Free Declaration - District Court of Delaware - Delaware

Case 1:07-cv-00137-SLR Document 14 Filed O4/O4/2007 Page 1 of 3
1
` `
1
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF DELAWARE
``````````````````````````"````‘`````‘``` 7‘
SUN OPTICS, INC. :
a Utah Corporation, :
: Index No. CV 07-137 (SLR)
Plaintiff, :
v. :
FGX INTERNATIONAL, INC.,
a Delaware Corporation, :
1 :
Defendant. :
----------------------------------------- »L
1
1 DECLARATION OF ALEC TAYLOR
I, ALEC TAYLOR, state as follows:
1. I am employed by FGX Intemational, Inc. ("FGX"), the defendant in the above-
captioned Action. I have been employed continuously by FGX since October, 2005, and I serve
as FGX’s chief executive officer.
1
1 2. I submit this declaration in support of the defendant’s motion to dismiss in Sun
Optics, Inc. v. FGX International, Inc., CV 07-137 (SLR).
3. FGX is the principal operating company and wholly-owned subsidiary of FGX
International Holdings Limited. Recently, in December 2006, FGX Intemational Holdings
i Limited announced to the public that it was preparing for an initial public offering, and filed a
1
l registration statement with the Securities and Exchange Commission to commence the public
offering process. The business community is well aware of this announcement due to a press
release made by the FGX on or about December 20, 2006.
1
1
1
i 1

Case 1:07-cv-00137-SLR Document 14 Filed O4/O4/2007 Page 2 of 3
This Action’s Histogy
4. Plaintiff f1rst filed this action in Utah. Plaintiff notified.F GX that it filed the Utah
complaint soon after it was filed, but it did not inform F GX that it had dismissed that matter and
re-filed the matter in Delaware. Shortly thereafter, FGX received press inquiries from business
reporters at major newspapers about this Delaware action. FGX was, at the time, unaware that
Sun Optics had filed nearly the exact same complaint in Delaware.
5. It is my belief that business reporters at major newspapers do not usually
publicize the filing of a patent infringement case, particularly where the subject matter is as
mundane as eyeglass holders and the litigants are not well known corporations.
6. Because of the press inquiries, I suspect that plaintiff has attempted to gamer
press attention to this case in hopes that the attendant publicity would cast FGX in a bad light
and result in problems with FGX’s initial public stock offering.
7. These suspicions are based on the commonly-accepted notion in the business
community that a pending lawsuit can adversely affect a company’s opportunity to go public.
Pre-IPO companies, therefore, have a powerful incentive to settle quickly even unmeritorious
lawsuits. n
FGX’s Products At Issue In This Action
8. FGX designs and sells reading glasses, sun glasses, other eyewear products and
accessories. The products have different distribution networks. The reading glass cases at-issue
in this matter are sold by FGX almost exclusively to doctor’s offices.
9. F GX expects to ship substantially less than $ 1,000,000 worth of the products at-
issue in this case in 2007. Substantially all of those sales are made to doctor’s offices.
2

y Case 1:07-cv-00137-SLR Document 14 Filed O4/O4/2007 Page 3 of 3

l
10. FGX has no intention of selling these products in the parties common distribution
networks, which are believed to be mass and specialty retailers.
ll. Furthermore, it is my understanding that Sun Optics is not pursuing the doctor’s
office market where FGX’s goods are being marketed.
12. FGX also sells reading glasses in Rite Aid, but not the reading glass cases at-issue
in this matter. Sun Optics also sells its reading glasses in Rite Aid, on FGX’s fixtures. FGX is
quite content with the current arrangement, as Sun Optics pays FGX to stock and maintain the
fixtures. FGX has no desire to change this business relationship. Indeed, FGX has not sought to
market the products at-issue in this case to Rite Aid.
13. If a preliminary injunction issues in this action, FGX will be forced to stop
shipment of its accused products. This means that FGX will have to sit on inventory, explain
issues to investors, and lose reputation with the small but growing market it has established for
these goods.
I declare under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct. Executed on
April 2, 2007.
l
l w