, and centered circular lens on the front. (Id.) All of the products have a circular button on
the top and horizontal line elements on the side. (Id.) The major design elements shown above
dominate the overall ornamental design of these action cameras such that they appear
substantially the same, in spite of minor differences in detail or dimensions of certain elements.
(Id.; Supp. Statement 10-11) This conclusion is supported by the independent, pre-litigation
observations of industry reviewers, members of the public, and . (Ball
Decl. 17; see supra at 3-5.)
3. Minor or Trivial Differences Do Not Alter the Conclusion That

the Designs Are Substantially the Same.
The differences between the accused and asserted designs that GoPro lists (Mot. at 13-14)
are the types of differences that an ordinary observer is less likely to noticethe minor or
trivial differences that Intl Seaway instructs should not change the result of the comparison.
(Ball Decl. 9, 15.) As the Federal Circuit requires, courts consistently recognize that not all
differences are created equal, and some do not greatly alter the overall appearance.
For example, in Arner v. Sharper Image Corp., No. CV 94-1713, 1995 U.S. Dist. LEXIS
21156, at *39-40 (C.D. Cal. Oct. 5, 1995), the court evaluated a list of purported differences in
11
sf-3782147
two tie racks, including placement of knobs, the degree to which the top surface tapers, the
location of the battery compartment, the height, and the existence of serration on the control
switches, among other things, but concluded that the list does not dispose of the substantial
similarity issue and many listed differences may not greatly alter the effect of the whole
design. Id. (citation omitted). The court continued that there was evidence of actual
consumer confusion and that just an eyeballs glance showed similarities in general shape,
configuration, and dimensions. Id. at *40 (citation omitted). Thus, the court denied the
defendants motion for summary judgment. See also Solar Sun Rings, Inc. v. Wal-Mart Stores,
Inc., No. CV 11-6990 PSG (JEMx), 2012 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 156373, at *12 (C.D. Cal. Oct. 31,
2012) (citing plaintiffs experts opinion that design detail differences were so small that the
ordinary observer does not see them and denying defendants motion for summary judgment of
non-infringement); Rapha Prods. Group, LLC v. Skullcandy, Inc., No. 1:10-cv-3388-JEC, 2012
U.S. Dist. LEXIS 188837, at *12 (N.D. Ga. Aug. 13, 2012) (denying motion for summary
judgment of noninfringement, stating that it would be inappropriate to focus on the cited
differences in isolation or to elevate their importance relative to the visual effect of the patented
and the accused designs as a whole.)
The differences that GoPro lists are akin to the differences in Arner: differences in the
dimensions of particular details, such as the lines on the sides of the designs; the precise angling
of the corners of the designs and the inset lens portion; the presence of tiny screws on the front of
the camera; the size of the button element on the top; and details on the bottom and back. (Mot.
at 13-14.) Contrary to GoPros assertion, Mr. Ball did not fail to consider some figures of the
patent, or ignore certain features. (Id. at 17.) Mr. Ball considered both similarities and
differences and concluded that the differences do not greatly alter the effect of the whole design.
12
sf-3782147
(Ball Decl. 15.) At a minimum, there is a material dispute of fact regarding whether an
ordinary observer would see the designs as substantially the same. (Supp. Statement 8.)
GoPros citation of two opinions granting summary judgment of non-infringement is
misleading, as GoPro underplays the significant differences in the facts and designs in those
cases. Ethicon Endo-Surgery, Inc. v. Covidien, Inc., 796 F.3d 1312 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (Mot. at 14)
involved a very narrow asserted design claiming only the trigger, torque knob, and activation
button (the portions in broken lines are disclaimed background material). Differences in the
angle of the trigger and shape of the torque knob were therefore necessarily differences in the
overall appearance of the claimed design. GoPro also omits that the Ethicon court excluded the
general concept of a trigger, fluted knob, and rounded button due to a functionality argument
that is not present in this case. 796 F.3d at 1332.
GoPros citation of Wallace v. Ideavillage Products Corp., No. 06-cv-5673-JAD, 2014
WL 4637216 (D.N.J. Sept. 15, 2014) (Mot. at 15-16) is similarly misleading. GoPro shows only
one comparison view, but other views show major, immediately apparent differences in overall
appearance, not just subtle differences in angle or dimensions of particular details:
13
sf-3782147
Wallace, Dkt. No. 61-1 at 14-18. These differences included the overall shape of the handle,
which made up much of the product; the nature of the grip; the base of the handle; the shape and
number of tiers of the brush head; the shape of the back of the head; and the design of the back
of the handle. Wallace, 2014 WL 4637216, at *3.
GoPro also cites this Courts opinion in Tristar Products, Inc. v. E. Mishan & Sons, Inc.,
Civil No. 17-1204 (RMB/JS), 2017 WL 1404315, at *2-3 (D.N.J. Apr. 19, 2017) (Mot. at 18),
but omits that the order it cites was a denial of a preliminary injunction, not a grant of summary
judgment of non-infringement. The burden of proof was therefore the opposite of this casethe
Tristar plaintiff had to show a likelihood of infringement, whereas GoPro must show that there is
no dispute of material fact and summary judgment is warranted. Moreover, the Court in Tristar
pointed to major differences in the key feature of the designsinduction platesthat were
apparent at a glance. More instructive than Tristar, which involved a different procedural
posture; highly distinguishable facts; and a heavy burden on the plaintiff as opposed to the
defendant, is this Courts decision on GoPros 12(c) motion in this case, in which the Court
found that the accused and asserted designs are not plainly dissimilar. (Dkt. No. 42 at 3.)
B. There Are Material Disputes of Fact Regarding the Scope of Relevant

Prior Art and Its Effect on the Ordinary Observer Analysis.
The parties dispute regarding both the appropriate scope of prior art to consider per
Egyptian Goddess, and the effect of prior art on the substantial similarity analysis, is factual and
renders summary judgment inappropriate. GoPros conclusory heading stating that purported
disputes about the prior art cannot prevent summary judgment of non-infringement here (Mot.
at 24)with no law cited to support such a bold, and incorrect, statementcannot cure GoPros
inability to sustain its burden on this point.
14
sf-3782147
1. There Is a Material Dispute of Fact Regarding the Proper

Scope of Prior Art for Purposes of the Infringement Analysis.
Because the designs at issue are not plainly dissimilar, the ordinary observer analysis
will benefit from a comparison of the claimed and accused designs with the prior art. Egyptian
Goddess, 543 F.3d at 678. As the ordinary observer analysis focuses on the purchasing decision,
numerous courtsboth before and after Egyptian Goddesshave taken into account prior art of
the type that a purchaser would actually consider, i.e., of the same type and for the same purpose
as the patented and accused designs. The proper scope and content of prior art is a question of
fact. In re Clay, 966 F.2d at 658.
The Egyptian Goddess court walked through the approach of several circuit courts before
the creation of the Federal Circuit. It cited Applied Arts Corp. v. Grand Rapids Metalcraft
Corp., 67 F.2d 428 (6th Cir. 1933), a design patent case involving a combination ashtray and
cigarette lighter for an automobile, in which the court looked only to combination ashtrays and
cigarette lighters for comparison purposes. Similarly, it discussed Sears, Roebuck & Co. v.
Talge, 140 F.2d 395 (8th Cir. 1944), a case involving designs for the rack-and-pinion type of
fruit juicer, in which the court only considered the same type of fruit juicer and stated, Various
types of fruit juicers have been in use for several years. It will be necessary only to examine
some of the rack-and-pinion type to which belong the devices under consideration. 140 F.2d at
396. The Egyptian Goddess court also discussed Zidell v. Dexter, 262 F. 145 (9th Cir. 1920),
which involved a design for childrens rompers, and in which the court only considered similar
garments, stating the analysis focused on attention as the purchaser usually gives in buying
articles of the kind in question and for the purposes for which they are intended. 262 F. at 147.
More recently, in Oralabs, Inc. v. The Kind Group LLC, a district court denied a motion
for summary judgment of non-infringement in a design patent case in which the defendant took a
15
sf-3782147
position similar to GoPros position in this case. No. 13-cv-00170-PAB-KLM, 2015 U.S. Dist.
LEXIS 98246 (D. Colo. July 28, 2015). The accused products in Oralabs were lip balm
containers. Id. at *2. The defendant moved for summary judgment, but cited no examples of lip
balm container prior art, focusing instead on the general category of the product and citing an all-
purpose dispensing container, a toy container, and a perfume applicator. Id. at *30-31. The
court noted that the defendant had ignored the specific product category, and stated that the
defendant cites no case where a court has found noninfringement at the summary judgment
stage based on a comparison of the patent-in-suit with designs for unrelated products based only
on a common shape. Id. at *31. It held that the defendant had not satisfied its burden to
introduce prior art references that would cause a hypothetical ordinary observer, familiar with the
prior art, to magnify the differences between the accused and asserted designs. Id. at *32-33.
GoPros citation of the fact that the D423 patent and the references GoPro relies upon
are in the same general prior art class at the USPTOClass D16, Photography and Optical
Equipmentis a non sequitur. (Mot. at 24-25 n.4.) GoPro does not explain how a USPTO prior
art class bears any relevance to what an ordinary observer would consider or be familiar with in
the purchasing process. Indeed, the lip balm container, perfume applicator, and all-purpose
dispensing container discussed in Oralabs were also all in the same art class: D09, Packages
and containers for goods. (Gatzemeyer Decl. Ex. R.)
GoPros assertion that the entire universe of cameras is the relevant prior art with which
an ordinary observer would be familiar when making a decision to purchase an action camera,
regardless of type or purpose, defies logic and real-world evidence. (Supp. Statement 12.)
When a consumer-oriented publication such as Consumer Reports evaluates action cameras, it
does so in terms of the action camera category, not a general camera category that includes
16
sf-3782147
all types of photographic equipment. (Gatzemeyer Decl. Ex. S.) Best Buy, which sells both the
Hero Session products and the Polaroid Cube+, separates its photographic products into
categories such as Action Camcorders and Digital SLR Cameras. (Id. Ex. T.) Action
cameras such as the Hero Session and Polaroid Cube do not appear under the Digital Cameras
category. (Id. Ex. U.) They are in the separate Action Camcorder category. (Id. Ex. V.)
Target and Walmart similarly recognize the action camera category as distinct from other
types of cameras. (Id. Exs. W, X.)
Consistent with the historical case law discussed in Egyptian Goddess, Oralabs, and the
approach actually seen from major consumer sellers, C&A Marketings expert Alan Ball opined
that the ordinary observer relevant to this case is someone interested in purchasing and using an
action camera, who would therefore be aware of other action cameras on the market. (Ball Decl.
20.) He compared the accused and asserted designs to the ten years of action camera history
pictured belowand noted that not a single prior action camera was cubic, much less cubic with
the same overall appearance as the asserted and accused designs. (Id. 19-21; Supp. Statement
12-13.) This history reinforces that the accused design is substantially the same as the
asserted design. (Id. 14.) GoPros assertion that Mr. Ball could not draw a line . . . between
whats relevant and not relevant (Mot. at 24) omits that he also testified that non-action camera
prior art would certainly be less relevant than action camera prior art, and that one need[s] to
look at each reference independently in order to make a determination about whether its
relevant. (Ball Decl. Ex. 3 at 52:22-53:2, 53:24-55:12.)
To the extent GoPro and its expert disagree with Mr. Balls analysis and assert that the
proper scope of prior art includes all cameras regardless of type and purpose, this is a classic
dispute of fact. The jury is entitled to weigh the credibility and opinions of the disagreeing
17
sf-3782147
experts in order to resolve the factual dispute. Summit 6, LLC v. Samsung Elecs. Co., 802 F.3d
1283, 1296 (Fed. Cir. 2015) ([T]he question of whether the expert is credible or the opinion is
correct is generally a question for the fact finder, not the court.)
(Id. 19.)
18
sf-3782147
2. There Is a Material Dispute of Fact Regarding the Effect of

GoPros Cited Prior Art on the Infringement Analysis.
GoPro cites no action camera art, but it does cite four exemplary prior art references
that it asserts show a crowded field of prior art cube-like cameras. (Mot. at 8-10.) GoPro
presents only a single, misleading view of each, and does not conduct a three-way comparison of
any of them. A proper three-way comparison suggests the reason for the omission: the overall
appearance of each purported reference is extremely different from the overall appearance of the
D423 design. Even when one casts a net broad enough to include photographic equipment that
is completely unrelated to an action camera in type and purpose, as GoPro has donewebcams
that attach to monitors, network cameras for stationary home security, and a camera body that
does not even include a functional lensone still does not see a crowded field with cubic
designs similar to the D423 design and the accused design. Notwithstanding the dispute with
respect to the proper scope of the prior art, C&A Marketings expert Mr. Ball considered
GoPros cited prior art, and concluded that an ordinary observer familiar with such art would still
perceive the accused and asserted designs as substantially the same. (Ball Decl. 25.)
GoPros first cited reference, Microsofts D647,935 patent (Mot. at 8), depicts a webcam
that attaches and is tethered to a notebook or monitor, as seen below:
19
sf-3782147
(Ball Decl. 26-27; Supp. Statement 15.) It is difficult to imagine a camera less related to
action cameras than this reference. Nevertheless, C&A Marketings expert Alan Ball considered
a three-way comparison:
D935 patent figures
D423 patent figures
GoPro Hero Session
20
sf-3782147
(Ball Decl. 27.) Mr. Ball concluded that an ordinary observer familiar with this prior art
would still find the accused and asserted designs to be substantially the same, as they are much
closer to each other than they are to this reference. (Id.; Supp. Statement 16.) Even if one
assumes this is relevant prior art that an ordinary observer would be aware of, it does not depict
something cubic or nearly cubic, but rather an elongated, tapered square prism that is wider and
taller at the front than it is at the back. (Ball Decl. 27.) The front and rear surfaces are defined
by crisp edges, as opposed to rounded edges or stepped/beveled edges that appear rounded. (Id.)
The front face features a wide horizontal lens, as opposed to an inset round lens, and the back is
a protruding pillowed surface as opposed to a flush back with rounded or gently stepped edges.
(Id.) There is not a round button on top of any size, or any horizontal bands or line design
elements on the side. (Id.; Supp. Statement 17.)
GoPro next cites Panasonics D616,480 patent, which depicts a Network Camera.
(Mot. at 8.) This is again a design for a device unrelated in type and purpose to an action
camera. (Ball Decl. 28; Supp. Statement 18.) The commercial embodiment is shown below:
(Ball Decl. 28.) GoPro chooses to show only an angle that makes the front appear flush, when
a major design element of this reference is a bulbous, extruding element, as seen below:
21
sf-3782147
(Id.)
22
sf-3782147
As Mr. Ball opined, this reference is very different from the accused and asserted
designs, and does not show a simple cube, but rather a cubic form merged with a protruding
sphere. (Id. 29.) The front side shows a clear lens with a crisp edge, as opposed to the rounded
square bezel shape seen in both the asserted and the accused designs. (Id.) There is no rounded
button on top of any size, and no horizontal band or line elements on the sides. (Id.) Again, the
accused and asserted designs are much closer to each other than they are to the prior art
reference, and an ordinary observer familiar with this prior art would still find the asserted and
accused designs to be substantially the same. (Id.; Supp. Statement 20.)
GoPros third cited reference, Fujitsus D441,386 patent, is not even a camera, but rather
the Body of a Video Camera, lacking a lens element. (Ball Decl. 30; Supp. Statement 21.)
The product that appears to be the commercial embodiment with a lens is pictured below:
(Ball Decl. 30.) Even without the lens, when taking all figures into account, it is immediately
apparent that the overall appearance is nothing like the asserted and accused designs:
23
sf-3782147
D386 patent figures
D423 patent figures
GoPro Hero Session
(Id.; Dkt. No. 86-3, Ex. 6; Supp. Statement 22.)
24
sf-3782147
The differences here are stark even without reliance on expert opinion. Mr. Ball opined
that the patent discloses a design with curved, convex surfaces on the sides and other major
details that are not cube-like. (Ball Decl. 31.) It does not have an overall cube shape with
rounded edges; most of the edges are chamfered, not rounded, and the design is deeper than it is
tall. (Id.) The profiles contain variation because of steps, slight curves, part-lines, and a mix of
chamfers and radii for edges. (Id.) There are major, immediately apparent components
protruding significantly out of the back side, visible from every angle other than the front and
front-perspective view. (Id.) These lead to major differences in the overall appearance of the
design, not just detail elements. (Id.) The design is even more distinct when a lens element is
added to the referenced camera body in order to create a functional camera. (Id.) These
differences in overall appearance again reinforce that an ordinary observer would see the
asserted and accused designs as substantially the same. (Id.; Supp. Statement 23.)
GoPros fourth and final cited reference, Amaryllos D713,868 patent, is a Wireless IP
Camera with a pivoting base, unrelated to action cameras in type and purpose. (Ball Decl. 32;
Supp. Statement 24.) The commercial embodiment is pictured below (Ball Decl. 32):
25
sf-3782147
Nevertheless, C&A Marketings expert Mr. Ball considered a three-way comparison:
D868 patent figures
D423 patent figures
GoPro Hero Session
(Id.)
26
sf-3782147
As Mr. Ball opined, the D868 patent is very different from the asserted and accused
designs. (Id.) It does not show a rounded cube shape and lacks a rounded square bezel and
round button on top. (Id.) Its overall appearance is heavily driven by the distinctive grid-like
grooves dividing the design into subdivisions, significantly different than the line design
elements in the accused and asserted designs, and the spherical camera element on the front that
looks almost like a rotary dial. (Id.; Supp. Statement 26.)
In sum, at a minimum, there are significant disputes of material fact with respect to the
effect of GoPros asserted prior art on the infringement analysis and the proper scope of prior art
with which an ordinary observer would be familiar, grounded in evidence and expert opinion,
that are improper to resolve at the summary judgment stage. (Supp. Statement 27.)
C. GoPro Ignores Real World Evidence Supporting the Substantial

Similarity of the Hero Session to the D423 Patent,
Although empirical evidence does not replace the infringement analysis, and C&A
Marketing need not present such evidence to succeed on its infringement claim, C&A Marketing
does in fact have substantial empirical evidence supporting the conclusion of its expert. Catalina
Lighting, Inc. v. Lamps Plus, 295 F.3d 1277, 1287 (Fed. Cir. 2002) (visual comparison alone is
substantial evidence to support jury verdict of design patent infringement). GoPro, despite being
the moving party, has none. GoPro urges the Court to overlook this disparity in the evidence, by
misstating both the law and the nature of C&A Marketings evidence.
The fact that C&A Marketing need not prove likelihood of confusionthe standard for
trademark infringement, not design patent infringementdoes not mean that evidence of
confusion is irrelevant. OddzOnProducts v. Just Toys, 122 F.3d 1396, 1406-07 (Fed. Cir. 1997)
(exclusion of actual confusion evidence on relevance grounds was abuse of discretion with
respect to design patent claim).
27
sf-3782147
Moreover, the evidence at issue is not mere evidence of confusion or bare allegations
of confusion, as GoPro asserts. (Mot. at 26-27.) It is evidence of actual observersconsumers,
industry reviewers, and revealing
what they thought of the similarity between the accused product and the commercial
embodiment of the asserted design patent, uninfected by crafted-for-litigation arguments that
shine an unnatural spotlight on minutiae.
GoPros argument that the Court should turn a blind eye to the evidence because we do
not know whether the observers compared all views or were familiar with the prior art is contrary
to the summary judgment standard. Such arguments are at best attacks on the credibility or
weight of the evidence, which are improper on summary judgment. Anderson, 477 U.S. at 255
(Credibility determinations, the weighing of the evidence, and the drawing of legitimate
inferences from the facts are jury functions, not those of a judge, whether he is ruling on a
motion for summary judgment or for a directed verdict.) Moreover, if anything, one would
expect and industry reviewers to be more perceptive to detail and
knowledgeable than the ordinary observer, not less so. The unprompted views of similarity from
actual observers make it more probable that an ordinary observer would find the designs to be
substantially the same, and are therefore relevant. As Mr. Ball opined, this evidence provides a
reasonableness check on his opinions and strong circumstantial evidence supporting his
conclusions regarding what an ordinary observer would perceive. (Ball Decl. 34.)
GoPros assertion that Mr. Ball has not seen any evidence of copying misses the point.
The relevance of comments that GoPro appeared to have copied the Polaroid Cube
28
sf-3782147
does not hinge on whether one party actually copied the other. The relevance is that the
observers thought the products were so similar, one of them must have been copied.
This real world evidence includes:
"
(Supra at 3-4; Supp. Statement 28-29.)
" Reviewers for well-known websites stating, for example, Long lost twin? The Hero 4
Session looks a lot like the Polaroid Cube action camera (captioned under an image
showing the reviewer holding both products); and At first glance, the Hero 4 Session
looks like a copy of the Polaroid Cube. (Supra at 4-5; Supp. Statement 30-31.)
" A reviewer on YouTube, showing images that include all views of the Session revealed
by GoPro on its launch website, saying, Its not original, obviously, [be]cause it looks
literally exactly like the Polaroid Cube. (Supra at 5; Supp. Statement 32.)
" Multiple comments from the public on announcements of and articles discussing the Hero
Session, such as, So its a copy of the Polaroid Cube?; I think so . . . look like a
polaroid cube [sic]; It also copies the design of the less popular polaroid cube!; and
Pool [sic] Polaroid . . . here comes go pro blatantly copying them off. (Supra at 5;
Supp. Statement 33.)
(See also Ball Decl. 34-37; Supp. Statement 34.)
In the face of such evidence, GoPros continued insistence that the designs are plainly
dissimilar and its use of hyperbolic arguments such as the Court need not even consider the
29
sf-3782147
prior art to conclude the claimed and accused designs are not substantially the same (or
anything close to it) (Mot. at 8) defy reason.
CONCLUSION
GoPro inappropriately asks the Court to ignore disputed issues of fact and disregard
evidence in C&A Marketings favor, and fails to sustain its burden. The Court should deny
GoPros motion.
Dated: June 19, 2017 MORRISON & FOERSTER LLP
By: /s/ Nathan B. Sabri

NATHAN B. SABRI
By: /s/ Mark S. Olinsky

MARK S. OLINSKY
Attorneys for Plaintiff

C&A MARKETING, INC.
30
sf-3782147
Case 1:15-cv-07854-RMB-JS Document 99-1 Filed 06/20/17 Page 1 of 15 PageID: 1965

v.
GOPRO, INC.,
Defendant.
C&A MARKETING, INC.S RESPONSE TO DEFENDANT AND COUNTER-

CLAIMANT GOPRO, INC.S STATEMENT OF MATERIAL FACTS NOT IN DISPUTE
PURSUANT TO LOCAL RULE 56.1

mjacobs@mofo.com
nsabri@mofo.com
echang@mofo.com
425 Market Street
Telephone: (415) 268-7000
Facsimile: (415) 268-7522
MARK S. OLINSKY
Telephone (973) 643-7000
Facsimile (973) 643-6500
sf-3784524
Pursuant to Local Civil Rule 56.1(a) of the United States District Court for the District of
New Jersey, Plaintiff C&A Marketing, Inc. (C&A Marketing) hereby submits this response to
Defendant and Counter-Claimant GoPro, Inc.s statement of material facts not in dispute, and
states as follows:
DEFENDANTS PROPOSED FACT NO. 1
On November 3, 2015, Plaintiff C&A Marketing, Inc. (C&A Marketing) sued

GoPro for alleged design patent infringement asserting U.S. Patent No. D730,423
(the D423 Patent). [Dkt. No. 1 (Complaint).]
PLAINTIFFS RESPONSE TO DEFENDANTS PROPOSED FACT NO. 1
Admitted.
The D423 Patent issued on May 26, 2015, with a priority date of no earlier than
January 5, 2014. [Declaration of Steven Visser In Support of GoPros Motion for
Summary Judgment of Non-Infringement (Visser Decl.), Ex. 3 (D423 Patent);
Declaration of William E. Mosley In Support of GoPros Motion for Summary
Judgment of Non-Infringement (Mosley Decl.), Ex. 1 (Ball Infringement Report)
73.]
Plaintiff admits that the D423 patent was filed on January 5, 2014, and issued on May
26, 2015.
The D423 Patent claims [t]he ornamental design for a cubic action camera, as
shown and described [in the figures]. [Visser Decl., Ex. 3 (D423 Patent);
Mosley Decl., Ex. 1 (Ball Infringement Report) 73.]
Plaintiff admits that the D423 Patent claims [t]he ornamental design for a cubic action
camera, as shown and described.
sf-3784524 1
The D423 Patent does not purport to claim a design for a camera of any particular
size. [Visser Decl., Ex. 3 (D423 Patent); Mosley Decl., Ex. 2 (Ball Depo Tr.) at
95:13-18.]
Plaintiff admits that the scope of the D423 Patent is not limited to an action camera
design of a particular size.
The D423 Patent contains seven figures showing different views of the claimed
camera design.
[Visser Decl., Ex. 3 (D423 Patent) Figs. 1-7; Mosley Decl., Ex. 1 (Ball
Infringement Report) 76, 78.]
Plaintiff admits that the D423 Patent shows and describes seven figures with different
views of a cubic action camera design.
C&A Marketing asserts its Polaroid Cube and Polaroid Cube+ products
embody the design of the D423 Patent. [Mosley Decl., Ex. 1 (Ball Infringement
Report) 6.]
Plaintiff admits that the Polaroid Cube and Polaroid Cube+ embody the D423 Patent
design.
sf-3784524 2
The following are images of the Polaroid Cube camera:
[Mosley Decl., 5.]
Plaintiff objects to Defendants misleading citation and submission to the Court of only
images of the non-black Polaroid Cube, which emphasizes the irrelevant difference in color
between one version of the Polaroid Cube and the accused product, and masks similarities
between the Polaroid Cube camera and the accused products. As Defendant knows, there is a
black version of the Polaroid Cube and Cube+; the accused products are black; and the D423
Patent design is not limited to an action camera design of a particular color. Plaintiff admits that
the above are images of a blue version of the Polaroid Cube camera, but submits further that the
following are more instructive images of the Polaroid Cube camera. Plaintiff has also lodged
with the Court physical specimens of the black Cube and Cube+.
sf-3784524 3
DEFEND
DANTS PR
ROPOSED FA
ACT NO. 8
C&A
C Marketiing accuses the
t HERO4 Session (now w rebrandedd the HERO Session)
an
nd the HEROO5 Session (collectively
( the Sessionn Cameras)) of infringinng the
D423
D Patent. [Dkt. No. 1 (Complain
nt); Mosley DDecl., Ex. 1 ((Ball Infringgement
Report)
R 10
03, 108.]
PLAINTIFFS RESP
PONSE TO DEFENDAN
D NTS PROP OSED FAC
CT NO. 8
Admitted.
A
DEFEND
DANTS PR
ROPOSED FA
ACT NO. 9
The
T HERO4 Session and HERO Sesssion share ann identical exxternal appeaarance
otther than sligghtly different logos. Thhe HERO Seession is a rebranded version of
thhe HERO4 Session.
S [Decclaration of Richard
R Giosscia In Suppport of GoProos
Summary Jud dgment of No on-Infringemment (Giosccia Decl.) 8; Mosley Decl.,
D
Ex.
E 1 (Ball In nfringement Report)
R 103, 108.]
PLAINTIFFS RESP
PONSE TO DEFENDAN
D NTS PROP OSED FAC
CT NO. 9
Plaintiff admiits that the GoPro

G HERO
O Session is a rebrandedd version of tthe HERO4
Session and
a that the two
t products share an id
dentical exterrnal appearaance in all reelevant respeects.
Plaintiff lacks inform

mation to adm
mit or deny to
t what extennt and whenn GoPro begaan using a
slightly different
d logoo on the HER
RO Session as comparedd to when it was brandedd the HERO
O4
Session, but any such

h difference is irrelevantt for purposees of evaluatting infringem
ment.
sf-3784524
4 4
The HERO5 Session shares the same design as the HERO4 Session, except that it
has a different logo, different color, a larger rear button, and a removable I/O door.
[Gioscia Decl., 9.]
Plaintiff admits that the HERO5 Session shares the same external design as the HERO4
Session in all relevant respects, and that the logo and color are slightly different with a higher
sheen.
The differences between the external appearance of the Session Cameras are
immaterial for purposes of evaluating infringement. [Mosley Decl., Ex. 1 (Ball
Infringement Report) 108, Ex. 2 (Ball Depo Tr.) at 58:6-18; Visser Decl., Ex. 2
(Non-Infringement Report) 6; Gioscia Decl., 9.]
Plaintiff admits that any differences between the external appearances of the Session
Cameras are immaterial for purposes of evaluating infringement.
A side-by-side comparison of the claimed and accused designs is shown below:
sf-3784524 5
[Mosley Ex. 10 (D423 Patent) compared to Exs. 11, 12 (physical specimens of

Session Cameras); Visser Decl., 14.]
Plaintiff admits that the above figure appears to depict a comparison of each view of the
D423 Patent to similar views of the HERO5 Session, turned on such that a display screen is lit
up on the top view whereas in off mode there is no such visible detail, and with a brighter logo
than appeared on the original HERO Session that is irrelevant for the infringement analysis. A
more accurate comparison of the HERO Session design to the figures of the D423 Patent is
shown below in orthographic view.
sf-3784524 6
DEFEND
DANTS PR
ROPOSED FA
ACT NO. 133
Figures 2 thro ough 5 of thee D423 Pateent show a naarrow stripe wrapping arround the
leeft and right sides and poortions of thee front and reear sides of tthe camera depicted
d
inn D423 Pateent, which arre missing enntirely from the Session Cameras. Neither the
hhorizontal baand-shaped door
d of the Session Cam meras nor anny feature off the side
oppposite that door wrap arround in thiss fashion. [M Mosley Decl., Ex. 1 (Balll
Innfringement Report) 76,7 78, Ex. 2 (Ball Depo Tr.) at 108:55-17, Ex. 10 (D423
Patent) Figs. 2-5
2 compareed to Exs. 11, 12 (physic al specimenss of Session
Cameras);
C Visser Decl., 15.]
sf-3784524
4 7
Plaintiff disputes this proposed fact, which is both argument masquerading as a purported
factual statement and factually incorrect. The D423 Patent shows line design elements on the
left and right sides, but Defendants description of those line elements as narrow and
wrapping around are subjective and inaccurate. The HERO Session Cameras also feature line
design elements on the left and right sides, visible from a simple visual comparison, and
therefore Defendants assertion that these elements are missing entirely from the Session
Cameras is inaccurate. Defendants description of those line design elements as a horizontal
band-shaped door is misleading; the line design elements on the right side do indeed frame a
flush horizontal door, but the matching line design elements on the other side do not frame a
door. To the extent Defendant means to imply that a line design on one side appears to wrap
around by virtue of a matching line design on the other side, there is a line design element on
the sides of the Session Cameras that wraps around in that fashion. (Declaration of Alan D.
Ball in Support of C&A Marketings Opposition to GoPro, Inc.s Motion for Summary Judgment
of Non-Infringement (Ball Decl.) Ex. 1 105, 124, 126; D423 Patent figures compared to
Mosley Decl. Exs. 11, 12 (physical specimens of Session cameras); Declaration of Ryan
Gatzemeyer in Support of C&A Marketings Opposition to GoPros Motion for Summary
Judgment (Gatzemeyer Decl.) Exs. Y, Z, AA (physical specimens of Cube and Cube+)
compared to Mosley Decl. Ex. 11, 12 (physical specimens of Session cameras).) Plaintiff
otherwise denies this Proposed Fact.
Figure 2 of the D423 Patent shows a square front including a front view of the
narrow stripe in the middle-left and middle-right portions of the design claimed in
the D423 Patent, in contrast to the visually-distinct square-front perimeter of the
Session Cameras which includes eight screws and eight small holes in the upper-
left portion of the perimeter. [Mosley Decl., Ex. 1 (Ball Infringement Report) 78,
sf-3784524 8
Ex. 10 (D423 Patent) Fig. 2 compared to Exs. 11, 12 (physical specimens of

Session Cameras); Visser Decl., 16.]
factual statement and factually incorrect. Figure 2 of the D423 Patent depicts a large, rounded
square face panel in the front of the action camera design with a round lens in the center. The
front of the Session Cameras similarly have a large, rounded square face panel in front with a
round lens in the center. The ordinary observer looking at these views would not find them to be
visually distinct, but would find them to be substantially the same. Minute details such as the
presence of small screws or small holes require further scrutiny, do not render the designs
visually distinct, and would not prevent an ordinary observer from seeing the designs as
substantially the same. (Ball Decl. 14-15; D423 Patent figures compared to Mosley Decl.
Exs. 11, 12 (physical specimens of Session cameras); Gatzemeyer Decl. Exs. Y, Z, AA (physical
specimens of Cube and Cube+) compared to Mosley Decl. Ex. 11, 12 (physical specimens of
Session cameras).) Plaintiff otherwise denies this Proposed Fact.
Figure 3 of the D423 Patent shows a prominent large circle-shaped ornamentation

with an inscribed, horizontal slot between the narrow stripe on the rear-side of the
camera depicted in the D423 Patent, which is missing entirely from the Session
Cameras. [Mosley Decl., Ex. 1 (Ball Infringement Report) 78, Ex. 10 (D423
Patent) Fig. 3 compared to Exs. 11, 12 (physical specimens of Session Cameras);
Visser Decl., 18.]
factual statement and factually incorrect. Figure 3 of the D423 patent depicts a circular design
detail with a horizontal element within it, but the presence or absence of a particular design detail
on one isolated view would not prevent an ordinary observer from seeing the designs as
sf-3784524 9
substantially the same, and is not the proper scope of the infringement standard. (Ball Decl.
15; D423 Patent figures compared to Mosley Decl. Exs. 11, 12 (physical specimens of Session
cameras); Gatzemeyer Decl. Exs. Y, Z, AA (physical specimens of Cube and Cube+) compared
to Mosley Decl. Ex. 11, 12 (physical specimens of Session cameras).) Plaintiff otherwise denies
this Proposed Fact.
Figures 1 and 6 of the D423 Patent show an oversized top button covering a large
portion of the top surface of the camera depicted in the D423 Patent, in contrast to
the smaller and visually distinct button and user display screen on the top surface
of the Session Cameras. [Mosley Decl., Ex. 1 (Ball Infringement Report) 76,
78, Ex. 10 (D423 Patent) Figs. 1, 6 compared to Exs. 11, 12 (physical specimens
of Session Cameras); Visser Decl., 14, 17.]
factual statement and factually incorrect. Figures 1 and 6 of the D423 Patent show that there is
a prominent round button on the top of the action camera design. The Session Cameras similarly
have a prominent round button on the top of the design. Differences in size or the addition of
other details do not diminish the presence and similarity in appearance of these elements. (Ball
Decl. 14-15; D423 Patent figures compared to Mosley Decl. Exs. 11, 12 (physical specimens
of Session cameras; Gatzemeyer Decl. Exs. Y, Z, AA (physical specimens of Cube and Cube+)
compared to Mosley Decl. Ex. 11, 12 (physical specimens of Session cameras).) Plaintiff
otherwise denies this Proposed Fact.
Figure 7 of the D423 Patent shows a large double-circular region on the bottom-
side of the camera depicted in the D423 Patent, which is missing entirely from the
Session Cameras. [Mosley Decl., Ex. 1 (Ball Infringement Report) 78, Ex. 10
(D423 Patent) Fig. 7 compared to Exs. 11, 12 (physical specimens of Session
Cameras); Visser Decl., 19.]
sf-3784524 10
factual statement and factually incorrect. Figure 7 of the D423 patent depicts a circular design
detail, but the presence or absence of a particular design detail on one isolated view would not
prevent an ordinary observer from seeing the designs as substantially the same, and is not the
proper scope of the infringement standard. (Ball Decl. 15; D423 Patent figures compared to
Mosley Decl. Exs. 11, 12 (physical specimens of Session cameras); Gatzemeyer Decl. Exs. Y, Z,
AA (physical specimens of Cube and Cube+) compared to Mosley Decl. Ex. 11, 12 (physical
specimens of Session cameras).) Plaintiff otherwise denies this Proposed Fact.
The D423 Patent depicts a perfectly rounded cube, in which all corners are
equally rounded in all directions, whereas the corners of the Session Cameras are
not rounded towards the front and rear, only the sides. [Mosley Decl., Ex. 10
(D423 Patent) Figs 1- 7, compared to Exs. 11, 12 (physical specimens of Session
Cameras); Visser Decl., 12.]
factual statement and factually incorrect. The precise measurement of angling is not the relevant
test for the ordinary observer standard. The D423 Patent depicts a cube-shaped action camera
with rounded edges. The Session Cameras are cube-shaped action cameras with rounded edges.
The edges of the Session are either rounded or gently stepped in such a way that they appear
rounded. Any difference in the precise angling of the bezel or corners is the type of detail that
would be seen a minor or trivial variation, and does not change the fact that the ordinary observer
would see the overall appearances as substantially the same. (Ball Decl. 14-15; D423 Patent
figures compared to Mosley Decl. Exs. 11, 12 (physical specimens of Session cameras);
Gatzemeyer Decl. Exs. Y, Z, AA (physical specimens of Cube and Cube+) compared to Mosley
sf-3784524 11
Decl. Ex. 11, 12 (physical specimens of Session cameras).) Plaintiff otherwise denies this
Proposed Fact.
Every design element shown in the D423 Patent is part of the claimed design.
[Mosley Decl., Ex. 1 (Ball Infringement Report) 80; Visser Decl., Ex. 2 (Non-
Infringement Report) 18.]
Plaintiff admits that the D423 Patent does not disclaim any particular feature, and that it
claims [t]he ornamental design for a cubic action camera, as shown and described. Plaintiff
otherwise denies this Proposed Fact, including to the extent it implies a design patent protects an
aggregation of separable elements as opposed to an overall appearance. Moreover, different
characteristics contribute to overall design and overall appearance in varying degrees. (Ball
Decl. 13.)
C&A Marketings expert, Mr. Ball, acknowledges the absence of the missing
design features identified above in Undisputed Facts 13, 15 and 17 (including the
complete absence of the design features shown on Figures 3 and 7 of the D423
Patent) from the Session Cameras. [Mosley Decl., Ex. 1 (Ball Infringement
Report) 125, Ex. 2 (Ball Depo Tr.) at 106:2-108:17.]
Plaintiff admits that C&A Marketings expert, Mr. Ball, has acknowledged there are
minor differences between the D423 Patent design and the design of the Session Cameras, but
denies that he has acknowledged them as characterized above or approved an element-by-
element analysis using isolated views as GoPro has done. Plaintiff admits that Mr. Ball has
acknowledged that with scrutiny, one can identify certain differences between the designs, but
that these are minor, trivial variations in details that would not prevent an ordinary observer
sf-3784524 12
from seeing the designs as substantially the same. (Ball Decl. 15.) Plaintiff admits that Alan
Ball testified as follows at his April 25, 2017, deposition (colloquy omitted):
Q: Which characteristics are you referring to there [in Mosley Decl., Ex. 1 (Ball
Infringement Report) 118] that are not present in the GoPro products?
A: The back and the bottom sides of the GoPro HERO Session cameras dont have
some of the details seen on the back and bottom sides of the D423 design.
Theres differences in the front surface bezel treatment of the GoPro HERO
Session, you know, in that it, instead of being rounded, its more stepped or
facetted with a series of facets and steps. And it has some connector -- or fasteners
around the edge in a -- in a glass rather than the inset bezel as you see in D423
design. They might see that even though the both designs have horizontal
elements on the side, they would see that the height or -- of the horizontal element
on the side of the Session might be a bit taller. They might notice that the very,
very subtle diagonal over-molded pattern on the housing of the Session isn't
suggested or shown in the D423. So they would -- they might see those details,
but I think that in my analysis those details are dont contribute as much to the
overall design and aren't nearly as noticeable as other aspects --
Q: Okay.
A: -- to the ordinary observer.
(Mosley Decl. Ex. 2 at 106:13-107:13.)
Plaintiff otherwise denies this Proposed Fact.
Mr. Ball states in his February 10, 2017 expert report:
There are differences between the GoPro design and the D423 design. The
back and bottom sides of the GoPro Hero Session and Hero5 Session lack
the detail seen on the back and bottom sides of the D423 design [as shown
on Figures 3 and 7]. The front bezel and glass lens of the GoPro products
have greater detail than shown in the D423 design. The ribbed texture and
display on the GoPro products are not present in the D423 design.
[Mosley Decl., Ex. 1 (Ball Infringement Report) 125.]
Plaintiff responds that the quoted paragraph is incomplete. Plaintiff admits that Mr. Ball
states in his February 10, 2017, expert report (bolding the portion that GoPro omitted):
sf-3784524 13
There are differences between the GoPro design and the D423 design. The
back and bottom sides of the GoPro Hero Session and Hero5 Session lack
the detail seen on the back and bottom sides of the D423 design. The
front bezel and glass lens of the GoPro products have greater detail than
shown in the D423 design. The ribbed texture and display on the GoPro
products are not present in the D423 design. These differences are not as
noticeable as the afore-mentioned similarities and would not prevent
an ordinary observer seeing the designs as substantially similar.
(Ball Decl. Ex. 1 125.)

NATHAN B. SABRI

MARK S. OLINSKY

C&A MARKETING, INC.
sf-3784524 14

v.
GOPRO, INC.,
Defendant.
REDACTED
C&A MARKETING, INC.S SUPPLEMENTAL STATEMENT OF DISPUTED

MATERIAL FACTS PURSUANT TO LOCAL RULE 56.1

mjacobs@mofo.com
nsabri@mofo.com
echang@mofo.com
425 Market Street
Telephone: (415) 268-7000
Facsimile: (415) 268-7522
MARK S. OLINSKY
Telephone (973) 643-7000
Facsimile (973) 643-6500
sf-3784511
Pursuant to Local Civil Rule 56.1(a) of the United States District Court for the District of
New Jersey, Plaintiff C&A Marketing, Inc. (C&A Marketing) hereby submits this
supplemental statement of disputed material facts in support of its opposition to GoPro, Inc.s
(GoPro) motion for summary judgment of non-infringement. These disputed material facts are
additional to the disputes identified in C&A Marketings Responsive Statement of Material Facts
addressing GoPros Statement of Material Facts Not in Dispute.
DISPUTED MATERIAL FACTS
Material Disputed Facts Regarding the Visual Comparison Between the Accused Hero
Session Camera Design and the Asserted D423 Patent Design
1. An ordinary observer, giving such attention as a purchaser usually gives, would find
the overall appearance of the accused Session products to be substantially the same as
the D423 design. (Declaration of Alan Ball in Support of C&A Marketings
Opposition to GoPros Motion for Summary Judgment (Ball Decl.) 9, 14-15;
D423 Patent figures (Dkt. No. 1-1) compared to Mosley Decl. Exs. 11, 12 (physical
specimens of Session cameras); Declaration of Ryan Gatzemeyer in Support of C&A
Marketing, Inc.s Mem. in Opp. to GoPro, Inc.s Mot. for Summary Judgment of
Non-Infringement (Gatzemeyer Decl.) Exs. Y, Z, AA (physical specimens of Cube
and Cube+) compared to Mosley Decl. Ex. 11, 12 (physical specimens of Session
cameras).)
2. The ordinary observer in this case is a teen, active young adult, parent, or active adult
interested in purchasing and using an action camera to record family or sport
activities. (Ball Decl. 12.)
1
sf-3784511
3. The asserted (D423) and accused (GoPro Hero Session) designs are both cube-
shaped cameras with rounded edges. (Id. 14; D423 Patent figures (Dkt. No. 1-1)
compared to Mosley Decl. Exs. 11, 12 (physical specimens of Session cameras);
Gatzemeyer Decl. Exs. Y, Z, AA (physical specimens of Cube and Cube+) compared
to Mosley Decl. Ex. 11, 12 (physical specimens of Session cameras).)
4. The asserted and accused designs have a large, rounded square face panel in front
with a round lens in the center. (Ball Decl. 14; D423 Patent figures (Dkt. No. 1-1)
5. The asserted and accused designs have a prominent round button design element on
top. (Ball Decl. 14; D423 Patent figures (Dkt. No. 1-1) compared to Mosley Decl.
Exs. 11, 12 (physical specimens of Session cameras); Gatzemeyer Decl. Exs. Y, Z,
AA (physical specimens of Cube and Cube+) compared to Mosley Decl. Ex. 11, 12
(physical specimens of Session cameras).)
6. The asserted and accused designs have a horizontal line or band design element on
both sides of both designs. (Ball Decl. 14; D423 Patent figures (Dkt. No. 1-1)
7. An ordinary observer would primarily notice the presence of the circular design
element on top and line or band elements on the sides, not dimensional differences in
those designs. (Ball Decl. 14; D423 Patent figures (Dkt. No. 1-1) compared to
2
sf-3784511
Mosley Decl. Exs. 11, 12 (physical specimens of Session cameras); Gatzemeyer Decl.
Exs. Y, Z, AA (physical specimens of Cube and Cube+) compared to Mosley Decl.
Ex. 11, 12 (physical specimens of Session cameras).)
8. An ordinary observer would perceive differences such as precise angling of the bezel
or corners; the presence of screws or small holes; details on the bottom or rear of the
accused and asserted designs; and the precise size and position of the button element
on top and lines on the sides as minor or trivial variations. (Ball Decl. 15; D423
Patent figures (Dkt. No. 1-1) compared to Mosley Decl. Exs. 11, 12 (physical
specimens of Session cameras); Gatzemeyer Decl. Exs. Y, Z, AA (physical
specimens of Cube and Cube+) compared to Mosley Decl. Ex. 11, 12 (physical
specimens of Session cameras).)
9. The commercial embodiments of the D423 patent (the Polaroid Cube and Polaroid
Cube+) are substantially the same in overall appearance as the D423 patent. (Ball
Decl. 16.)
10. The Polaroid Cube and Cube+ cameras, and the GoPro Hero Session cameras (Hero
Session and Hero5 Session) have rounded cube shapes with a large, rounded square
bezel, and centered circular lens on front, as well as a circular button on top and
horizontal line elements on the side. (Id. 17; D423 Patent figures (Dkt. No. 1-1)
11. An ordinary observer would perceive the design of the Polaroid Cube and Polaroid
Cube+ to be substantially the same as the design of the Hero Session cameras. (Ball
3
sf-3784511
Decl. 17; D423 Patent figures (Dkt. No. 1-1) compared to Mosley Decl. Exs. 11,
12 (physical specimens of Session cameras); Gatzemeyer Decl. Exs. Y, Z, AA
(physical specimens of Cube and Cube+) compared to Mosley Decl. Ex. 11, 12
(physical specimens of Session cameras).)
Material Disputed Facts Regarding the Scope of Relevant Prior Art And Its Effect on the
Ordinary Observer Analysis.
12. The ordinary observer in this case would be familiar with action camera prior art, not
necessarily prior art from all other types of cameras. (Ball Decl. 20.)
13. GoPros action cameras prior to the Hero4 Session featured a rectangular prism form
factor. (Id. 21.)
14. An ordinary observer familiar with the history of action cameras would recognize the
D423 design and the design of the accused Hero Session cameras even more strongly
as substantially the same, as the asserted and accused designs vary significantly from
the prior art. (Id.)
15. U.S. Patent No. D647,935 (the D935 patent) depicts a design for a webcam atop a
large mounting clip for attaching onto the screen of a laptop computer, unrelated to
action cameras in type and purpose. (Id. 26.)
16. An ordinary observer would perceive the accused and asserted designs to be much
closer to each other than they are to the D935 patent. (Id. 27.)
17. Unlike the asserted and accused designs, the top element in the D935 design is not a
rounded cube, but rather an elongated, tapered square prism with front and rear
surfaces defined by crisp edges; the front face features a wide horizontal lens; the
4
sf-3784511
back side is a protruding pillowed surface; there is no round button on top; and there
are no horizontal design elements on the sides. (Id.)
18. U.S. Patent No. D616,480 (the D480 patent) discloses a design for a network
security camera, unrelated to action cameras in type and purpose. (Id. 28.)
20. Unlike the asserted and accused designs, the D480 patent design shows a large
blister or spherical element protruding from the front face; a clear front surface; a
crisp edge around the front face; no rounded button on top; and no horizontal band or
line elements on the sides. (Id.)
21. U.S. Patent No. D441,386 (the D386 patent) discloses a design for a video camera
body without a lens element, and is unrelated to action cameras in type and purpose.
(Id. 30.)
23. Unlike the asserted and accused designs, the D386 patent design does not show an
overall cube shape with rounded edges; the design is deeper than it is tall; the profiles
contain major variation; and there are major, immediately apparent components
protruding significantly out of the back side, visible from every angle other than the
front and front-perspective view. (Id.)
24. U.S. Patent No. D713,868 (the D868 patent) discloses a design for a wireless IP
camera with a pivoting base, unrelated to action cameras in type and purpose. (Id.
32.)
5
sf-3784511
closer to each other than they are to the D868 patent. (Id.)
26. Unlike the asserted and accused designs, the D868 patent design does not show a
rounded cube shape; lacks a rounded square bezel; lacks a rounded button on top; and
is heavily marked by distinctive grid-like grooves dividing the design into
subdivisions as well as a spherical camera element on the front that looks like a rotary
dial. (Id.)
27. An ordinary observer familiar with the prior art GoPro has cited, discussed above,
would strongly perceive the accused Hero Session camera designs to be substantially
the same as the asserted D423 design. (Id. 33.)
Material Disputed Facts Regarding the Real World Evidence Supporting the Substantial
Similarity of the Hero Session to the D423 Patent.
28.
29.
30. The Motley Fool reported in a review of the Hero4 Session: At first glance, the Hero
4 Session looks like a copy of the Polaroid Cube, a $100 camera which turned heads
with its cute form factor and retro design aesthetics. . . . [I]ts tiny form factor
6
sf-3784511
apparently convinced GoPro to create the Hero 4 Session. (Ball Decl. 36;
Gatzemeyer Decl. Ex. M at 34.)
31. Mashable reviewed the Hero4 Session and showed an image of the product next to
the Polaroid Cube, with the caption, Long lost twin?, stating, The Hero 4 Session
looks a lot like the Polaroid Cube action camera. (Ball Decl. 36.)
32. An online reviewer published a video review of the Hero Session, stating that it was
not original, obviously, cause it looks literally exactly like the Polaroid Cube.
(Ball Decl. 36; Gatzemeyer Decl. 15, Ex. N.)
33. Comments from users on announcements and reviews included, So its a copy of the
Polaroid Cube? . . . I think so . . . look like the polaroid cube [sic]. (Ball Decl. 36;
Gatzemeyer Decl. Ex. O.)
34. The reactions discussed above provide support to the conclusion that the ordinary
observer familiar with the relevant prior art would perceive the accused Hero Session
design to be substantially the same as the asserted D423 design. (Ball Decl. 34,
38.)
7
sf-3784511

NATHAN B. SABRI

MARK S. OLINSKY

C&A MARKETING, INC.
8
sf-3784511
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY
C&A MARKETING, INC., Case No. 1:15-cv-07854-RMB-JS
Plaintiff, Honorable Renee Marie Bumb
v.
GOPRO, INC.,
Document Electronically Filed
Defendant.
REDACTED
DECLARATION OF ALAN D. BALL IN SUPPORT OF C&A MARKETING, INC.S

MEMORANDUM IN OPPOSITION TO GOPRO, INC.S MOTION FOR SUMMARY
JUDGMENT OF NON-INFRINGEMENT

mjacobs@mofo.com
nsabri@mofo.com
echang@mofo.com
425 Market Street
Telephone: (415) 268-7000
Facsimile: (415) 268-7522
MARK S. OLINSKY
Telephone (973) 643-7000
Facsimile (973) 643-6500
sf-3782295
I, Alan D. Ball, declare as follows:
1. I have been retained by Morrison & Foerster LLP, attorneys for Plaintiff C&A
Marketing, Inc. (C&A), as an expert witness to opine on design issues related to U.S. Patent
D730,423 (the D423 Patent). My rate of compensation for expert witness services in this case
is my normal rate of $250 per hour, and my compensation is not dependent upon the outcome of
this case or any litigation proceeding. I have no financial interest in, or affiliation with, the
parties in this case.
2. I make this declaration in support of C&A Marketing, Inc.s s Memorandum in
Opposition to GoPro, Inc.s Motion for Summary Judgment of Non-Infringement.
3. If asked to testify as to the matters stated in this declaration, I could and would
competently testify thereto.
4. I have submitted two expert reports in this case:
a. The February 10, 2017 Expert Report of Alan Ball Regarding

Infringement of U.S. Patent No. D730,423 by the GoPro Hero4 Session /
Hero Session and Hero5 Session, attached as Exhibit 1.
b. The March 31, 2017 Rebuttal Expert Report of Alan Ball on Non-
Obviousness and Validity of U.S. Patent No. D730,423, attached as
Exhibit 2.
Background
5. I am an Industrial Designer and Inventor. I have a Bachelor of Industrial Design
(B.I.D.) degree from Syracuse University and over 30 years of experience designing industrial,
medical, and consumer products for clients ranging from start-ups to Fortune 500 companies.
My expertise includes product design, ergonomics, graphics and packaging design, and user
interface design. My product design experience includes work on a broad range of products,
such as medical equipment, laboratory instruments, handheld computers, power tools, kitchen
appliances, toys, electronic equipment, industrial products, sports equipment, and pet products.
sf-3782295
Many of the products I have designed are handheld products. I hold 57 U.S. design patents and
11 U.S. utility patents.
6. I have designed many products that are cameras, or that include cameras or other
imaging or optical technology in their design. Between 1992 and 2000 I designed many
handheld scanners, imaging cameras, and handheld data terminals with scanning and imaging
technology. In the late 1990s, I designed numerous cameras, including the Spectra 2 and Spectra
AF cameras, JoyCam manual instant camera, PopShots single use camera, i-Zone and i-Zone 2
pocket camera, and the Spectra 1200ff. I also designed the Kensington VideoCam, a PC
webcam; handheld imaging cameras for manufacturing purposes; a tablet computer with a built-
in high-resolution webcam; and an imaging endoscopy system. Most recently, I have been
involved in developing a LIDAR-based surveying tool that includes a high-definition camera for
image capture, for use in construction or building inspection.
7. A fuller description of my background, education, qualifications, and relevant
design experience is included in paragraphs 11 through 27 of Exhibit 1, and my curriculum vitae,
as of 2/1/2017, is attached to Exhibit 1 as Exhibit A.
8. I was asked to evaluate several issues, including whether an ordinary observer
familiar with the prior art, giving such attention as a purchaser usually gives, would view the
overall appearance of the accused GoPro Hero4 Session / Hero Session and Hero5 Session as
substantially the same as the asserted D423 patent. My conclusion is that the ordinary observer
would see the accused and asserted designs as substantially the same. My approach to answering
this question is described in detail in my infringement report, Exhibit 1. The law that I was
provided and asked to apply is summarized in 32-43 of that report.
2
sf-3782295
Visual Comparison of the Asserted and Accused Designs
9. I compared the protected design as shown in all the figures of the D423 patent
with physical specimens of the GoPro Hero4 Session (now branded the Hero Session) and Hero5
Session, and considered the relative importance of various similarities and differences, i.e., what
would be seen by an ordinary observer, giving such attention as a purchaser usually gives, as a
major or significant design detail, and what would be a minor or trivial detail. I concluded, and
discuss in more detail below, that such an ordinary observer would find the overall appearance of
the accused Session products to be substantially the same as the D423 design, with only minor
or trivial differences that would not counteract a finding of substantial similarity.
10. A comparison of the Hero Session design to the figures of the D423 patent is
below in orthographic view, which allows one to view all sides at once without undue emphasis
on a single angle. There are no relevant differences between the appearance of the Hero Session
and the Hero5 Session. Accordingly, I use images of the Hero Session to represent the design of
both cameras. Larger versions of these orthographic views are attached as Exhibits C and D to
my infringement report (Exhibit 1 to this declaration).
3
sf-3782295
4
sf-3782295
11. A comparison of Figure 1 of the D423 patent to a similar perspective view of the
Session is below. This is the canonical view, which best communicates the overall design to an
observer. The ordinary observer is more likely to see a design in perspective than by scrutinizing
individual views.
12. The ordinary observer in this case is a teen, active young adult, parent, or active
adult interested in purchasing and using an action camera to record family or sport activities.
Considering an action camera priced in the $100-$300 range, they would take the purchasing
process somewhat seriously, with a moderate amount of attention. It is unlikely to be an impulse
purchase, but these products are not the most expensive level of product in the category. They
may encounter the action cameras online or in a retail store.
13. I considered the degree to which individual characteristics contribute to the
overall design, and the degree to which any given design characteristic would likely impact the
perception of an ordinary observer. Certain characteristics are immediately noticeable to an
ordinary observer during a purchasing decision, and a significant variation would similarly be
immediately noticeable. Other characteristics may be less immediately apparent, such that an
ordinary observer is less likely to recognize somewhat small variations. And there are some
5
sf-3782295
design characteristics that are so minute an ordinary observer is unlikely to take account of them,
unless someone were to specifically call attention to the detail.
14. Here, an ordinary observer would instantly see that the asserted and accused
designs are both cube-shaped cameras with rounded edges. They would quickly see that both
designs have a large, rounded square face panel in front with a round lens in the center. Even at
a distance or a quick glance, an ordinary observer would observe these major characteristics.
Upon closer examination, an ordinary observer would also notice the presence of a prominent
round button on the top of both designs. The slight difference in size does not diminish its
presence and similarity in appearance. The ordinary observer would notice the presence of
horizontal line or band elements on both sides of both designs. Viewing the designs side by side,
one can see that the width is different, but an ordinary observer looking at the accused products
would primarily notice the presence of these features, not the dimensional difference.
15. With further scrutiny, one can observe other differences between the designs, but
these are minor, trivial variations in details that would not prevent an ordinary observer from
seeing the designs as substantially the same. For example, the precise angling of the bezel or
corners; the presence of screws or small holes; details on the bottom and rear; and the precise
size and position of the button element on the top and lines on the sides would be seen as minor
or trivial variations to an ordinary observer. They do not change the fact that the ordinary
observer would see the overall appearance of the accused and asserted designs as substantially
the same.
16. I also compared the accused design to the commercial embodiment of the D423
patent, which I understand is a proper comparison and can be helpful where there are no
significant differences between the commercial embodiment and the asserted patent. Here, the
6
sf-3782295
commercial embodiment (the Polaroid Cube and Cube+) and the D423 patent are substantially
the same, with no significant differences. The rainbow band on the side of the Polaroid Cube
and Cube+ is a branding element, which I understand is to be disregarded in the design patent
infringement analysis. The D423 patent is also not limited by and does not show color. As a
result, I compared the images in black and white, shown below. This comparison reinforced my
opinion that the accused and asserted designs are substantially the same.
17. Again, the accused cameras and the Polaroid Cube and Cube+ have a rounded
cube shape, with a large, rounded square bezel, and centered circular lens on the front. All of the
products have a circular button on the top and horizontal line elements on the side. The major
design elements shown above dominate the overall ornamental design of these action cameras
such that they would appear substantially the same to the ordinary observer, in spite of the minor
differences in detail noted above or the precise dimensions of certain elements.
18. I understand that GoPros expert, Steven Visser, created and compared in his
report unrepresentative and misleading silhouettes of the asserted design and accused products,
and constructed images showing black shading on the corners that GoPro cites in its motion.
(Mot. at 20.) This is an arbitrary and unscientific approach that is not standard practice in the
industrial design industry. The comparison is even more artificial than a listing of minor
differences, and brings the analysis further away from the proper comparison of the D423
7
sf-3782295
design and accused products. The test, as I understand and have applied it, asks what the
ordinary observer, giving such attention as a purchaser usually gives, would perceive in relation
to the overall appearance of the accused and asserted designs.
Consideration of the Prior Art
19. I also considered the prior art. The most relevant prior art in this case is in the
action camera category. A graphic below summarizes the 10-year history of action cameras.
8
sf-3782295
20. The ordinary observer in this case is an individual interested in purchasing and
using an action camera, and as such would be aware of other action cameras on the market.
Action cameras are a specific category with a particular purpose, and are distinct from many
other types of cameras. Webcams and security cameras, for example, are typically meant to be
stationary. They serve a particular purpose, and are a very different type of product than action
cameras. It is unrealistic to believe that an ordinary observer involved in a typical purchasing
decision would have in mind or be familiar with the history of all other types of cameras.
21. An ordinary observer familiar with action camera prior art would be aware that
there were no cubic action camera designs until the introduction of the Polaroid Cube, let alone a
cube with the overall appearance of the Polaroid Cube and the Hero4 Session. GoPros prior
action cameras featured a rectangular prism form factor. I am not aware of any action cameras
that are remotely close in form factor or overall appearance to the accused and asserted designs,
and GoPro has not cited any in this case. An ordinary observer familiar with this prior art would
recognize the substantial similarity between the accused and asserted devices even more
strongly, as they vary significantly from the prior art.
22. I understand that GoPro has argued I had no opinion about a line that can be
drawn between whats relevant and not relevant with respect to prior art cameras. (Mot. at 24.)
A true and correct copy of additional excerpts from my deposition is attached as Exhibit 3. I
testified further that there is a spectrum of relevance, and that the ordinary observer would
certainly find prior art that is not an action camera to be less relevant than prior art that is an
action camera. (Ex. 3 at 52:22-53:2, 53:24-55:12.) As this is an intensely fact-dependent
discussion, I also testified that we need to look at each reference independently and make a
determination about whether its relevant. (Id. at 54:11-55:2.)
9
sf-3782295
23. I expanded my consideration of the prior art to take into account what GoPro
alleges as prior art. GoPro and its expert Steven Visser have argued that cube-like cameras are
prevalent in the prior art by providing a short list of old film cameras chosen from nearly 150
years of camera history. This selection of the few box-like cameras gives an inaccurate
impression of the common designs found in the long history of cameras. And even those old
film camera designs are widely different from the D423 design and accused GoPro Session.
24. I considered all prior art references cited on the face of the D423 patent, as well
as the other references GoPro has asserted as relevant in this case. A full discussion is in Exhibit
1 at 164-190. In particular, I considered the four references that GoPro cites in its motion:
a. U.S. Patent No. D647,935 (the D935 patent), discussed at Ex. 1 187-
190; Ex. 2 84-105.
b. U.S. Patent No. D616,480 (the D480 patent), discussed at Ex. 1 170-
180; Ex. 2 125-139.
c. U.S. Patent No. D441,386 (the D386 patent), discussed at Ex. 1 166-
67; Ex. 2 74-79.
d. U.S. Patent No. D713,868 (the D868 patent), discussed at Ex. 1 181-
186; Ex. 2 140-146.
25. Even if the factfinder determines GoPros asserted prior art is relevant to the
infringement analysis, consideration of that prior art would still support my opinion on
substantial similarity. When the asserted and accused designs are compared to the prior art, their
similarity to each other becomes even more striking, not less so. An ordinary observer familiar
with this prior art would still perceive the asserted and accused designs as substantially the same.
26. The D935 patent is very different from the D423 and GoPro Hero Session
designs, depicting a design for a webcam atop a large mounting clip for attaching onto the screen
of a laptop computer, unrelated to action cameras in type and purpose. The first page of the
D935 patent, showing the webcam design with background mounting structure, is below.
10
sf-3782295
27. I recognized the D935 patent as the Microsoft Lifecam HD6000, shown below.
I considered a three-way comparison between the D935 figures and the asserted and accused
designs, below. I understand that GoPro has shown other D935 figures that depict only the top
portion of the camera, excluding the mounting structure. I use figures that show the entirety of
the design, as this more accurately conveys what the ordinary observer would be aware of, but
my analysis and conclusion are unchanged if one considers only the top portion of the design.
11
sf-3782295
The top element in the D935 design is not a rounded cube. Rather, it presents an elongated,
tapered square prism that is wider and taller at the front, with front and rear surfaces defined by
crisp edges. The D935 designs front face features a wide horizontal lens and the back side is a
protruding pillowed surface, as opposed to an inset round lens at the front and a flush back with
rounded or gently stepped rear edges. There is no round button on top of any size, or any
horizontal design element on the sides. An ordinary observer would see the accused and asserted
designs are much closer to each other than they are to the D935 prior art reference.
28. The D480 patent discloses two similar design embodiments for a network
security camera, unrelated to action cameras in type and purpose. The Panasonic BLVT-164,
pictured below, appears to be the commercial embodiment of at least one of the embodiments of
the D480 patent.
I conducted a three-way comparison of both embodiments to the accused and asserted designs.
The comparison using the second embodiment, which I understand GoPro has focused on in its
motion, is below.
13
sf-3782295
14
sf-3782295
D386 patent, Figure 1
D386 patent , Figures 2-7
16
sf-3782295
appearance is heavily driven by the distinctive grid-like grooves that divide the design into
subdivisions, significantly different than the horizontal band or line design elements in the
accused and asserted designs, and the spherical camera element on the front that looks almost
like a rotary dial.
33. In sum, even when one expands the area of inquiry as GoPro has done to include
cameras in very different categories, one still does not see any designs that are substantially the
same as the asserted design. Instead, the review of such prior art confirms the substantial
similarity of the asserted and accused designs. An ordinary observer familiar with this alleged
prior art would strongly perceive the accused Hero Session camera designs to be substantially the
same as the asserted D423 design.
Consideration of Real-World Evidence
34. I also reviewed and considered internal GoPro documents, deposition testimony,
and online comments made by industry reviewers and ordinary consumers, as empirical evidence
relevant to how an ordinary observer would perceive the accused and asserted designs and
whether an ordinary observer would find them to be substantially the same. This evidence does
not replace my comparison of the overall appearances of the accused and asserted designs, but it
does provide a reasonableness check on my opinions and strong circumstantial evidence of what
an ordinary observer would conclude.
35.
20
sf-3782295
These statements are discussed in more detail in my
infringement report, Ex. 1, 150-51.
36. Similarly, my review of the public reaction after the release of the Hero Session
did not reveal any observers referring to the differences that GoPro asserts are major. To the
contrary, industry reviewers and consumers alike universally recognized the design of the Hero
Session as highly similar to the design of the Polaroid Cube. For example, The Motley Fool
reported: At first glance, the Hero 4 Session looks like a copy of the Polaroid Cube, a $100
camera which turned heads with its cute form factor and retro design aesthetics. . . . [I]ts tiny
form factor apparently convinced GoPro to create the Hero 4 Session. Mashable reviewed the
product and showed an image of the Hero Session next to the Polaroid Cube, with the caption,
Long lost twin?, stating, The Hero 4 Session looks a lot like the Polaroid Cube action
camera. An online reviewer published a video review of the Hero Session, stating that it was
not original, obviously, cause it looks literally exactly like the Polaroid Cube. The
recognition of close design similarity was ubiquitous in product reviews. Comments from users
on announcements and reviews expressed similar views, including, So its a copy of the
Polaroid Cube? . . . I think so . . . look like the polaroid cube [sic]. These comments and others
are discussed in more detail in Ex. 1, 141-46, along with citations and screenshots of several
such reviews.
37. I understand that GoPro asserts I conceded that it would not be proper to base an
infringement opinion on reactions to a single view of a product, implying that the evidence
21
sf-3782295
EXHIBIT 1
SOUGHT TO BE FILED UNDER SEAL

PURSUANT TO CONFIDENTIAL ORDER
EXHIBIT 2

Exhibit 3
HIGHLY CONFIDENTIAL - ATTORNEYS' EYES ONLY
, !!!!!!!!!!!!OHCN?>!MN;N?M!>CMNLC=N!=IOLN
- !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!>CMNLC=N!I@!H?Q!D?LM?S
.
/ !WWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWW
!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!&
0 !=$;!G;LE?NCHA'!CH=)'!!!!!!!!!!&
!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!&
1 !!!!!!!!!!!!JcXèk`]]!Xe[!!!!!!&
!!!!!!!!!!!!=flek\i(>\]\e[Xek'!&
2 !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!&
!!!!!!!mj)!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!&!!=Xj\!Hf)
3 !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!&!!,5,0(230/(LG<(DM
!AIJLI'!CH=)'!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!&
4 !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!&
!!!!!!!!!!!!>\]\e[Xek!Xe[!!!!!!&
,+ !!!!!!!!!!!!=flek\iZcX`dXek)!!!&
!WWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWW&
,,
,-
,.
,/ !!!!!BCABFS!=IH@C>?HNC;F!(!;NNILH?SM%!?S?M!IHFS
,0 !!!!!!!PC>?IN;J?>!>?JIMCNCIH!I@!;F;H!>)!<;FF
,1 !!!!!!!!!!!!!!MXe!@iXeZ`jZf'!=Xc`]fie`X
,2 !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!Nl\j[Xp'!;gi`c!-0'!-+,2
,3 !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!Pfcld\!C
,4
-+
-,
--
L\gfik\[!Yp5!!MOT;HH?!@)!AO>?FD
-. =ML!Hf)!0,,,
-/ DfY!Hf)!-1++233
-0 J;A?M!,!(!-,1
JX^\!,
Veritext Legal Solutions

866 299-5127
, MXd\ifkk\'!i\gi\j\ekè^!AfJif)
- !!!!!!!!!GL)!M;<LC5!!HXk_Xe!MXYi`'!Gfii`jfe!$
. @f\ijk\i'!i\gi\j\ekè^!gcXèk`]]!=$;!GXib\kè^)
/ !!!!!!!!!PC>?I!IJ?L;NIL5!!N_Xeb!pfl)!!N_\!n`ke\jj
0 n`cc!Y\!jnfie!è!Xe[!Zflej\c!dXp!Y\^è!k_\!!!!!!!!!!!!+45,.5,.
1 \oXdèXk`fe)
3 !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!;F;H!>)!<;FF'
4 _Xmè^!Y\\e!X[dè`jk\i\[!Xe!fXk_'!nXj!\oXdè\[!Xe[
,+ k\jk`]`\[!Xj!]fccfnj5
,,
,- !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!?R;GCH;NCIH
,. <S!GL)!GIIL?5
,/ !!!!K!!!!Aff[!dfieè^'!Gi)!<Xcc)
,0 !!!!;!!!!B`)!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!+45,.5-2
,1 !!!!K!!!!Qflc[!pfl!gc\Xj\!jkXk\!pfli!]lcc!eXd\!]fi
,2 k_\!i\Zfi[)
,3 !!!!;!!!!;cXe!>)!<Xcc)
,4 !!!!K!!!!IbXp)!!;e[!pfl%i\!Xe!\og\ik!n`ke\jj!k_Xk
-+ =$;!GXib\kè^!_Xj!_ì\[!è!Zfee\Zk`fe!n`k_!`kj!!!!!!!!+45,.5./
-, cXnjl`k!X^Xèjk!AfJif6!`j!k_Xk!i`^_k9
-- !!!!;!!!!S\j)
-. !!!!K!!!!;cc!i`^_k)!!F\k!d\!dXib!X!Zfgp!f]!pfli
-/ \og\ik!i\gfik!Xj!?o_`Y`k!,'!gc\Xj\)
-0 !!!!!!!!!NB?!L?JILN?L5!!?o_`Y`k!/3,)!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!+45,.504
JX^\!2

866 299-5127
, p\Xi!fc[!ZXd\iX!k_Xk!C![fe%k!k_èb!`j!gXik`ZlcXicp
- i\c\mXek!kf!k_Xk!bè[!f]!hl\jk`fe)!!;e[!k_\e!k_\i\%j
. fk_\i!gi`fi!Xik!]fi![`]]\i\ek!bè[j!f]!gif[lZkj!k_Xk
/ d`^_k!Y\![`]]\i\ek!j`q\j!k_Xk!C!k_èb!Xi\!c\jj
0 i\c\mXek!Xj!n\cc)!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!,+5/,504
1 !!!!!!!!!Mf!C!_Xm\!fgè\[!lgfe!n_Xk!C!k_èb!dXb\j!X
2 cfk!f]!j\ej\!è!i\^Xi[j!kf!_fn!X!gi`fi!((!_fn!Xe
3 fi[èXip!fYj\im\i!Zfej`[\iè^!k_\!gi`fi!Xik!nflc[
4 j\\!k_\j\!gif[lZkj)!!;e[!C!Y\c`\m\!k_\!XeXcpj`j!C%m\
,+ [fe\!C%m\!ki`\[!kf!Zfej`[\i!i\c\mXek'!m\ip!i\c\mXek!!!,+5/-5-,
,, gi`fi!Xik!Xe[!c\jj!i\c\mXek!gi`fi!Xik!]fi!k_\!jXb\
,- f]!Zfdgc\k\e\jj!è!dp!i\gfik)!!<lk!k_\!lck`dXk\
,. c\^Xc!ZfeZclj`fe!f]!n_`Z_!`j!dfjk!i\c\mXek!C!nflc[
,/ c\Xm\!kf!k_\!cXnp\ij!fi!]XZk!]è[\i)
,0 <S!GL)!GIIL?5!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!,+5/-5/,
,1 !!!!K!!!!IbXp)!!;cc!i`^_k)!!>f!pfl!Y\c`\m\!è!k_`j
,2 ZXj\!k_Xk!k_\!fecp!i\c\mXek!gi`fi!Xik!`j!gi`fi!Xik
,3 i\cXk\[!kf!Xe!XZk`fe!ZXd\iX!Xj!fggfj\[!kf!jfd\!fk_\i
,4 kpg\!f]!ZXd\iX9
-+ !!!!!!!!!GL)!M;<LC5!!IYa\Zk`fe)!!PX^l\!Xe[!XdY`^lflj!!,+5/-50,
-, Xj!kf!"i\c\mXek)"
-- !!!!!!!!!NB?!QCNH?MM5!!C!Y\c`\m\!k_Xk!k_\i\%j!gi`fi
-. Xik!k_Xk%j!dfi\!i\c\mXek!k_Xe!fk_\i!gi`fi!Xik!è
-/ k_`j!ZXj\)!!C![fe%k!k_èb!C!_Xm\!dX[\!Xe!fgè`fe
-0 XYflk!X!cè\!k_Xk!ZXe!Y\![iXne!Y\kn\\e!n_Xk%j!!!!!!!!!,+5/.5,-
JX^\!0-

866 299-5127
, i\c\mXek!Xe[!efk!i\c\mXek)!!C!k_èb!`k%j!bè[!f]!X
- jg\Zkild)
. <S!GL)!GIIL?5
/ !!!!K!!!!>f!pfl!Xî\\!k_Xk!k_\!fi[èXip!fYj\im\i
0 nflc[!Zfej`[\i!gi`fi!Xik!k_Xk!`j!((!i\cXk\j!kf!X!!!!!!,+5/.5-/
1 ZXd\iX!fk_\i!k_Xe!Xe!XZk`fe!ZXd\iX!è!Xjj\jjè^
2 è]iè^\d\ek!f]!k_\!gif[lZkj!k_Xk!Xi\!XZZlj\[!f]
3 è]iè^\d\ek!è!k_`j!ZXj\9
4 !!!!;!!!!C![fe%k!befn)!!C!k_èb!n\!e\\[!kf!Zfej`[\i
,+ n_Xk!k_Xk!gi`fi!Xik!j_fnj)!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!,+5/.5.2
,, !!!!K!!!!IbXp)!!<lk!è!pfli!XeXcpj`j'!_Xm\!pfl!((
,- _Xm\!pfl!((!n\cc'!jki`b\!k_Xk)
,. !!!!!!!!!>f!pfl!Y\c`\m\!k_Xk!Xe!fi[èXip!fYj\im\i
,/ nflc[!efk!Zfej`[\i!gi`fi!Xik!k_Xk![`[!efk!i\cXk\!kf
,0 Xe!XZk`fe!ZXd\iX!kf!Y\!i\c\mXek!è!k_\!è]iè^\d\ek!!!,+5/.500
,1 XeXcpj`j9
,2 !!!!!!!!!GL)!M;<LC5!!IYa\Zk`fe)!!PX^l\!Xe[
,3 XdY`^lflj)
,4 !!!!!!!!!NB?!QCNH?MM5!!=Xe!pfl!jXp!k_Xk!X^Xè'
-+ gc\Xj\9!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!,+5//5+2
-, <S!GL)!GIIL?5
-- !!!!K!!!!Mli\)!!N_\i\!n\i\!X!Zflgc\!f]!e\^Xk`m\j
-. k_\i\)
-/ !!!!!!!!!>f!pfl!Y\c`\m\!k_Xk!Xe!fi[èXip!fYj\im\i
-0 nflc[!Zfej`[\i!gi`fi!Xik!k_Xk!i\cXk\[!kf!X!kpg\!f]!!!!,+5//5,.
JX^\!0.

866 299-5127
, ZXd\iX!fk_\i!k_Xe!Xe!XZk`fe!ZXd\iX!kf!Y\!ìi\c\mXek
- kf!k_\![\k\idèXk`fe!f]!n_\k_\i!k_\!gif[lZkj!XZZlj\[
. f]!è]iè^\d\ek!_\i\!è]iè^\[!k_\!>%/-.!gXk\ek9
/ !!!!!!!!!GL)!M;<LC5!!IYa\Zk`fe)!!PX^l\!Xe[
0 XdY`^lflj)!!=Xccj!]fi!X!c\^Xc!ZfeZclj`fe)!!!!!!!!!!!!!,+5//5..
1 !!!!!!!!!NB?!QCNH?MM5!!Q\cc'!C!Z\ikXècp!k_èb
2 k_\p%[!]è[!gi`fi!Xik!k_Xk!`j!efk!Xe!XZk`fe!ZXd\iX
3 kf!Y\!c\jj!i\c\mXek!kf!gi`fi!Xik!k_Xk!`j!Xe!XZk`fe
4 ZXd\iX)!!Q_\k_\i!k_Xk!^\kj!k_\d!kf!k_\!gfèk!f]
,+ ìi\c\mXeZp'!C%d!efk!jli\)!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!,+5//50+
,, !!!!!!!!!C![f!k_èb!k_Xk!C%m\!j\\e!X!eldY\i!f]!gi`fi
,- Xik!i\]\i\eZ\j!Z`k\[!è!k_`j!ZXj\!k_Xk!nflc[!Y\
,. ìi\c\mXek)!!;e[!k_\i\%j!jfd\!k_Xk!d`^_k!Y\!jfd\n_Xk
,/ i\c\mXek!Ylk!X!cfk!c\jj!i\c\mXek!k_Xe!Xe!XZk`fe
,0 ZXd\iX![\j`ê)!!;e[!Y\ZXlj\!f]!k_Xk'!C!k_èb!n\!e\\[!!,+5/05,-
,1 kf!cffb!Xk!\XZ_!i\]\i\eZ\!è[\g\e[\ekcp!Xe[!dXb\!X
,2 [\k\idèXk`fe!XYflk!n_\k_\i!`k%j!i\c\mXek)
,3 !!!!!!!!!N_\i\!dXp!Y\!X!j`klXk`fe!n_\i\!X!i\]\i\eZ\
,4 `j!dfi\!i\c\mXek!è!i\^Xi[j!kf!k_\!?^pgk`Xe!Af[[\jj
-+ ZXj\!k_Xe!`k!d`^_k!Y\!dfi\!fi!c\jj!i\c\mXek!]fi!!!!!!!,+5/05./
-, Xefk_\i!Xjg\Zk!f]!n_Xk!n\%i\!Zfej`[\iè^'!c`b\'!C
-- [fe%k!befn'!lj\!Xj!X!j\Zfe[Xip!i\]\i\eZ\!dXpY\!è!Xe
-. fYm`flj!XeXcpj`j)
-/ !!!!!!!!!Mf!C%d!((!X^Xè'!C%d!efk!X!cXnp\i)!!C%m\
-0 Y\\e!\ogcXè\[!k_\!cXn'!Xe[!C%m\!ki`\[!kf!Xggcp!k_\!!!,+5/050.
JX^\!0/

866 299-5127
, k\jk!Xj!Zfej`jk\ekcp!Xj!C!befn!_fn'!Xe[!k_\!nXp!C%m\
- [fe\!`k!dXb\j!j\ej\!kf!d\)
. <S!GL)!GIIL?5
/ !!!!K!!!!IbXp)!!Ce!k_\!e\ok!]\n!gXiXîXg_j!fe!k_`j
0 j\Zk`fe!k_Xk!n\%m\!Y\\e!cffbè^!Xk!fe!gX^\!,,!f]!!!!!!,+5/15+3
1 pfli!i\gfik'!pfl!kXcb!XYflk!gi`dXip'!j\Zfe[Xip!Xe[
2 k\ik`Xip![\j`ê!Z_XiXZk\i`jk`Zj)!!BXm\!pfl!\m\i!lj\[
3 k_`j!XeXcpj`j!f]!Yi\Xbè^![fne![\j`ê
4 Z_XiXZk\i`jk`Zj!èkf!X!gi`dXip'!j\Zfe[Xip!Xe[
,+ k\ik`Xip!ZXk\^fip!è!Xep!f]!pfli!gi`fi!\og\ik!!!!!!!!!,+5/15-1
,, n`ke\jj!nfib9
,- !!!!;!!!!S\j)
,. !!!!K!!!!;e[!_Xm\!pfl!((!_fn!dXep!k`d\j!_Xm\!pfl
,/ lj\[!`k!Y\]fi\9
,0 !!!!;!!!!C![fe%k!befn!\oXZkcp)!!C%m\!Xcjf!j\\e!!!!!!!!,+5/15.2
,1 fk_\ij!lj\!`k!Xj!n\cc)
,2 !!!!K!!!!Ik_\i!\og\ik!n`ke\jj\j9
,3 !!!!;!!!!Gd(_dd)
,4 !!!!K!!!!IbXp)!!;i\!k_\i\!XZZ\gk\[!gièZ`gc\j!k_Xk
-+ Xi\!Xggc`\[!è!k_\![\j`ê!]`\c[!è![\k\idèè^!!!!!!!!,+5/150,
-, n_\k_\i!X![\j`ê!Z_XiXZk\i`jk`Z!j_flc[!Y\!Zfej`[\i\[
-- gi`dXip'!j\Zfe[Xip!fi!k\ik`Xip9
-. !!!!;!!!!Q\cc'!k_\!]XZk!k_Xk!C!_Xm\!j\\e!fk_\ij![f
-/ `k'!Yfk_!è!c\^Xc!ZXj\j!Xe[!Xcjf!è![\m\cfgè^
-0 gif[lZkj'!k_\e!`k%j!XZZ\gk\[!Yp!k_fj\!k_Xk!_Xm\!lj\[!!,+5/25+1
JX^\!00

866 299-5127
, _Xe[j'!Ylk!C%[!nXek!kf!cffb!Xk!Xcc!k_\!j`[\j'!Xe[!C
- nflc[!c`b\!kf!jfik!f]!le[\ijkXe[!\efl^_!è]fidXk`fe
. k_Xk!C!ZXe!g\iZ\`m\!k_\!k_i\\([`d\ej`feXc![\j`ê!f]
/ k_\!ZXd\iX!Xe[!`kj!i\gi\j\ekXk`m\j'!jf)))
0 !!!!K!!!!IbXp)!!Mf!fe\!f]!k_\!((!fe\!f]!k_\!\oXdgc\j!!,-5-45,.
1 f]!n\Y!gfjkè^j!pfl!Z`k\!`j!fe!gX^\!/0!f]!pfli
2 i\gfik)
3 !!!!;!!!!IbXp)
4 !!!!K!!!!N_`j!`j!]ifd!jfd\k_è^!ZXcc\[!>`^`kXcL\m)
,+ >f!pfl!j\\!k_Xk9!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!,-5-45-3
,, !!!!;!!!!S\j)
,- !!!!K!!!!;cc!i`^_k)!!Hfn'!`]!=$;!GXib\kè^!_X[!Zfd\
,. kf!pfl!Xe[!fecp!j_fn\[!pfl!n_Xk%j!j_fne!fe!gX^\!/0
,/ f]!pfli!\og\ik!i\gfik'!nflc[!pfl!_Xm\!Y\\e!XYc\!kf
,0 [f!Xe!XeXcpj`j!f]!n_\k_\i!k_\!B?LI/!M\jj`fe!!!!!!!!!!!,-5-45/,
,1 è]iè^\j9
,2 !!!!;!!!!C![fe%k!Y\c`\m\!jf)!!Ck!fecp!j_fnj!fe\!j`[\
,3 f]!k_\!gif[lZk)
,4 !!!!K!!!!L`^_k)
-+ !!!!;!!!!IbXp)!!<lk!k_`j!((!X^Xè'!k_`j!`j!((!C!!!!!!!,-5-450.
-, [`[e%k!YXj\!dp!è]iè^\d\ek!XeXcpj`j!fe!k_\j\!`k\dj)
-- !!!!K!!!!L`^_k)
-. !!!!;!!!!C%d!aljk!jXpè^!k_Xk!i\m`\nè^!k_\d
-/ Zfe]ìdj!dp!fgè`fe)
-0 !!!!K!!!!Q\cc'![f!pfl!befn!n_\k_\i!k_\!g\fgc\!k_Xk!!!!,-5.+5+.
JX^\!,,2

866 299-5127
, Zfdd\ek\[!fe!k_`j!Xik`Zc\!_X[!j\\e!Xep!dfi\!k_Xe!k_\
- g`Zkli\j!j_fne!fe!((!fe!k_`j!gfjk!fe!k_\!>`^`kXcL\m
. j`k\9
/ !!!!;!!!!Hf'!Ylk!C!k_èb!`k%j!jki`bè^!k_Xk!\m\e
0 n`k_!k_Xk!fe\!`dX^\!k_\p!j\\!k_Xk!`k%j!jf!j`d`cXi)!!!!,-5.+5,1
1 !!!!K!!!!IbXp)!!Sfl![fe%k!((
2 !!!!;!!!!N_\p!ZXe!j\\!k_Xk!`k%j!X!Zfgp!aljk!Yp
3 cffbè^!Xk!k_Xk!fe\!`dX^\)!!Ck%j!k_\!]ìjk!hl\jk`fe5
4 "Mf!`k%j!X!Zfgp!f]!k_\!=lY\9"
,+ !!!!K!!!!;e[!Xj!Xe!\og\ik!n`ke\jj'!nflc[!pfl!]\\c!!!!!,-5.+5.+
,, Zfd]fikXYc\!i\XZ_è^!k_\!jXd\!ZfeZclj`fe9
,- !!!!;!!!!Hfk!Xj!Xe!\og\ik!n`ke\jj'!Ylk!C!k_èb!`k%j
,. X!gi\kkp!k\ccè^!\oXdgc\!f]!_fn!j`d`cXi!k_\j\!Xi\
,/ Xe[!_fn!g\fgc\!è!k_\!]`\c[!j\\!((!jXn!k_\j\!Xj
,0 Zfdè^!flk)!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!,-5.+5//
,1 !!!!K!!!!>f!pfl!_Xm\!Xe!fgè`fe!k_Xk!k_\!AfJif!B?LI/
,2 Xe[!B?LI0!M\jj`fej!Xi\!X!Zfgp!f]!k_\!JfcXif`[!=lY\9
,3 !!!!;!!!!C![`[e%k!jXp!k_Xk'!ef)!!C%d!aljk!i\X[è^
,4 k_\!k\ok)
-+ !!!!K!!!!Q\cc'!n_Xk!`j!pfli!fgè`fe!XYflk!k_Xk9!!>f!!!,-5.+50/
-, pfl!Y\c`\m\!k_\p!Xi\!Zfg`\[9
-- !!!!;!!!!C![fe%k!k_èb!C%m\!\ogi\jj\[!Xe!fgè`fe!fe
-. k_Xk)
-/ !!!!K!!!!Sfl![fe%k!_Xm\!Xep!fgè`fe!XYflk!n_\k_\i
-0 AfJif!Zfg`\[!k_\!JfcXif`[!=lY\9!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!,-5.,5+,
JX^\!,,3

866 299-5127
, !!!!!!!!!C'!k_\!le[\ij`ê\['!X!=\ik`]`\[!M_fik_Xe[
- L\gfik\i!f]!k_\!MkXk\!f]!=Xc`]fie`X'![f!_\i\Yp
. Z\ik`]p5
/ !!!!!!!!!N_Xk!k_\!]fi\^fè^!gifZ\\[è^j!n\i\!kXb\e
0 Y\]fi\!d\!Xk!k_\!k`d\!Xe[!gcXZ\!_\i\è!j\k!]fik_6
1 k_Xk!Xep!n`ke\jj\j!è!k_\!]fi\^fè^!gifZ\\[è^j'
2 gi`fi!kf!k\jk`]pè^'!n\i\![lcp!jnfie6!k_Xk!X!i\Zfi[
3 f]!k_\!gifZ\\[è^j!nXj!dX[\!Yp!d\!ljè^!dXZ_è\
4 j_fik_Xe[!n_`Z_!nXj!k_\i\X]k\i!kiXejZi`Y\[!le[\i!dp
,+ [ì\Zk`fe6!k_Xk!k_\!]fi\^fè^!kiXejZi`gk!`j!X!kil\
,, i\Zfi[!f]!k_\!k\jk`dfep!^`m\e)
,- !!!!!!!!!@lik_\i'!k_Xk!`]!k_\!]fi\^fè^!g\ikXèj!kf
,. k_\!fi`^èXc!kiXejZi`gk!f]!X![\gfj`k`fe!è!X!@\[\iXc
,/ =Xj\'!Y\]fi\!Zfdgc\k`fe!f]!k_\!gifZ\\[è^j'!i\m`\n
,0 f]!k_\!kiXejZi`gk!U!V!nXj!URV!nXj!efk!i\hl\jk\[)
,1 !!!!!!!!!C!]lik_\i'!Z\ik`]p!C!Xd!e\`k_\i!]èXeZ`Xccp
,2 èk\i\jk\[!è!k_\!XZk`fe!efi!X!i\cXk`m\!fi!\dgcfp\\
,3 f]!Xep!Xkkfie\p!fi!gXikp!kf!k_`j!XZk`fe)
,4 !!!!!!!!!CH!QCNH?MM!QB?L?I@'!C!_Xm\!k_`j![Xk\
-+ jlYjZi`Y\[!dp!eXd\)
-, >Xk\[5!0*.*-+,2
--
-. !!!!!!!7#j`êXkli\#8
!!!!!!!MOT;HH?!@)!AO>?FD
-/ !!!!!!!=ML!Hf)!0,,,
-0
JX^\!-,1

866 299-5127
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY
C&A MARKETING, INC., Case No. 1:15-cv-07854-RMB-JS
Plaintiff, Honorable Renee Marie Bumb
v.
GOPRO, INC.,
Document Electronically Filed
Defendant.
REDACTED
DECLARATION OF RYAN J. GATZEMEYER IN SUPPORT OF C&A MARKETING,

INC.S MEMORANDUM IN OPPOSITION TO GOPRO, INC.S MOTION FOR
SUMMARY JUDGMENT OF NON-INFRINGEMENT

mjacobs@mofo.com
nsabri@mofo.com
echang@mofo.com
425 Market Street
Telephone: (415) 268-7000
Facsimile: (415) 268-7522
MARK S. OLINSKY
Telephone (973) 643-7000
Facsimile (973) 643-6500

sf-3784343
I, Ryan J. Gatzemeyer, declare as follows:
1. I am an attorney with Morrison & Foerster LLP, counsel for Plaintiff C&A
Marketing, Inc. (C&A) in the above-entitled action. I am over the age of eighteen and
competent to make this declaration. I am submitting this declaration in support of C&As
Memorandum in Opposition to GoPros Motion for Summary Judgment of Non-Infringement. I
make this declaration on personal knowledge and if called as a witness could and would
competently testify with respect to the matters stated herein.
2. Attached hereto as Exhibit A is a true and correct copy of a webpage, Welcome
to C+A Global, http://www.caglobal.com/about/ (last visited June 15, 2017).
3. Attached hereto as Exhibit B is a true and correct copy of a webpage, C+A
Global, Featured Brands, http://www.caglobal.com/#barnds (last visited June 15, 2017).
4. Attached hereto as Exhibit C is a true and correct copy of excerpts from the
deposition of Chaim Piekarski, taken on September 3, 2016 in this matter.
5. Attached hereto as Exhibit D is a true and correct copy of
6. Attached hereto as Exhibit E is a true and correct copy of an article from The
Verge, Polaroid unveils an adorable, tiny cube camera for action shots, dated January 6, 2014
and bates numbered CA0000005- CA0000011.
7. Attached hereto as Exhibit F is a true and correct copy of an article from CNET,
Polaroid Cube review: Hands-free video in an ultrasmall package, dated September 23, 2014 and
bates numbered CA0000012- CA0000014.
sf-3784343
8. Attached hereto as Exhibit G is a true and correct copy of an article from
Slashgear, Polaroid Cube Review, dated September 23, 2014 and bates numbered CA0000018-
CA0000025.
9. Attached hereto as Exhibit H is a true and correct copy of an article from
Gizmodo, Polaroid Cube Review: A Tiny Adorable Camera, dated September 23, 2014 and bates
numbered CA0000001- CA0000004.
10. Attached hereto as Exhibit I is a true and correct copy of
11. Attached hereto as Exhibit J is a true and correct copy of
12. Attached hereto as Exhibit K is a true and correct copy of
13. Attached hereto as Exhibit L is a true and correct copy of
14. Attached hereto as Exhibit M is a true and correct copy of an article from Motley
Fool, GoPro Inc. Launches Its Smallest Camera Ever The Hero 4 Session, dated July 8, 2015
and bates numbered CA0000033- CA0000034.
15. Attached hereto as Exhibit N is a true and correct copy of a webpage from
YouTube, GoPro Hero4 Session: Copying the Polaroid Cube?! published on July 7, 2015 and
bates numbered CA0000039 - CA0000041. The video is available at
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QRCdEUcDeXc (last visited June 15, 2017). In the video,
the presenter states that the Hero Session was not original, obviously cause it looks literally
exactly like the Polaroid Cube.
2
sf-3784343
16. Attached hereto as Exhibit O is a true and correct copy of comments from
DigitalRev twitter feed, New GoPro Hero 4 Session is as cool and small as an ice cube, dated
July 6, 2015 and bates numbered CA0000042.
17. Attached hereto as Exhibit P is a true and correct copy of an article from
Fstoppers, New GoPro Hero 4 Session Camera Their Newest Virtual Reality Camera? dated
July 6, 2015 and bates numbered CA0000043- CA0000047.
18. Attached hereto as Exhibit Q is a true and correct copy of an article from
Gizmodo, GoPros New Camera Is a Tiny Cube. I took It on Adventures, dated July 6, 2015 and
bates numbered CA0000048- CA0000059.
19. Attached hereto as Exhibit R is a true and correct copy of U.S. Patents D554,519
(Green), 4,765,501 (Kao), 266,146 (Morris) and a USPTO webpage, Classification of Design
Patents, available at https://www.uspto.gov/patent/laws-and-regulations/examination-
policy/seven-classification-design-patents (last visited June 16, 20017).
20. Attached hereto as Exhibit S is a true and correct copy of an article from
Consumer Reports, Best Action Cams for $300 or Less, dated April 25, 2017 and available at
http://www.consumerreports.org/action-camcorders/best-action-cams-for-300-dollars-or-less/
(last visited June 15, 2017).
21. Attached hereto as Exhibit T is a true and correct copy of a screenshot from
www.bestbuy.com, after selecting Cameras & Camcorders under the Products tab (last
visited June 15, 2017).
22. Attached hereto as Exhibit U is a true and correct copy of a webpage from Best
Buy, after selecting Shop All Digital Cameras, http://www.bestbuy.com/site/cameras-
camcorders/digital-cameras/abcat0401000.c?id=abcat0401000 (last visited June 15, 2017).
3
sf-3784343
1"/!8@PIDRHLF!HQ!LMU!1#/!4JMA@J&
/AMSR 0P@LCQ 9DUQ 1@PDDPQ 1MLR@BRQ
(#&!,03'&0
3EB!1>CC>A@
6'4!9TWJIT!Q[!LMLQKI\ML!\W!XZW^QLQVO!KZMI\Q^M(!PQOP)Y]ITQ\a!XZWL]K\[!IVL![WT]\QWV[!\PZW]OP!W]Z!M`\MV[Q^M!XWZ\NWTQW!WN!JZIVL[*!GM!
I[XQZM!\W!MIZV!\PM!V]UJMZ)WVM!XW[Q\QWV!_Q\P!KWV[]UMZ[!NWZ!QVVWÎ\QWV(!ÎT]M(!IVL!K][\WUMZ![MZ^QKM!IVL!KWV\QV]W][Ta![MMS!W]\!IVL!
QUXTMUMV\!KWV[]UMZ[d!NMMLJIKS!\W!IKPQM^M!\PM[M!OWIT[*
GPM\PMZ!J]QTLQVO!VM_!XZWL]K\[!NZWU!\PM!OZW]VL!]X!WZ!ZM)QUIOQVQVO!M`Q[\QVO!WVM[(!W]Z!OWIT!Q[!\W!ILL!ÎT]M!IVL!KZMI\M!LQNNMZMV\QI\QWV!
\W!JM\\MZ!UMM\!\PM!VMML[!WN!KWV[]UMZ[*!<\d[!\PQ[!LZQ^QVO!XI[[QWV!\PI\!QV[XQZM[!][!\W!M`KMML!\PM!M`XMK\I\QWV[!WN!W]Z!K][\WUMZ[(!
XIZ\VMZ[(!IVL!MUXTWaMM[*
&=AED!(#&!,?A=<?
;MILY]IZ\MZML!QV!7LQ[WV(!AM_!=MZ[Ma(!_Q\P!WNNQKM[!QV!?WVLWV(!6PQVI(!IVL!IZW]VL!\PM!_WZTL(!6'4!9TWJIT!MVOIOM[!QV!\PM!LM[QOV(!
UIV]NIK\]ZQVO!IVL!LQ[\ZQJ]\QWV!WN!KWV[]UMZ!XZWL]K\[!IVL!XPW\WOZIXPQK!MY]QXUMV\*!FPM!KWUXIVa!WNNMZ[!WVM!WN!\PM!QVL][\Zad[!UW[\!
M`\MV[Q^M!IVL!LQ^MZ[M!QV^MV\WZQM[!WN!XZWL]K\[(!ZIVOQVO!NZWU!QVVWÎ\Q^M!MTMK\ZWVQK[(!\W!QV\MTTQOMV\!PW][M_IZM[!\W!N]V!OILOM\[*!GQ\P!W]Z!
M`XIV[Q^M!XWZ\NWTQW!WN!JZIVL[(!_M![\ZQ^M!\W!XZW^QLM!KWV[]UMZ[!_WZTL_QLM!_Q\P!QUIOQVI\Q^M(!PQOP)Y]ITQ\a!XZWL]K\[!\PI\!M`KMML!\PMQZ!
M`XMK\I\QWV[*
5]QTLQVO!]XWV!W]Z![\IZ\!I[!I!XPW\WOZIXPQK!MY]QXUMV\!XZW^QLMZ(!_M!W_V!IVL!WXMZI\M!_MTT)SVW_V!KIUMZI!MY]QXUMV\!ZM\IQTMZ!
DQ\b6IUMZI*KWU(!I[!_MTT!I[!DQ\bCQ`*KWU(!I!KZMI\Q^M!XPW\WOZIXPQK![MZ^QKM[!XZW^QLMZ*!B]Z!JZQKS)IVL)UWZ\IZ![\WZM[!QVKT]LM!DQ\b!6IUMZI!
#!<UIOM(!GWTN!6IUMZI(!IVL!<VSTMad[!CPW\WOZIXPQK*
6'4!9TWJIT!Q[!IT[W!\PM!M`KT][Q^M!TQKMV[MM!NWZ!CWTIZWQL!QV[\IV\!LQOQ\IT!KIUMZI[!IVL!IK\QWV!^QLMW!KIUMZI[(!<C!PWUM![MK]ZQ\a!KIUMZI[(!
IVL!KIUMZI!IKKM[[WZQM[*!GM!LM^MTWX!IVL!UIZSM\![WUM!WN!\PM!QVL][\Zad[!UW[\!ZM^WT]\QWVIZa!XZWL]K\[c!XZWL]K\[!\PI\!]\QTQbM!\PM!
UW[\!ILÎVKML!\MKPVWTWOa(!aM\![\QTT!ZMNTMK\!IVL!XZM[MZ^M!\PM!TMOIKa!WN!\PQ[!KTI[[QK!JZIVL*
B]Z!KWUXIVa!Q[!IUWVO!\PM!_WZTLd[!TIZOM[\!4UIbWV!ZM\IQTMZ[(!W_QVO!W]Z!ZMUIZSIJTM!IVL!WVOWQVO![]KKM[[!\W!XQVXWQV\QVO!MÌK\Ta!_PI\!
KWV[]UMZ[!_IV\!IVL!VMML(!IVL!QV!NWK][QVO!XZWL]K\!LM^MTWXUMV\!JI[ML!]XWV!\PMQZ!NMMLJIKS!IVL!ZM^QM_[*
<V!-+,0(!_M!IKY]QZML!QV)NTQOP\!ZM\IQTMZ!ESa@ITT!IVL!IZM!TM^MZIOQVO!\PQ[!QKWVQK!JZIVLd[!MY]Q\a!\W!MVOQVMMZ!Q\[!ZM[]ZOMVKM*!FPM!-0)aMIZ)WTL!
ESa@ITT!JZIVL!Q[!LQ[\QVO]Q[PML!Ja!Q\[!MKTMK\QK!UQ`!WN!\PW][IVL[!WN!KWWT!IVL!]VQY]M!XZWL]K\[*
(--,#""///!&$')+%$)!&+*"$%+.-"
6'4!9TWJIT!KWV\QV]M[!\W!MVRWa!]VXZMKMLMV\ML!OZW_\P!I[!WVM!WN!\PM!_WZTLd[!TIZOM[\!IVL!UW[\!LQ^MZ[M!WVTQVM!ZM\IQTMZ[(!M`XIVLQVO!W]Z!
XWZ\NWTQW!WN!JZIVL[!IVL!WNNMZQVO!KWV[]UMZ[!QVVWÎ\Q^M(!INNWZLIJTM![WT]\QWV[!\W!UISM!M^MZaLIa!TQNM!MI[QMZ(!UWZM!KWUNWZ\IJTM(![INMZ(!
IVL!UWZM!XZWL]K\Q^M*
)%"$%/0'(- #"/%%/0 &".
@MM\!B]Z!FMIU
/R!1#/!4JMA@J$!UD!NPHCD!MSPQDJTDQ!ML!MSP!CHTDPQD!@LC!DTDP%FPMUHLF!RD@K!ME!DLRPDNPDLDSPH@J%KHLCDC!HLCHTHCS@JQ!UGM!APHLF!@!
SLHOSD!QDR!ME!QIHJJQ!@LC!NPMEDQQHML@J!DVNDPHDLBD!RM!RGDHP!PDQNDBRHTD!PMJDQ&
5MKWUM!CIZ\!BN!FPM!5QO!CQK\]ZM
5E!WMSYPD!JMMIHLF!EMP!@!B@PDDP!UHRG!SLJHKHRDC!NMRDLRH@J$!R@ID!@!BJMQDP!JMMI!@R!1#/!4JMA@J&
9-;!(#&!,03'&0%
B]Z!_WZS!MV^QZWVUMV\!Q[!QVVWÎ\Q^M(!\MIU)[XQZQ\ML(!MV\ZMXZMVM]ZQIT!IVL!WXMV!NWZ!WXXWZ\]VQ\a*!GM!JMTQM^M!W]Z!MUXTWaMM[!IZM!W]Z!
UW[\!ÎT]IJTM!I[[M\!IVL!W]Z![]KKM[[!LMXMVL[!TIZOMTa!WV!\PMQZ!XI[[QWV!IVL!KWUUQ\UMV\!\W!M`KMTTMVKM*!GM!XZW^QLM!I!_QLM!ZIVOM!WN!
KIZMMZ!WXXWZ\]VQ\QM[!e!NZWU!QVNWZUI\QWV!\MKPVWTWOa(![ITM[(!IVL!NQVIVKM!\W!K][\WUMZ![MZ^QKM(!UIZSM\QVO!IVL!WXMZI\QWV[*!<N!aW]!
(--,#""///!&$')+%$)!&+*"$%+.-"
XW[[M[[!\PM!\ITMV\(!\PM!IUJQ\QWV!IVL!\PM!LMLQKI\QWV!\W!N]Z\PMZ!W]Z![]KKM[[!IVL!aW]Z[(!_M!QV^Q\M!aW]!\W!JMKWUM!I!UMUJMZ!WN!\PM!6'4!
NIUQTa*
7^MV!QN!aW]!LWVd\![MM!IV!MÌK\!RWJ!UI\KP!\W!aW]Z!Y]ITQNQKI\QWV[(!_M!MVKW]ZIOM!aW]!\W![]JUQ\!aW]Z!ZM[]UM!\W!
6IZMMZ[3KIUIZSM\QVO*KWU!IVa_Ia*!GMdZM!OZW_QVO![W!NI[\(!aW]Z!KIZMMZ!PMZM!UIa![\IZ\![WWVMZ!\PIV!aW]!\PQVS*
6'4!9TWJIT!Q[!IV!MY]IT!WXXWZ\]VQ\a!MUXTWaMZ*
)%"/+!*,/%
"!#
3PDOSDLRJW!/QIDC!<SDQRHMLQ
9-&7!)3*6!"(#&"!1*&2%
FPM!QVQ\QIT[!6!IVL!4![\IVL!NWZ!\PM!NQZ[\!VIUM[!WN!W]Z!NW]VLMZ[(!6PIQU!CQSIZ[SQ!IVL!4SQÎ!%";IZZa"&!>TMQV*
-39!032,!-&6!(#&!,03'&0!'**2!.2!'86.2*66%
<V!-++.(!NWZUMZ!ZQÎT[!;IZZa!>TMQV!WN!FPM!8QTU!7`KPIVOM!IVL!6PIQU!CQSIZ[SQ!WN!FPM!8QTU!EPWX!RWQVML!NWZKM[!\W!
KZMI\M!6#4!@IZSM\QVO(!<VK*!FPM!KWUXIVa!Y]QKSTa!OZM_!IVL!XZW[XMZML(!M`XIVLQVO!Q\[!ZMXc!(%"$!&'(%
5]QTLQVO!]XWV!\PM!KWUXIVa$[!M`XMZ\Q[M!QV!\PM!KIUMZI!J][QVM[[(!6#4!XIZ\VMZML!_Q\P!CWTIZWQL(!JMKWUQVO!Q\[!
TIZOM[\!TQKMV[MM*!6#4!IT[W!X]ZKPI[ML!DQ\b!6IUMZI!IVL!<UIOM!??6!QV!-+,-(!IVL!QV)NTQc!(%"$!&'(%
FPZW]OP![\ZI\MOQK!XIZ\VMZ[PQX[(!NWK][ML!JZIVL!LM^MTWXUMV\(!I!_WZTL_QLM!VM\_WZS!WN![]XXTQMZ[(!IVL!UWZM!
\PIV!-!UQTTQWV!LQNNMZMV\!XZWL]K\!WNNMZQVO[(!6#4!@IZSM\QVO!M^WT^ML!QV\W!\PM!M)\IQTMZ!XW_MZPW][M!Q\!Q[!\WLIa*
<V!-+,1!6#4!@IZSM\QVO!KPIVOML!Q\[!VIUM!\W!6'4!9TWJIT(!ZMNTMK\QVO!\PM!QV\MZVI\QWVIT![KWXM!WN!W]Z!J][QVM[[*
)3!;38!3++*5!(86731*5!6844357!+35!(32681*56%
HM[*!7^MZa!WVM!WN!W]Z!JZIVL[!PI[!I!LMLQKI\ML!K][\WUMZ![MZ^QKM!\MIU*!CTMI[M!^Q[Q\!W]Z!JZIVL!XIOM[!NWZ!LM\IQT[*
-39!)3!.!3'7&.2!(#&!,03'&0!453)8(76!+35!1;!5*7&.0!6735*%
CTMI[M!KWV\IK\!][!I\!2/2)-//)-+++ !WZ!KI[ITM[3KIOTWJIT*KWU*
(--,#""///!&$')+%$)!&+*"$%+.-"
.F)!0./*!73!+*&785*!&!(#&!,03'&0!'5&2)!.2!1;!48'0.(&7.32$!9-3!
6-380)!.!(327&(7%
CTMI[M!^Q[Q\!W]Z!#-,0)*0/!XIOM!NWZ!LWUM[\QK!IVL!QV\MZVI\QWVIT!UMLQI!KWV\IK\!QVNWZUI\QWV*
.!&1!.27*5*67*)!.2!935/.2,!&7!(#&!,03'&0$!-39!)3!.!&440;%
CTMI[M!^Q[Q\!W]Z!#).++./!XIOM!NWZ!UWZM!QVNWZUI\QWV*
'&(/!73!7-*!734
/AMSR 0P@LCQ 9DUQ 1@PDDPQ 1MLR@BRQ
1#/!4JMA@J!((+!>HTDC!7@LD!2@QR!2CHQML$!96!'..*-! =HFL!?N!EMP!9DUQJDRRDP
.+.&)++&)'''
" # !
[!1MNWPHFGR!)'(,!1"/!8@PIDRHLF$!5LB& >DPKQ!ME!?QD X ;PHT@BW!;MJHBW
(--,#""///!&$')+%$)!&+*"$%+.-"
5#3!@K[UO]SXQ!S\!XY`!5&3!9VYLKV(
3LY^] 4[KXN\ AO`\ 5K[OO[\ 5YX]KM]\
5&3!9VYLKV
6HF?K>J!?HBL@E#!G@FGC@!AF>KI@?
ESQX!^Z!PY[!]RO!VK]O\]!XO`\!#!^ZNK]O\ 7WKSV
10,9;70/!-7,4/8
(--,#""...!&$')+%$)!&+*"
1 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

2 FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY
3 Civil Action No. 1:15-cv-07854 (RMB)
4
5 -----------------------------------x
6 C&A MARKETING, INC.,
7 Plaintiff,
8 - against -
9 GOPRO, INC.,
10 Defendant.
11 -----------------------------------x
12
13 HIGHLY CONFIDENTIAL - ATTORNEYS' EYES ONLY
14
15 VIDEOTAPED DEPOSITION OF CHAIM PIEKARSKI
16 New York, New York
17 September 13, 2016
18 Volume I
19
20
21 Reported by:
22 Jineen Pavesi, RPR, RMR, CRR
23 JOB No. 2381432
24
25 PAGES 1 - 283
Page 1

866 299-5127
1 (RMB).
2 The name of the witness is
3 Chaim Piekarski testifying as a corporate
4 designee and in his personal capacity.
5 At this time the attorneys
6 present in the room will identify
7 themselves and the parties they represent.
8 MR. MOORE: I am Steve Moore
9 with Kilpatrick Townsend, I represent
10 GoPro.
11 MR. SABRI: Nathan Sabri with
12 Morrison & Foerster, I represent C&A
13 Marketing, the plaintiff.
14 With me is Avi Goldenberg,
15 general counsel of C&A Marketing.
16 THE VIDEO TECHNICIAN: Our
17 court reporter, Jineen Pavesi representing
18 Veritext, will swear in the witness and we
19 can proceed.
20 C H A I M P I E K A R S K I,
21 having first been duly affirmed by a
22 Notary Public of the State of New York,
23 was examined and testified as follows:
24 EXAMINATION BY
25 MR. MOORE:
Page 9

866 299-5127
1 designation, but you can answer.

2 A. I don't recall.
3 I spoke with Robert Brunner and
4 then either with him or some of his team
5 members.
6 Q. What was the next project that
7 C&A Marketing worked on with Ammunition
8 after the Z2300?
9 A. The Cube.
10 Q. When you first made contact
11 with Ammunition about the Cube project,
12 what type of idea did you have at that
13 time for them to work on?
14 A. No idea; that's why I hired
15 them.
16 Q. What did you tell them you
17 wanted them to do?
18 A. Make something different.
19 Q. Did you give them any guidance
20 in terms of what type of product or what
21 category?
22 A. Yeah.
23 Q. What kind of guidance did you
24 give them?
25 A. I told them I don't want
Page 70

866 299-5127
1 A. I liked his work on the

2 previous projects that he has done for us
3 and for other companies.
4 Q. Why was C&A Marketing
5 interested in having a designer develop a
6 new camera product at that point in time?
7 A. We were already selling
8 mountable sporting cameras and we wanted
9 something different.
10 Q. Was there anything that was
11 happening in the market at that time that
12 caused you to want to have a new product
13 --
14 A. Action cameras were becoming a
15 relevant category.
16 Q. What's -- how would you define
17 what an action camera is?
18 A. The way it is defined in our
19 agreement is a camera that takes either
20 stills or video that is mountable and it
21 is mostly used while it is being mounted
22 to something as opposed to just being
23 hand-held.
24 Q. Would you consider GoPro to be
25 the company that developed the market for
Page 75

866 299-5127
1 goals for that project before Ammunition

2 began working on the design?
3 A. We talked about some
4 positioning or what it is that we want to
5 do and what we want to accomplish.
6 Q. What did you discuss with them
7 about that?
8 A. Most importantly, we wanted
9 something different and something that was
10 going to target a price point that would
11 be consistent with something that
12 everybody can afford.
13 Q. Did you have any discussions
14 with them over the form factor that you
15 wanted the product to have?
16 A. I told them I want something
17 different, something that no one has ever
18 seen.
19 Q. Did you have any discussions --
20 strike that.
21 What else did you tell them you
22 wanted to see in the product?
23 A. I told them I didn't want to
24 give them any preconceived ideas; I'm
25 paraphrasing general conversations.
Page 82

866 299-5127
1 cameras at the same time, different price

2 points, one was going to be less expensive
3 than the other.
4 And so they actually developed
5 two cameras side-by-side at the same time.
6 Q. Were both of those cameras they
7 developed cube form factors?
8 A. No, one was a cube, we
9 internally referred to it as cube, as a
10 term, before we actually named it formally
11 Cube.
12 There was another one that
13 internally was called Ghost.
14 Q. As I understand it, the Ghost
15 product has not been commercialized?
16 A. No.
17 Q. Why did C&A Marketing decide
18 not to commercialize the Ghost product?
19 A. We were at the trade show, the
20 CES, and we showed both concept prototypes
21 to potential buyers and, based on
22 feedback, we decided, we made a business
23 decision based on feedback.
24 Q. Are you referring to the 2014
25 CES?
Page 87

866 299-5127
1 A. Correct.
2 Q. So you showed concept of both
3 the Cube and the Ghost at that show?
4 A. Yes.
5 Q. Were they both 3-D models that
6 had been made?
7 A. Prototype; nonworking, they
8 didn't operate as cameras, but the form
9 factor, the color, the material, and the
10 finish, all looked like the actual product
11 would have looked like had we actually
12 produced it or it would have been at least
13 close to that.
14 Q. What was the feedback --
15 strike that.
16 Do you recall the feedback that
17 you received on those products at CES?
18 A. Everybody loved the Cube.
19 Q. What type of feedback did you
20 receive on the Ghost?
21 A. Less love.
22 Q. Do you recall any specific
23 comments or feedback that you received on
24 those products?
25 A. We didn't get into it deeply,
Page 88

866 299-5127
SOUGHT TO
T BE FILED
D UNDE
ER SEA
AL
PURSU
UANT TO CO
ONFIDE
ENTIA
AL ORD
DER

+$&+$'%&,Case 28G8@ " .>5DD=9=65E=A@
1:15-cv-07854-RMB-JS Document 99-6 Filed A9 /8D=;@ 15E8@ED K 42130
06/20/17 Page 89 of 132 PageID: 2117
;2 <cg[b_W`f Xad FdWbSd[`Y ad IWdh[`Y =aaV ad ;d[`] Daf <êWiZWdW IbWU[X[WV
;3 Jaaê S`V ?SdViSdW
;4 FSU]SYWe S`V 9a`fS[`Wde Xad >aaVe
;,+ CWSegd[`Y' JWef[`Y ad I[Y`S^[`Y @èfdg_W`fe
;,, AWiW^dk' Ik_Ta^[U @è[Y`[S' S`V Ed`S_W`fe
;,- JdSèbadfSf[a`
;,. <cg[b_W`f Xad FdaVgUf[a`' ;[efd[Tgf[a`' ad JdSèXad_Sf[a` aX <`WdYk
;,/ HWUadV[`Y' 9a__g`[USf[a`' ad @`Xad_Sf[a` HWfd[WhS^ <cg[b_W`f
;,0 CSUZ[`We Daf <êWiZWdW IbWU[X[WV
;,1 FZafaYdSbZk S`V Ebf[US^ <cg[b_W`f
;,2 Cge[US^ @èfdg_W`fe
;,3 Fd[`f[`Y S`V EXX[UW CSUZ[`Wdk
;,4 EXX[UW Igbb^[We6 7df[efe# S`V JWSUZWde# CSfWd[Sê
;-+ IS^We S`V 7VhWdf[e[`Y <cg[b_W`f
;-, >S_We' Jake S`V Ibadfe >aaVe
;-- 7d_e' FkdafWUZ`[Ue' ?g`f[`Y S`V =[eZ[`Y <cg[b_W`f
;-. <`h[da`_W`fS^ ?WSf[`Y S`V 9aa^[`Y' =^g[V ?S`V^[`Y S`V IS`[fSdk <cg[b_W`f
;-/ CWV[US^ S`V BSTadSfadk <cg[b_W`f
;-0 8g[^V[`Y K`[fe S`V 9aèfdgUf[a` <^W_W`fe
;-1 B[YZf[`Y
;-2 JaTSUUa S`V I_a]Wde# Igbb^[We
;-3 9ae_Wf[U FdaVgUfe S`V Ja[^Wf 7df[U^We
;-4 <cg[b_W`f Xad ISXWfk' FdafWUf[a` S`V HWeUgW
;.+ 7`[_S^ ?geTS`Vdk
;.- MSeZ[`Y' 9^WS`[`Y ad ;dk[`Y CSUZ[`We
;./ CSfWd[S^ ad 7df[U^W ?S`V^[`Y <cg[b_W`f
;44 C[eUW^^S`Wage
,) IgTU^See
<SUZ ;We[Y` U^See [e adYS`[lWV [`fa egTU^SeeWe fa bWd_[f WXX[U[W`f eWSdUZ[`Y Xad ebWU[X[U fkbWe aX [`Vgefd[S^ VWe[Yè)
7 egTU^See [e S Ua^^WUf[a` aX VWe[Y` bSfW`fe Xag`V [` S ;We[Y` 9^See' iZ[UZ bWdfS[` fa S bSdf[Ug^Sd XgÙf[a`' S ebWU[X[U
XgÙf[a`S^ XWSfgdW' ad V[ef[Ùf[hW ad`S_W`fS^ SbbWSdSÙW ad Xad_)
=ad WjS_b^W' fZW egT\WUf _SffWd [` U^See ;1' =gd`[eZ[`Ye' [e U^See[X[WV Tk XgÙf[a` [`fa TdaSV egTU^SeeWe aX e[_[^Sd fkbWe aX
Xgd`[eZ[`Ye(eWSf[`Y' iad] egdXSUWe' efadSYW' Xgd`[fgdW bSdfe S`V W^W_W`fe' WfU) 8WUSgeW fZWdW SdW ea _S`k bSfW`fWV VWe[Yè
Xad fZW eS_W YW`WdS^ fkbWe aX Xgd`[eZ[`Ye' fZ[e egT\WUf _SffWd [e XgdfZWd U^See[X[WV [`fa egTadV[`SfW ad "[`VW`fWV" egTU^SeeWe
fa bda_afW WXX[U[W`f SUUWee fa ebWU[X[U fkbWe aX [`Vgefd[S^ VWe[Yè)
7e XgdfZWd [^^gefdSf[a`' fZWdW SdW faa _S`k ;We[Y` bSfW`fe Xad eWSf[`Y [` 9^See ;1 Xad WXX[U[W`f eWSdUZ[`Y [` S e[`Y^W egTU^See)
7UUadV[`Y^k' S` SddSk aX [`VW`fWV egTU^SeeWe aX hSd[age fkbWe aX eWSf[`Y ZSe TWW` VWhWâbWV) JZWeW egTU^SeeWe SdW Se
Xa^âie5
'.%33 ($ *52/-3,-/+3
&&' % 3<7J@D> 5D@J "&#$

..0 ) ) 9a_T[`WV ad Ua`hWdf[T^W $/%
<EEBD-$$HHH#FDBEA#;AG$B5E8@E$>5HD"5@7"C8;F>5E=A@D$8I5?=@5E=A@"BA>=6J$D8G8@"6>5DD=9=65E=A@"78D=;@"B5E8@ED '$+
+$&+$'%&,Case 28G8@ " .>5DD=9=65E=A@
06/20/17 Page 90 of 132 PageID: 2118
..1 ) ) ) M[fZ iad] egdXSUW ad efadSYW g`[f $0%
..2 ) ) ) ) F^gdS^ XSU[`Y eWSfe
..3 ) ) ) ) Mad] egdXSUW bae[f[a`WV Sf fZW Xda`f aX eWSf
..4 ) ) ) ) ) ?[YZ UZS[d Xad \ghW`[^W $1%
./+ ) ) ) ) ) IfdSVV^W fkbW
./, ) ) ) ) ) 7ek__Wfd[US^ SffSUZ_W`f' W)Y)' aXXeWf Sdf' WfU)
./- ) ) ) ) IWSf SffSUZWV Sf Xda`f $2%
./. ) ) ) M[fZ SbbSdW^ egbbadf' [)W)' "hS^Wf" $3%
.// ) ) Ii[`Y[`Y ad daU][`Y
./0 ) ) ) I[_g^Sf[hW $4%
./1 ) ) ) F^gdS^ XSU[`Y eWSfe
./2 ) ) ) IgebW`VWV
./3 ) ) ) 9gdhWV dg``Wd Ua`fSUfe Xâad
./4 ) ) ?SeeaU]' affa_S`' efaa^ ad TWÙZ' [)W) i[fZagf Sd_dWef S`V TSU]dWef $,+%
.0+ ) ) ) IfWbbWV $,,%
.0, ) ) ) I[_g^Sf[hW $,.%
.0- ) ) ) JZdWW ad _adW dWbWSfe ad g`[Xad_ bSffWd` STagf Sj[e
.0. ) ) ) =a^V[`Y ad SV\gefST^W
.0/ ) ) IfdSVV^W fkbW' W)Y)' eSVV^W' WfU)
.00 ) ) 8SU]^Wee
.01 ) ) LWZ[U^W fkbW
.02 ) ) Ebbae[fW^k XSU[`Y b^gdS^ eWSfe
.03 ) ) I[_g^Sf[hW $,-%
RRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRR
&& JZW `g_TWde [` bSdW`fZWeWe dWXWd fa IWSdUZ DafWe Xag`V Sf fZW W`V aX fZW ;We[Y` eUZWVg^W) =ad S VWfS[^WV Wjb^S`Sf[a`'
eWW IWUf[a` =,' IWSdUZ DafWe' TWâi)
MZWdW S egTadV[`SfW egTU^See Ua`fS[è S ^SdYW `g_TWd aX [`Vgefd[S^ VWe[Yè' fZ[e egT\WUf _SffWd _Sk TW XgdfZWd U^See[X[WV
[`fa SVV[f[a`S^ egTadV[`SfW egTU^SeeWe) =ad WjS_b^W' fZW U^See[X[USf[a` aX Ii[`Y[`Y ad daU][`Y fkbW eWSf[`Y $;1(.//% ZSe
TWW` WjbS`VWV [`fa S` SddSk aX egTadV[`SfW egTU^SeeWe SUUadV[`Y fa XgÙf[a`S^ fkbW S`V Tk ad`S_W`fS^ SbbWSdSÙW ad
Xad_ [` egTU^SeeWe ;1(./0 fZdagYZ ;1(./3)
7 eWSdUZ aX fZW TdaSV ad YW`WdS^ egTU^See S`V [fe [`VW`fWV egTU^SeeWe [e VWe[Y`WV fa TW Ua_bdWZWè[hW S`V eZag^V
[Ù^gVW S^^ bWdf[`W`f VWe[Yè Xad fZW egT\WUf _SffWd ebWU[X[WV [` fZW egTU^See f[f^W)
K`[cgW fa ;We[Y` bSfW`f egTU^See f[f^We [e fZW fWd_ "e[_g^Sf[hW)" JZ[e fWd_ [e geWV fa dWXWd fa ;We[Y` bSfW`fe fZSf âa] ^[]W
ad e[_g^SfW fZW SbbWSdSÙW aX SàfZWd Sdf[U^W W[fZWd Tk fZW geW aX Sbb^[WV ad`S_W`fSf[a` ad Xad_)
=ad WjS_b^W' 9^See ;,' <V[T^W FdaVgUfe' Ua`fS[è S` SddSk aX egTU^SeeWe g`VWd fZW ZWSV[`Y aX I[_g^Sf[hW $eWW egTU^SeeWe
,+2 ( ,,0 TWâi%) JZWeW egTU^SeeWe Ua`fS[` bSfW`fWV VWe[Yè Xad WV[T^W XaaV bdaVgUfe fZSf e[_g^SfW fZW SbbWSdSÙW aX
afZWd Sdf[U^We) ;,(,,. Ua`fS[è WV[T^W XaaV bdaVgUfe fZSf e[_g^SfW hWZ[U^We ad bSdfe aX hWZ[U^We' egUZ Se S "USd" ad S "hWZ[U^W
iZWW^") ;,(,+2 Ua`fS[è bSfW`fWV VWe[Yè Xad WV[T^W bdaVgUfe fZSf âa] ^[]W S`[_Sê) @`VW`fWV g`VWd fZ[e egTU^See [e ;,(
,+3' iZ[UZ Ua`fS[è VWe[Yè Xad WV[T^W XaaV bdaVgUfe fZSf e[_g^SfW fZW Zg_S` TaVk) @`VW`fWV g`VWd ;,(,+3 [e ;,(,+4
iZ[UZ Ua`fS[è bSfW`fWV VWe[Yè Xad WV[T^W bdaVgUfe iZ[UZ e[_g^SfW S "P?g_S`Q ?WSV ad afZWd SbbW`VSYW)"
(# )(-&.) 120(5'43
<EEBD-$$HHH#FDBEA#;AG$B5E8@E$>5HD"5@7"C8;F>5E=A@D$8I5?=@5E=A@"BA>=6J$D8G8@"6>5DD=9=65E=A@"78D=;@"B5E8@ED ($+
+$&+$'%&,Case 28G8@ " .>5DD=9=65E=A@
06/20/17 Page 91 of 132 PageID: 2119
,+1 I@CKB7J@L<
,+2 ) 7`[_SfW
,+3 ) ) ?g_Sà[V
,+4 ) ) ) ?WSV ad afZWd SbbW`VSYW
,,+ ) ) GgSVdgbWV
,,, ) ) CSd[`W ^[XW
,,- ) ) ?WSdf eZSbWV
,,. ) LWZ[U^W ad Ua_ba`W`f fZWdWaX
,,/ ) 7^bZS ad `g_Wd[U
,,0 ) F^S`f ^[XW
-) HW^Sf[aèZ[b fa Kf[^[fk 9^SeeWe
JZWdW [e à dW^Sf[aèZ[b TWfiWW` fZW f[f^We S`V `g_Wd[US^ VWe[Y`Sf[aè geWV [` ;We[Y` eUZWVg^We S`V fZaeW [` Kf[^[fk
U^SeeWe) 7 V[dWUfadk aX Kf[^[fk S`V ;We[Y` f[f^We S`V egT\WUf _SffWd US` TW Xag`V [` fZW @`VWj fa fZW KI FSfW`f 9^See[X[USf[a`
IkefW_)
;) ;WX[`[f[aè
7f bdWeW`f' S^^ ;We[Y` U^SeeWe ZShW _S[` U^See VWX[`[f[aè S`V _S[` ^[`W egTU^See VWX[`[f[aè) JZWeW VWX[`[f[aè eZag^V TW
Uaèg^fWV iZW` b^S``[`Y S eWSdUZ [` adVWd fa WègdW fZSf UWdfS[` egT\WUf _SffWd ZSe àf TWW` U^See[X[WV [` S ;We[Y` U^See
àf bdWh[age^k Uaè[VWdWV) ;WX[`[f[aè Xad fZW dW_S[`VWd aX fZW egTU^SeeWe SdW TW[`Y VWhWâbWV S`V i[^^ TW bgT^[eZWV Sf S
XgfgdW VSfW) K`f[^ Xad_S^^k VWX[`WV' fZW _WS`[`Ye aX fZW fWd_e geWV [` fZWeW ;We[Y` egTU^See f[f^We SdW Seeg_WV fa TW
TSeWV a` Ua__a` V[Uf[a`Sdk VWX[`[f[aè) 7e SVV[f[a`S^ egTU^SeeWe SdW VWX[`WV' fZW eWSdUZ àfWe Xag`V Sf fZW W`V aX fZW
egTU^See eUZWVg^We i[^^ TW [ÙadbadSfWV [`fa fZW VWX[`[f[aè S`V dW_ahWV Xda_ fZW eUZWVg^We $eWW IWUf[a` =, TWâi)%
<) ?[WdSdUZk
JZW bd[Ù[b^W aX Z[WdSdUZk geWV fa U^See[Xk gf[^[fk bSfW`fe' Se agf^[`WV [` 3<9J@ED 6 aX fZ[e ?S`VTaa]' Sêa Sbb^[We fa fZW
U^See[X[USf[a` aX ;We[Y` bSfW`fe) ;We[Y` bSfW`fe SdW b^SUWV Se ad[Y[`S^ VaUg_W`fe $EHe% [` fZW X[def ;We[Y` U^See aX
bWdf[`W`f egT\WUf _SffWd S`V egTeWcgW`f^k [` fZW X[def bWdf[`W`f egTU^See ad [`VW`fWV egTU^See aX fZW ;We[Y` U^See) ;We[Y`
bSfW`fe fZSf ZShW TWW` b^SUWV [` a`W U^See Se S` EH i[^^ SbbWSd [` afZWd ;We[Y` ad Kf[^[fk egTU^SeeWe a`^k Se egbb^W_W`fS^
ad Udaee(dWXWdWÙW $NH% VaUg_W`fe)
=ad WjS_b^W' ;We[Y` bSfW`fe Xad S[db^S`We SdW bdabWd^k U^See[X[WV Se EHe [` 9^See ;,-' JdSèbadfSf[a`) ?aiWhWd' [X S
bSdf[Ug^Sd S[db^S`W VWe[Y` [e Uaè[VWdWV fa TW S geWXg^ dWXWdWÙW fZSf eZag^V TW [Ù^gVWV i[fZ fZW Ua^^WUf[a` aX [`Vgefd[S^
VWe[Yè Xad fak S[db^S`We' S` NH _Sk TW U^See[X[WV [` a`W ad _adW egTU^SeeWe Xad fak S[db^S`We [` 9^See ;-,' >S_We' Jake'
<jWdU[eW <cg[b_W`f S`V Ibadfe >aaVe) 9a`hWdeW^k' [X S ;We[Y` bSfW`f Xad S fak S[db^S`W [e TW^[WhWV fa TW bWdf[`W`f ad
e[_[^Sd [` SbbWSdSÙW fa VWe[Yè Xad S YW`g[`W S[db^S`W' S` NH _Sk TW U^See[X[WV [` 9^See ;,-)
=) K`[cgW =WSfgdWe aX ;We[Y` FSfW`f 9^See[X[USf[a`
,) IWSdUZ DafWe
IWSdUZ DafWe _Sk TW Xag`V b^SUWV SXfWd ea_W egTU^See f[f^We S`V*ad Sf fZW W`V aX ea_W ;We[Y` U^See eUZWVg^We) IWSdUZ
DafWe SdW geWV fa Wjb^S[` fZW egT\WUf _SffWd Xag`V [` S ebWU[X[U egTU^See)
=ad WjS_b^W' fZW egTU^See f[f^W aX 9^See ;1' egTU^See ../ [e "IWSf[`Y g`[f)" 7 IWSdUZ DafW $.% ZSe TWW` SVVWV [` bSdW`fZWeWe
[__WV[SfW^k SXfWd fZW egTU^See f[f^W) JZ[e DafW $.%' Xag`V Sf fZW W`V aX fZW ;1 eUZWVg^W' efSfWe "Xad ^WY' eWW egTU^SeeWe 2+4
<EEBD-$$HHH#FDBEA#;AG$B5E8@E$>5HD"5@7"C8;F>5E=A@D$8I5?=@5E=A@"BA>=6J$D8G8@"6>5DD=9=65E=A@"78D=;@"B5E8@ED )$+
+$&+$'%&,Case 28G8@ " .>5DD=9=65E=A@
06/20/17 Page 92 of 132 PageID: 2120
fZdagYZ 2+4)--'" _WS`[`Y fZSf S^fZagYZ fZW VWe[Y` bSfW`fe [` ;1(../ S`V [fe [`VW`fWV egTU^SeeWe _Sk [Ù^gVW
ad`S_W`fS^ VWe[Yè fZSf [Ù^gVW V[eUâegdWe aX eWSf[`Y fkbW ^WYe' ;1(2+4 S`V [fe [`VW`fWV egTU^SeeWe Ua`fS[` SVV[f[a`S^
VWe[Yè Xad Xgd`[fgdW ^WYe)
@` ea_W USeWe' S eWSdUZ àfW [__WV[SfW^k Xa^âi[`Y fZW egTU^See f[f^W XgdfZWd Wjb^S[è fZW egT\WUf _SffWd [` fZW egTU^See)
=ad WjS_b^W5
./4 ) ) ?SeeaU]' affa_S`' efaa^ ad TWÙZ' [)W) i[fZagf Sd_dWef S`V TSU]dWef $,+%
JZW àfW "[)W)' i[fZagf Sd_dWef S`V TSU]dWef" XgdfZWd U^Sd[X[We fZW `SfgdW aX fZW egT\WUf _SffWd U^See[X[WV [` fZ[e bSdf[Ug^Sd
egTU^See) DafW $,+% aX fZ[e eS_W egTU^See f[f^W [e Xag`V Sf fZW W`V aX fZW ;1 eUZWVg^W S`V Wjb^S[è5 "=ad TWÙZ fkbW eWSf[`Y
i[fZ S` Sd_dWef' eWW egTU^See .00) =ad efdSVV^W fkbW eWSf' eWW egTU^See .0/) "
-) 9daee(HWXWdWÙW 7df 9a^^WUf[aè S`V ;[YWefe
9daee(HWXWdWÙW 7df 9a^^WUf[aè SdW Ua^^WUf[aè aX ;We[Y` S`V Kf[^[fk bSfW`fe Xad egT\WUf _SffWd fZSf [e àf ebWU[X[US^^k
bdah[VWV Xad [` S bSdf[Ug^Sd egTU^See) JZ[e egT\WUf _SffWd [e YW`WdS^^k hWdk V[hWdeW' TdaSV [` eUabW' S`V [Ù^gVWe [`Vgefd[S^
VWe[Yè fZSf ZShW _g^f[b^W XgÙf[aè) 9daee(HWXWdWÙW 7df 9a^^WUf[aè bdah[VW S` ahWdh[Wi aX UWdfS[` egT\WUf _SffWd S`V
eZag^V TW [Ù^gVWV [` S Ua_bdWZWè[hW eWSdUZ)
=ad WjS_b^W' Sf fZW W`V aX fZW eUZWVg^W Xad 9^See ;.' JdShW^ >aaVe' FWdea`S^ 8Wâ`Y[`Ye' S`V IfadSYW ad 9Sddk[`Y 7df[U^We'
9daee(HWXWdWÙW 7df 9a^^WUf[aè SdW bdah[VWV Xad 8d[WXUSeW' Jaa^ 8aj ad JSU]^W 8aj S`V 9ae_Wf[U 9SeW) JZWdW SdW à
egTU^SeeWe Xad fZ[e egT\WUf _SffWd [` fZW ;We[Y` eUZWVg^W e[ÙW fZW eUabW aX fZW egT\WUf _SffWd [e faa V[hWdeW fa TW
U^See[X[WV [` S e[`Y^W egTU^See ad SddSk aX egTU^SeeWe) 7 dWh[Wi aX fZWeW 9 daee(HWXWdWÙW 7df 9a^^WUf[aè bdah[VWe S
bWdebWUf[hW aX fZW ebWU[X[WV fkbW aX egT\WUf _SffWd S`V US` TW geWV fa X[`V ;We[Y` bSfW`fe bWdf[`W`f fa S bSdf[Ug^Sd eWSdUZ)
<SUZ VaUg_W`f [` fZW Ua^^WUf[a` ZSe S` EH U^See[X[USf[a` [` fZW KIF9I' iZ[UZ US` TW geWV fa âUSfW SVV[f[a`S^ egT\WUf
_SffWd i[fZ S e[_[^Sd ebWU[X[U XgÙf[a` ad ad`S_W`fS^ SbbWSdSÙW)
;We[Y` ;[YWefe SdW [`Xad_S^ Ua^^WUf[aè aX ;We[Y` bSfW`fe' Kf[^[fk bSfW`fe' S`V à`(bSfW`f ^[fWdSfgdW) ;[YWefe ZShW TWW`
Ua_b[^WV Tk bSfW`f WjS_[`Wde Se Ua^^WUf[aè aX [`Vgefd[S^ VWe[Yè fa bdah[VW S "eZadfUgf" fa S Ua_bdWZWè[hW eWSdUZ aX S
ebWU[X[U Sdf) =ad WjS_b^W' Xad fZW Ua`hW`[WÙW aX WjS_[`Wde eWSdUZ[`Y faa^ ZS`V^We' 9^See ;3' Jaaê S`V ?SdViSdW' Ua`fS[è
S` SddSk aX ?S`V^W ;[YWefe i[fZ Ua^^WUf[aè aX V[XXWdW`f fkbWe aX bSfW`fWV ZS`V^We Xag`V fZdagYZagf fZW ;We[Y` S`V Kf[^[fk
bSfW`f eUZWVg^We)
7^^ bSfW`fe [` S ;[YWef SdW U^See[X[WV Se EHe [` fZW Sbbdabd[SfW ;We[Y` S`V Kf[^[fk U^SeeWe Tgf SdW àf ShS[^ST^W Se S g`[fSdk
eWSdUZ [` S ebWU[X[U egTU^See) 7e i[fZ Kf[^[fk bSfW`fe' à ;We[Y` bSfW`f _Sk [eegW Se S` EH [` 9daee(HWXWdWÙW 7df
9a^^WUf[aè ad ;[YWefe)
>) F^SUW_W`f Hg^We Xad ;We[Y` FSfW`fe
;We[Y` bSfW`fe SdW U^See[X[WV Se EHe [` fZW X[def ;We[Y` U^See fZSf Ua`fS[è egT\WUf _SffWd _aef bWdf[`W`f fa fZW egT\WUf
_SffWd U^S[_WV) M[fZ[` fZW ;We[Y` 9^See fZW bSfW`f [e U^See[X[WV [` fZW X[def bWdf[`W`f egTU^See ad [`VW`fWV egTU^See fZSf
VWeUd[TWe fZW ebWU[X[U XgÙf[a`' [`fW`VWV geW' ad ad`S_W`fS^ XWSfgdWe aX fZW VWe[Y` U^S[_WV) @X S` EH VaWe àf _WWf fZW
Ud[fWd[S aX S`k bSdf[Ug^Sd egTU^See f[f^W' fZW EH [e b^SUWV [` fZW _aef Sbbdabd[SfW YW`WdS^ ad TdaSV egTU^See aX fZW bSdf[Ug^Sd
;We[Y` U^See)
MZW` S ;We[Y` bSfW`f [Ù^gVWe _adW fZS` a`W W_TaV[_W`f aX S` [`Vgefd[S^ VWe[Y`' fZW bSfW`f [e U^See[X[WV Se S` EH
SUUadV[`Y fa fZW X[def W_TaV[_W`f eZai` [` fZW VdSi[`Y V[eUâegdW) 7VV[f[a`S^ U^See[X[USf[aè SdW b^SUWV Xad fZW SVV[f[a`S^
W_TaV[_W`fe Se NHe [` fZW Sbbdabd[SfW ;We[Y` 9^See S`V egTU^See)
<EEBD-$$HHH#FDBEA#;AG$B5E8@E$>5HD"5@7"C8;F>5E=A@D$8I5?=@5E=A@"BA>=6J$D8G8@"6>5DD=9=65E=A@"78D=;@"B5E8@ED *$+
(-45!',5/21!)+04!.23!"%##!23!*-44
#.6!3.!*(3!3+(!5,'(.!04%-,37!.)!3+(!-%3(23!".$1.2!6,3+.43!3+(!+,*+!/1,&(
+?!.299?!-=443>/6
,/;<!=81/<21)!*8934!&'"!&$%(!
?PRL!B([PWZ!HUK!>SLLUL_'!;VAYV!OHZ!KLMPULK!P[Z!WYVK\J[!JH[LNVY`![V![OL!WVPU[!
ÔLYL!ZOVWWLYZ!YV\[PULS`!MVYNL[![V!JVUZPKLY!HS[LYUH[P]LZ)!6\[!ÔLU!`V\!KV!H!
SP[[SL!YLZLHYJO'!`V\!MPUK!H!^PKL!HZZVY[TLU[!VM!NYLH[!HJ[PVU!JHTZ!MYVT!V[OLY!
IYHUKZ'!THU`!VM!ÔPJO!OH]L!J\[[PUN(LKNL!MLH[\YLZbQ\Z[!SPRL!;VAYVZ)
EOL`$YL!HSZV!LHZ`![V!\ZLbQ\Z[!SPRL!;VAYVZ)
5UK!Q\Z[!SPRL![OL ;VAYV!<LYV/' #.**'!HUK![OL ;VAYV!<LYV.!DPS]LY!D[HUKHYK!

9KP[PVU' #--*'!HJ[PVU!JHTLYHZ!MYVT!>VKHR'!CPJVO'!DVU`'!HUK!L]LU!5J[P]LVU!
OH]L!ILLU!RUVÛ![V!KLSP]LY!X\HSP[`!]PKLV!HUK!WOV[VZ)
EOH[!KVLZU$[!TLHU!;VAYV!JHTLYHZ!HYL!V]LYYH[LK)!=U!MHJ['!H[![OL!IV[[VT!VM!
[OPZ!SPZ[!VM![OL!ILZ[!HJ[PVU!JHTZ!ZP[Z![OL ;VAYV!<LYV/!DLZZPVU'!#-**'!ÔPJO!
UV[!VUS`!YLZWVUKZ![V!]VPJL!JVTTHUKZ!I\[!HSZV!VMMLYZ!L_[YH!MYHTL(YH[L!
VW[PVUZ!MVY!ZOVV[PUN!.>!]PKLV)!@V[!IHK!MVY!H!KL]PJL![OH[$Z!UV[!T\JO!IPNNLY!
[OHU!HU!PJL!J\IL"
D[PSS'!^P[O!H!SP[[SL!^VYR!`V\!JHU!MPUK!L]LU!IL[[LY!KLHSZ)!DV!PM!`V\$YL!^PSSPUN![V!
]LU[\YL!PU[V![OL!NYLH[!V\[KVVYZ!^P[OV\[!H!;VAYV!SHILS!%HUK!;VAYV!
HJJLZZVYPLZ&'!OLYL!HYL!H!ML^!IHYNHPUZ!^VY[O!JVUZPKLYPUN!
/885'##;;;"*43792,66,54687"46.#(*8043!*(2*46+,67#),78!(*8043!*(27!-46!&$$!+411(67!46!1,77#
$
)5B9C7?> *3!-?<6
FUSPRL!THU`!HJ[PVU!JHTZ'![OPZ!5J[P]LVU'!#+-*'!JVTLZ!^P[O!H!YLTV]HISL!
IH[[LY`'!ÔPJO!HSSV^Z!`V\![V!Z^HW!PU!H!M\SS`!JOHYNLK!IHJR\W!PU!H!WPUJO)!EOL!
2*!TPU\[LZ!VM!IH[[LY`!SPML!PZ!H!IP[!ZOVY[LY![OHU!`V\!MPUK!PU!THU`!TVKLSZ'!I\[!
[OL!JHTLYH$Z!PTHNL!Z[HIPSPaLY!KLSP]LYZ!NVVK!]PKLV!HUK!WOV[VZ)!EOL!
WYV[LJ[P]L!OV\ZPUN!PZ!^H[LY(YLZPZ[HU[![V!H!KLW[O!VM!+31!MLL['!HJJVYKPUN![V![OL!
THU\MHJ[\YLY)!5UK!IL[[LY!`L['![OL!TVKLS!OHZ!HU!?78![V\JOZJYLLU!VU![OL!
IHJR)
+23!-01!"'%#&$!0/!*.,40/
/885'##;;;"*43792,66,54687"46.#(*8043!*(2*46+,67#),78!(*8043!*(27!-46!&$$!+411(67!46!1,77#
%
/?64; 09D0A?!20$
8LZWP[L!P[Z!KPTPU\[P]L!ZPaL'![OPZ!>VKHR AP_AYV!HJ[PVU!JHT'!#+3*'!PZ!Y\NNLK!
LUV\NO![V!^P[OZ[HUK!H!1(MVV[!KYVW!HUK!^H[LY(YLZPZ[HU[![V!H!KLW[O!VM!--!MLL[)!
EOL!,(WS\Z!OV\YZ!VM!IH[[LY`!SPML!WLY!JOHYNL!W\[!P[!HTVUN![OL!ILZ[!PU!P[Z!JSHZZ)!
EOL!JHTLYH!JVTLZ!^P[O!H!+)/(PUJO!?78!HUK!HU!PTHNL!Z[HIPSPaLY![V!JV\U[LYHJ[!
ZOHR`!OHUKZ'!UV[![V!TLU[PVU!ZOHRPUN!OHUKSLIHYZ)!5JJVYKPUN![V!V\Y![LZ[LYZ'!
P[!KLSP]LYZ!NVVK!WOV[VZ!HUK!]PKLV)!5UK!OLYL$Z!VUL!UPJL!L_[YH4![OL!HIPSP[`![V!
JHW[\YL!WOV[VZ!H[!+*!MYHTLZ!WLY!ZLJVUK!PU!I\YZ[!TVKL)
,A?=(
5<95;!8?A!
/5/@76#075
@A957
/885'##;;;"*43792,66,54687"46.#(*8043!*(2*46+,67#),78!(*8043!*(27!-46!&$$!+411(67!46!1,77#
%
2?>E .+1")2&#
?PRL!TVZ[!DVU`!TVKLSZ'![OL!DVU`!<8C(5D/*!OHZ!H!]LY`!NVVK!PTHNL!
Z[HIPSPaLY)!AYPJLK!H[!#+3*'!P[!HSZV!WYV]PKLZ!H!ZPTWSL'!PU[\P[P]L!PU[LYMHJL'!ZV!`V\!
JHU!NL[![OL!JHTLYH!\W!HUK!Y\UUPUN!PU!H!QPMM`)!EOL!]PKLV!X\HSP[`!PZ!NVVK'!HZ!PZ!
[OL!H\KPV!X\HSP[`)!EOL!IH[[LY`!SPML!Z[YL[JOLZ![V!+**!TPU\[LZ)!5UK!SPRL![OL!
5J[P]LVU!7G!;VSK'![OL!WYV[LJ[P]L!OV\ZPUN!^PSS!RLLW![OPZ!TVKLS!KY`!\W![V!H!
KLW[O!VM!+31!MLL['!HJJVYKPUN![V![OL!THU\MHJ[\YLY)
+23!-01!"%)(#$$!0/!*.,40/
/885'##;;;"*43792,66,54687"46.#(*8043!*(2*46+,67#),78!(*8043!*(27!-46!&$$!+411(67!46!1,77#
&
/?64; 09D0A?!20%'#
=U![OPZ!JHZL'![OL!]PKLV!X\HSP[`!PZ!VUS`!MHPY'!I\[![OL!>VKHR!AP_AYV!DA-0*'!
#,2*'!PZ!HTVUN![OL!MPYZ[![V!VMMLY!-0*(KLNYLL!WHUVYHTPJ!]PKLV)!=[!HSZV!
JHW[\YLZ!NVVK(X\HSP[`!Z[PSS!WOV[VZ'!ÔPJO!P[!JHU!MPYL!VMM!H[!+*!MYHTLZ!WLY!
ZLJVUK)!EOL!IH[[LY`!SPML!Z[YL[JOLZ![V!+0*!TPU\[LZ)
+23!-01!"%))#))!0/!*.,40/
/885'##;;;"*43792,66,54687"46.#(*8043!*(2*46+,67#),78!(*8043!*(27!-46!&$$!+411(67!46!1,77#
!
195?8 4-#/&
9X$W!MFVI!RSX!XS!FIQNVJ!XMJ!VYLLJI!WHN(KN!PSSO!SK!XMJ!@NHSM!D7(>,'!#-**)!ESY!
HFR!FPQSWX!NQFLNRJ!NX!QFONRL!FR!FTTJFVFRHJ!NR!XMJ!HSQNRL!AXFV!DFVW!QSZNJ!
"BMJ!=FWX!;JIN)"!BMJ!HFQJVF!IJPNZJVW!LSSI!ZNIJS'!NRHPYINRL!.<3!F!WYTJV([NIJ!
FRLPJ!SK!ZNJ[!%XS!LJX!FPP!XMJ!FHXNSR&3!FR!J\HJPPJRX!NQFLJ!WXFGNPN^JV3!FRI!+.*!
QNRYXJW!SK!GFXXJV]!PNKJ)!4RI!@NHSM!HPFNQW!XMJ!MSYWNRL!NW![FXJV(VJWNWXFRX!XS!F!
IJTXM!SK!00!KJJX!FRI!HFTFGPJ!SK!WYVZNZNRL!F!IVST!KVSQ!1!KJJX)
)01!+./!"%$%#'&!.-!(,*2.-
.774&##999")32681+55+43576"35-#')7/32!)'1)35*+56#(+67!')7/32!)'16!,35!%$$!*300'56!35!0+66#
"
2?>C .+1#*2%$$3
4HXNSR!HFQW!FVJR$X!ORS[R!XS!TVSIYHJ!WXYRRNRL!NQFLJ!UYFPNX])!5YX!FHHSVINRL!
XS!SYV!XJWXJVW'!XMJ!ASR]!86@(4A+**C'!#-**'!NW!SRJ!SK!XMJ!KJ[!XS!HFTXYVJ!
ZJV]!LSSI!ZNIJS)!9XW!MFVI([SVONRL!NQFLJ(WXFGNPN^FXNSR!W]WXJQ!IJWJVZJW!QYHM!
SK!XMJ!HVJINX!KSV!XMFX)!BMJ!HFQJVF!IJPNZJVW!LSSI!TMSXSW!FRI!FYINS'!TPYW!+-*!
QNRYXJW!SK!GFXXJV]!PNKJ)!BMJ!WTPFWMTVSSK!GSI]!HFR!MFRIPJ!F!PNLMX!VFNR)!4RI!
[MJR!]SY!TPFHJ!NX!NR!XMJ!TVSXJHXNZJ!MSYWNRL'!XMJ!QSIJP!NW![FXJV(VJWNWXFRX!XS!
F!IJTXM!SK!+0!KJJX)
,A?=)
5<95;!7?A!
0<0G>=%2><
@A956
*@CB27584;3 "'$$
.774&##999")32681+55+43576"35-#')7/32!)'1)35*+56#(+67!')7/32!)'16!,35!%$$!*300'56!35!0+66#
#
-?0A? .6A?(!26BB9?>
=NOJ!XMJ!TVJZNSYW!7S?VS!AJWWNSR!QSIJP'!XMJ!7S?VS!8JVS/!NW!PNLMX[JNLMX!FRI!
HSQTFHX'!FRI!NX!IJPNZJVW!LSSI!ZNIJS)!5YX!XYHOJI!NRWNIJ!FVJ!WSQJ!WNLRNKNHFRX!
HMFRLJW'!WXFVXNRL![NXM!ZSNHJ(HSQQFRI!HFTFGNPNX]2!ESY!WNQTP]!XJPP!NX!XS!WXFVX!
VJHSVINRL!FRI!NX!ISJW)!9X!FPWS!HFTXYVJW!.<!ZNIJS'!XMSYLM!NX$W![SVXM!RSXNRL!
XMFX!XMJ!NQFLJ!WXFGNPN^JV!NW!RSRKYRHXNSRFP![MJR!]SY$VJ!WMSSXNRL!.<'!MNLM(
IJKNRNXNSR!ZNIJS!FX!0*T'!FRI!WXNPP!TMSXSW)!BMJ!GFXXJV]!PNKJ!NW!++0!QNRYXJW)!BMJ!
HFQJVF!WYVZNZJI!KSV!-*!QNRYXJW!NR!SYV!IYRO!XFRO!FX!F!TVJWWYVJ!
FTTVS\NQFXNRL!F!IJTXM!SK!--!KJJX)
,A?=)
5<95;!7?A!
0<0G>=%2><
@A956
.7>??8=6!;8=9A!0@4!?@>D8343!1F!4)0F!*><<4@24!+4BE>@9!0=3!(<0G>=$!E7827!<094A!8B!40AF!B>!58=3!B74!@867B!
?@>3C2B!5@><!0!D0@84BF!>5!>=;8=4!@4B08;4@A%!*;8298=6!0=F!>5!B74!;8=9A!E8;;!B094!F>C!B>!B74!@4B08;4@#A!E41A8B4!B>!A7>?!
5>@!B78A!?@>3C2B%!,;40A4!=>B4!B70B!*>=AC<4@!-4?>@BA!2>;;42BA!544A!5@><!1>B7!4)0F!*><<4@24!+4BE>@9!0=3!
(<0G>=!5>@!@454@@8=6!CA4@A%!/4!CA4!'&&"!>5!B74A4!544A!B>!5C=3!>C@!B4AB8=6!?@>6@0<A%!
3!%##&!"!%#$&!',+/1*).!()-,.0/
.774&##999")32681+55+43576"35-#')7/32!)'1)35*+56#(+67!')7/32!)'16!,35!%$$!*300'56!35!0+66#
jvvr<00yyy/dguvdw{/eqo0
Fkikvcn!Ecogtcu!'!Fkikvcn!Ecogtc!Ceeguuqtkgu!.!Dguv!Dw{ae jvvr<00yyy/dguvdw{/eqo0ukvg0ecogtcu.ecoeqtfgtu0fkikvcn.ecogtcu0cdecv1512111
Rcig!2!qh!6 702603128
Rcig!3!qh!6 702603128
Rcig!4!qh!6 702603128
Rcig!5!qh!6 702603128
Rcig!6!qh!6 702603128
Cevkqp!Ecoeqtfgtu!Jgnogv!Ecou-!Cevkqp!Ecoeqtfgtu!.!Dguv!Dw{ae jvvr<00yyy/dguvdw{/eqo0ukvg0ecoeqtfgtu0cevkqp.ecoeqtfgtu0reoecv3849
Rcig!2!qh!25 702603128
Rcig!3!qh!25 702603128
Rcig!4!qh!25 702603128
Rcig!5!qh!25 702603128
Rcig!6!qh!25 702603128
Rcig!7!qh!25 702603128
Rcig!8!qh!25 702603128
Rcig!9!qh!25 702603128
Rcig!;!qh!25 702603128
Rcig!21!qh!25 702603128
Rcig!22!qh!25 702603128
Rcig!23!qh!25 702603128
Rcig!24!qh!25 702603128
Rcig!25!qh!25 702603128
Ecogtcu!!Vctigv jvvru<00yyy/vctigv/eqo0e0ecogtcu.ecoeqtfgtu.gngevtqpkeu0.0P.6zvg|
Rcig!2!qh!82 702603128
Ecogtcu!,!Ecoeqtfgtu-!Fkikvcn!UNT-!Okttqt.nguu!'!JF!Ecoeqtfgtu!!Ycnoctvaeqo jvvru<00yyy/ycnoctv/eqo0er0ecogtcu0244388
Rcig!2!qh!6 702603128
POLA
AROID CUBE
E CAMERA
PHYSICA
AL SPE
ECIMEN TO B
BE KEPT BY
Y CLER
RK
POL
LAROID CUB
BE CAM
MERA
PHY
YSICA
AL SPE
ECIMEN
N LOD
DGED W
WITH COUR
RT
Exhibit AA
POLAROID CUBE+ CAMERA
PHYSICAL SPECIMEN LODGED WITH COURT

C&A Mktg. v. GoPro - Opp'n To MSJ of Noninfringement

Caricato da

Informazioni sul documento

Titolo originale

Copyright

Formati disponibili

Condividi questo documento

Condividi o incorpora il documento

Opzioni di condivisione

Hai trovato utile questo documento?

Questo contenuto è inappropriato?

Copyright:

Formati disponibili

C&A Mktg. v. GoPro - Opp'n To MSJ of Noninfringement

Caricato da

Copyright:

Formati disponibili

Case 1:15-cv-07854-RMB-JS Document 99 Filed 06/20/17 Page 1 of 34 PageID: 1931

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

C&A MARKETING, INC.,

Plaintiff, Case No. 1:15-7854-RMB-JS

C&A MARKETING, INC.S MEMORANDUM IN OPPOSITION TO GOPRO, INC.S

MICHAEL A. JACOBS (CA SBN 111664)

Attorneys for Plaintiff C&A MARKETING, INC.

Amini Innovation Corp. v. Anthony Cal., Inc.,

Anderson v. Liberty Lobby,

Apple, Inc. v. Samsung Elecs. Co.,

Applied Arts Corp. v. Grand Rapids Metalcraft Corp.,

Arner v. Sharper Image Corp.,

Braun, Inc. v. Dynamics Corp. of Am.,

Catalina Lighting, Inc. v. Lamps Plus,

Crocs, Inc. v. ITC,

Egyptian Goddess, Inc. v. Swisa,

Ethicon Endo-Surgery, Inc. v. Covidien, Inc.,

Gorham Co. v. White,

Intl Seaway Trading Corp. v. Walgreens Corp.,

Jack Schwartz Shoes, Inc. v. Skechers U.S.A., Inc.,

L.A. Gear, Inc. v. Thom McAn Shoe Co.,

Leatherman Tool Grp. v. Cooper Indus.,

Marino v. Indus. Crating Co.,

OddzOnProducts v. Just Toys,

Oralabs, Inc. v. The Kind Group LLC

Rapha Prods. Group, LLC v. Skullcandy, Inc.,

Sears, Roebuck & Co. v. Talge,

Solar Sun Rings, Inc. v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc.,

Sport Dimension, Inc. v. Coleman Co.,

Summit 6, LLC v. Samsung Elecs. Co.,

Tristar Products, Inc. v. E. Mishan & Sons, Inc.,

Wallace v. Ideavillage Products Corp.,

Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(a) ........................................................................................................................5

other questions of fact that must be resolved by the jury?

Industry reviewers and consumer comments consistently

looks literally exactly like the Polaroid Cube, and copy.

GoPros motion for summary judgment should be denied.

II. STATEMENT OF FACTS

A. C&A Marketing Designed a New Action Camera with an Innovative

C&A Marketing, Inc. (C&A Marketing) is an innovative manufacturer, retailer, and

and gadgets. (Declaration of Ryan Gatzemeyer in Support of C&A Marketings Opposition to

C&A Marketing engaged Ammunition, LLC (Ammunition), an award-winning

was not sacrificed. (Id. Ex. D at 212:9-18; 280:3-282:12.)

A year and a half after the Cubes announcement, in

theme. (Declaration of Alan D. Ball in Support of C&A Marketings Opposition to GoPro,

Inc.s Motion for Summary Judgment of Non-Infringement (Ball Decl.) 21.)

Industry commentators and consumers alike immediately recognized

III. LEGAL STANDARD

Design patent infringement is a question of fact, to be proven by a preponderance of the

summary judgment of non-infringement where trial court applied element-by-element

1303 (Fed. Cir. 2010) (citation omitted).

A. There Are Material Disputes of Fact Regarding Whether the Accused

1. A Visual Comparison of the Claimed and Accused Designs

perspective than by scrutinizing individual elevation or plan views. (Id. 11.)

somewhat seriously, with a moderate amount of attention, as this is unlikely to be an impulse

(internal citation omitted).

GoPros arguments reinforce the heavily factual nature of the dispute.

2. A Comparison of the Accused Design to the Embodiment of the

design patent embodiment and disregarding logos.)2

observations of industry reviewers, members of the public, and . (Ball

Decl. 17; see supra at 3-5.)

3. Minor or Trivial Differences Do Not Alter the Conclusion That

judgment of noninfringement, stating that it would be inappropriate to focus on the cited