Free Opening Brief in Support - District Court of Delaware - Delaware

Case 1:07-cv-00844-GMS

Document 12

Filed 06/03/2008

Page 1 of 14

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF DELAWARE WALL CORPORATION, Plaintiff, v. BONDDESK GROUP, L.L.C., and BONDDESK TRADING, L.L.C., Defendants. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) )

C.A. No. 07-844 (GMS)

DEFENDANTS' OPENING BRIEF IN SUPPORT OF THEIR MOTION FOR A STAY OF THE PROCEEDING PENDING INTER PARTES REEXAMINATION MORRIS, NICHOLS, ARSHT & TUNNELL LLP Mary B. Graham (#2256) James W. Parrett, Jr. (#4292) 1201 N. Market Street P.O. Box 1347 Wilmington, DE 19899-1347 (302) 658-9200 [email protected] [email protected] Attorneys for BondDesk Group, L.L.C. and BondDesk Trading, L.L.C. OF COUNSEL: Michael A. Jacobs Rita F. Lin MORRISON & FOERSTER LLP 425 Market Street San Francisco, CA 94105-2482 (415) 268-7000 June 3, 2008
2351238

Case 1:07-cv-00844-GMS

Document 12

Filed 06/03/2008

Page 2 of 14

TABLE OF CONTENTS Page TABLE OF AUTHORITIES .......................................................................................................... ii INTRODUCTION ...........................................................................................................................1 RELEVANT BACKGROUND .......................................................................................................2 I. II. III. PLAINTIFF WILL NOT BE UNDULY PREJUDICED BY A STAY. ......................................................................................................................5 A STAY WILL SIMPLIFY THE ISSUES AND TRIAL OF THE CASE. ......................................................................................................................6 DISCOVERY HAS NOT COMMENCED AND NO TRIAL DATE HAS BEEN SET. .........................................................................................8

CONCLUSION................................................................................................................................9

-i-

Case 1:07-cv-00844-GMS

Document 12

Filed 06/03/2008

Page 3 of 14

TABLE OF AUTHORITIES Page(s) CASES Abbott Diabetes Care, Inc. v. Dexcom, Inc., No. 05-590 GMS, 2006 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 57469 (D. Del. Aug. 16, 2006) ..........................5, 9 Alloc, Inc. v. Unilin Decor N.V., No. 03-253-GMS, 2003 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 11917 (D. Del. Jul. 11, 2003) ........................ 4-5, 7 Anascape Ltd. v. Microsoft Corp., 475 F. Supp. 2d 612 (E.D. Tex. 2007).......................................................................................7 ASCII Corp. v. STD Entm't USA, Inc., 844 F. Supp. 1378, 30 U.S.P.Q.2d 1709 (N.D. Cal. 1994)........................................................8 Bausch & Lomb, Inc. v. Rexall Sundown, Inc., No. 03-CV-6620T, 2008 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 40385 (W.D.N.Y. May 19, 2008) ........................7 Brown v. Shimano Am. Corp., No. CV 88-6565 WJR(Bx), 1991 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 9431 U.S.P.Q.2d 1496 (C.D. Cal. Jan. 29, 1991).............................................................................................................................8 EchoStar Techs. Corp. v. TiVo, Inc., No. 5:05-CV-81 (DF), 2006 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 48431 (E.D. Tex. July 14, 2006)................. 6-7 Ethicon, Inc. v. Quigg, 849 F.2d 1422, 7 U.S.P.Q.2d 1152, 1155 (Fed. Cir. 1988) .......................................................4 Gioello Enters. Ltd. v. Mattel, Inc., No. C.A. 99-375 GMS, 2001 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 26158 (D. Del. Jan. 29, 2001) ................... 8-9 Gonnocci v. Three M Tool & Mach., Inc., No. 02-74796, 2003 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 24423, 68 U.S.P.Q.2d 1755 n.6 (E.D. Mich. Oct. 7, 2003) ..............................................................................................................................8 Middleton, Inc. v. Minn. Mining & Mfg. Co., No. 4:03-cv-40493, 2004 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 16812 (S.D. Iowa Aug. 24, 2004) .......................7 Patlex Corp. v. Mossinghoff, 758 F.2d 594, 225 U.S.P.Q. 243 (Fed. Cir. 1985) .....................................................................5 Pegasus Dev. Corp. v. DirecTV, Inc., No. 00-1020-GMS, 2003 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 8052 (D. Del. May 14, 2003)...........................4, 9

- ii -

Case 1:07-cv-00844-GMS

Document 12

Filed 06/03/2008

Page 4 of 14

Photoflex Prods., Inc. v. Circa 3 LLC, No. C 04-03715 JSW, 2006 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 37743 (N.D. Cal. May 24, 2006).....................5 Procter & Gamble Co. v. Kraft Foods Global, Inc., No. C 07-4413 PJH, 2007 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 78465 (N.D. Cal. Oct. 11, 2007) .................... 6-7 Tesco Corp. v. Varco I/P, Inc., No. H-05-2118, 2006 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 82047 (S.D. Tex. Nov. 9, 2006) ............................ 7-8

STATUTES 35 U.S.C. § 312................................................................................................................................3 35 U.S.C. § 314(b)(2) ......................................................................................................................3 35 U.S.C. § 314(c) ...........................................................................................................................4 35 U.S.C. § 315(b)(1) ......................................................................................................................7 35 U.S.C. § 315(c) ...........................................................................................................................6

OTHER AUTHORITIES MANUAL OF PATENT EXAMINING PROCEDURES § 2686.04...............................................................4

RULES Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26 .............................................................................................2, 8

- iii -

Case 1:07-cv-00844-GMS

Document 12

Filed 06/03/2008

Page 5 of 14

Defendants BondDesk Group LLC and BondDesk Trading LLC (collectively, "BondDesk") respectfully submit the following opening brief in support of their motion to stay pending inter partes reexamination of U.S. Patent No. 7,231,363 (the '363 patent), the sole patent-in-suit. INTRODUCTION BondDesk has requested inter partes reexamination before the Patent and Trademark Office (the "PTO") of every claim of the sole patent-in-suit. That reexamination request raises substantial new questions regarding the validity of the patent in light of three primary references not before the PTO during the prosecution of the patent. All of the relevant factors in this case favor a stay pending reexamination: · The reexamination request raises issues concerning the patent's priority date and the patent's validity. Staying litigation pending reexamination will simplify the issues for trial, conserve resources, and eliminate the possibility of inconsistent outcomes. That is particularly so because this reexamination is brought inter partes rather than ex parte. Unlike an ex parte reexamination, an inter partes reexamination conclusively establishes certain issues between the parties and estops parties from relitigating certain arguments that were raised or could have been raised during reexamination. · Plaintiff Wall Corporation ("Wall") will not be unduly prejudiced by a stay. Wall appears to be a patent holding company and does not compete with BondDesk, so damages will be an adequate remedy for any purported infringement during the stay. -1-

Case 1:07-cv-00844-GMS

Document 12

Filed 06/03/2008

Page 6 of 14

·

This litigation is in its infancy. No initial case management conference has been scheduled, and no discovery has been taken.

In light of these factors, and the strong policy in favor of liberally staying litigation pending reexamination, the Court should stay this litigation pending reexamination. RELEVANT BACKGROUND This litigation has just begun. Plaintiff Wall Corporation filed suit on December 26, 2007. BondDesk answered the complaint on April 11, 2008. As of the filing of this motion, no initial case management conference has been scheduled. No Rule 26(f) conference has been held, and discovery has not yet opened. No trial date has been set. None of the parties has made initial disclosures. Only one patent has been asserted in this litigation: the '363 patent, entitled "Method and System for Rebrokering Orders in a Trading System." The '363 patent is directed to a method by which a computerized system enables trading of financial instruments between various buyers and sellers via broker-dealers who act as intermediaries. The application for the '363 patent was filed on November 6, 2000, but claims priority to a provisional application filed on December 29, 1999. On June 3, 2008, BondDesk filed a request with the PTO for inter partes reexamination of the '363 patent. (See Ex. 1.) The reexamination request explains how three independent, primary references would invalidate every claim of the '363 patent. First, the request brings to the PTO's attention a patent with a priority date of April 1999 (U.S. Patent No. 6,408,282 to Buist) that specifically describes a system for trading financial instruments via broker-dealers acting as intermediaries. Second, the request alerts the PTO to an online user manual posted in April 1998 that describes a trading platform allowing a broker-dealer to -2-

Case 1:07-cv-00844-GMS

Document 12

Filed 06/03/2008

Page 7 of 14

purchase bonds from a seller and resell those bonds to a client at a higher price. That trading platform, developed by BondExchange and launched in April 1998, is the system on which defendants' current system is based. Third, the request explains that the method claimed in the '363 patent is obvious over traditional telephone trading, as described in a report by the U.S. General Accounting Office in 1987, and as analyzed under recent Federal Circuit case law. None of these three primary references was cited to the PTO during prosecution, and all three references teach features that the applicant repeatedly insisted were missing in the prior art during prosecution. In addition, the request explains that '363 patent is not entitled to its claimed priority date of December 29, 1999, because the provisional applications submitted in support of that priority date failed to adequately disclose all of the claimed elements. Accordingly, the proper priority date for the '363 patent is November 6, 2000, rather than December 29, 1999. BondDesk has sought reexamination on an inter partes basis, rather than an ex parte basis. Unlike ex parte reexamination, inter partes reexamination allows for full participation by the requester. 35 U.S.C. § 314(b)(2). Of the inter partes reexamination requests that were decided upon from FY2000 to FY2007, 96% were granted. (See Ex. 2.) Of the inter partes certificates that issued during that time, 82% resulted in cancellation of all claims, and 9% resulted in changes to the claims. Only 9% of patents survived without a change to the claims. (Id.) By statute, the PTO must decide within three months of the June 3, 2008 filing date of the reexamination request whether a substantial new question of patentability is raised by the request and, if so, must order inter partes reexamination. 35 U.S.C. § 312. The reexamination statute requires the PTO to conduct all inter partes reexamination proceedings -3-

Case 1:07-cv-00844-GMS

Document 12

Filed 06/03/2008

Page 8 of 14

"with special dispatch." 35 U.S.C. § 314(c). Moreover, because the patent is involved in litigation, the reexamination proceeding "will take precedence to any other action taken by the examiner" at the PTO. MANUAL OF PATENT EXAMINING PROCEDURES § 2686.04. Where a "litigation is stayed for the purpose of reexamination, all aspects of the [reexamination] proceeding will be expedited to the extent possible. Cases will be taken up for action at the earliest time possible, and time periods set in actions may be extended only upon a strong showing of sufficient cause." Id. ARGUMENT "Courts have inherent power to manage their dockets and stay proceedings, including the authority to order a stay pending conclusion of a PTO reexamination." Ethicon, Inc. v. Quigg, 849 F.2d 1422, 1426-27, 7 U.S.P.Q.2 d 1152, 1155 (Fed. Cir. 1988) (citation omitted). Congress anticipated in enacting the reexamination statute that district courts would conserve resources of the parties and the judiciary by liberally granting stays of litigation pending reexamination. "`[I]n passing legislation establishing the reexamination proceeding, Congress stated its approval of district courts liberally granting stays within their discretion.'" Alloc, Inc. v. Unilin Decor N.V., No. 03-253-GMS, 2003 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 11917, at *5 (D. Del. Jul. 11, 2003) (citation omitted). "`Congress enacted the reexamination procedure to provide an inexpensive, expedient means of determining patent validity which, if available and practical, should be deferred to by the courts.'" Pegasus Dev. Corp. v. DirecTV, Inc., No. 00-1020-GMS, 2003 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 8052, at *7 (D. Del. May 14, 2003) (citation omitted). The Court's decision whether to order a stay pending reexamination is guided by the following factors: "`(1) whether a stay would unduly prejudice or present a clear tactical disadvantage to the non-moving party; (2) whether a stay will simplify the issues in question and -4-

Case 1:07-cv-00844-GMS

Document 12

Filed 06/03/2008

Page 9 of 14

trial of the case; and (3) whether discovery is complete and whether a trial date has been set.'" Abbott Diabetes Care, Inc. v. Dexcom, Inc., No. 05-590 GMS, 2006 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 57469, at *17 (D. Del. Aug. 16, 2006) (citation omitted). Here, all three of those factors favor a stay. I. PLAINTIFF WILL NOT BE UNDULY PREJUDICED BY A STAY.

Wall will not be unduly prejudiced by a stay. "Granting a stay does not cause the nonmoving party undue prejudice when that party has not invested substantial expense and time in the litigation." Photoflex Prods., Inc. v. Circa 3 LLC, No. C 04-03715 JSW, 2006 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 37743, at *5 (N.D. Cal. May 24, 2006). At this early stage, Wall has not invested substantial resources in this litigation. Indeed, Wall itself would save resources by awaiting the conclusion of reexamination proceedings. If the claims are all canceled, Wall will save the time and fees required to conduct fact and expert discovery and litigate this case through trial. Conversely, if the claims survive reexamination, Wall will still save time and fees through the narrowing of the issues. See Alloc, 2003 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 11917, at *7 (granting a stay because "refinement of the issues" during reexamination "will benefit both parties by reducing litigation costs"). Furthermore, a stay would not cause undue financial prejudice to Wall. If the patent claims survive reexamination and are found to be infringed, Wall will have an adequate remedy at law. See Patlex Corp. v. Mossinghoff, 758 F.2d 594, 603, 225 U.S.P.Q. 243, 249 (Fed. Cir. 1985) (a plaintiff may recover damages for infringement that took place during reexamination). Wall appears to be a patent holding company. It is not a competitor of BondDesk and has not sought a preliminary injunction. Under those circumstances, Wall cannot claim that it is being irreparably harmed or that its business would be unduly prejudiced by a stay. -5-

Case 1:07-cv-00844-GMS

Document 12

Filed 06/03/2008

Page 10 of 14

II.

A STAY WILL SIMPLIFY THE ISSUES AND TRIAL OF THE CASE.

Absent a stay pending reexamination, the Court and the parties risk expending substantial resources unnecessarily. As of the end of FY 2007, inter partes reexaminations have resulted in cancellation of all claims in 82% of the cases and changes to the claims in another 9% of cases. (See Ex. 2.) BondDesk's request for reexamination presents multiple compelling reasons why each asserted claim is invalid, and in particular, why each such claim is anticipated or rendered obvious by three separate prior art references not considered by the PTO during prosecution. In this case, it is very likely that reexamination will eliminate the need for a trial. Even if the reexamination does not result in the cancellation of the asserted claims, it is certain to simplify the issues in question and trial of the case. Importantly, BondDesk's request is for inter partes, rather than ex parte, reexamination. "[C]ourts have an even more compelling reason to grant a stay when an inter partes reexamination is proceeding with the same parties . . . ." EchoStar Techs. Corp. v. TiVo, Inc., No. 5:05-CV-81 (DF), 2006 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 48431, at *10 (E.D. Tex. July 14, 2006). Unlike an ex parte reexamination, inter partes proceedings can produce final, binding results that third-party requesters are estopped from relitigating. Specifically, by statute, a third-party requester is estopped in litigation from asserting invalidity on any ground "which the third-party requester raised or could have raised during the inter partes reexamination proceedings." 35 U.S.C. § 315(c). Because of that estoppel effect, federal courts have held that, even in the rare cases where claims survive inter partes reexamination without amendment, "there is a high likelihood that final, binding results" in the reexamination will "have a dramatic effect on the issues before the court." Procter & Gamble Co. v. Kraft Foods Global, Inc., No. C 07-4413 PJH, 2007 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 78465, at *3 (N.D. Cal. Oct. 11, 2007). -6-

Case 1:07-cv-00844-GMS

Document 12

Filed 06/03/2008

Page 11 of 14

Because of the estoppel effect of inter partes proceedings, courts have routinely granted stays pending the outcome of such reexaminations, holding that "an inter partes reexamination can have no other effect but to streamline ongoing litigation." Echostar, 2006 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 48431, at *9; see also Bausch & Lomb, Inc. v. Rexall Sundown, Inc., No. 03CV-6620T, 2008 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 40385 (W.D.N.Y. May 19, 2008); Procter & Gamble, 2007 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 78465, at *4 (granting stay pending inter partes reexamination based on ability of such reexamination to simplify proceedings); Anascape Ltd. v. Microsoft Corp., 475 F. Supp. 2d 612, 615, 617 (E.D. Tex. 2007) (same); Tesco Corp. v. Varco I/P, Inc., No. H-05-2118, 2006 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 82047 (S.D. Tex. Nov. 9, 2006) (same); Middleton, Inc. v. Minn. Mining & Mfg. Co., No. 4:03-cv-40493, 2004 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 16812 (S.D. Iowa Aug. 24, 2004) (same). In addition, the requester in an inter partes reexamination may appeal the determination to the PTO Board of Appeals and then to the Federal Circuit. 35 U.S.C. § 315(b)(1). Thus, even if not all the claims are cancelled during reexamination, the parties and the Court will benefit from the "PTO's particular expertise" as well as the expertise of the PTO Board and the Federal Circuit in "evaluating the prior art." Alloc, 2003 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 11917, at *7. In addition, the parties and the Court will benefit from that expert appellate review in that: "(1) many discovery issues relating to prior art may be alleviated; (2) the record of reexamination likely would be entered at trial; (3) the issues, defenses, and evidence will be more easily limited in pre-trial conferences following a reexamination; and (4) the outcome of the reexamination process may encourage a settlement without further involvement of the court." Id. Here, defendants' reexamination request not only raises invalidity problems but also implicates issues regarding the patent's priority date. Allowing the PTO, the PTO Board, -7-

Case 1:07-cv-00844-GMS

Document 12

Filed 06/03/2008

Page 12 of 14

and the Federal Circuit to weigh in on those critical issues minimizes the risk of wasted resources and inconsistent rulings. See Gioello Enters. Ltd. v. Mattel, Inc., No. C.A. 99-375 GMS, 2001 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 26158, at *1 (D. Del. Jan. 29, 2001). That the PTO has not yet accepted the reexamination application should not discourage the Court from granting defendants' request for a stay. Requests for inter partes reexamination have been granted 96% of the time. (See Ex. 2.) In evaluating a motion for a stay, courts have held that whether the PTO has acted on a reexamination request is a "distinction without a difference." ASCII Corp. v. STD Entm't USA, Inc., 844 F. Supp. 1378, 1380, 30 U.S.P.Q.2d 1709, 1711 (N.D. Cal. 1994) (granting stay pending reexamination, provided the requester filed its reexamination request within 30 days of the stay order). Where a reexamination request has not yet been acted upon by the PTO, courts have held that "a stay at least is warranted while the PTO makes its initial determination as to whether to proceed with a reexamination" and that if the PTO denies the request to reexamine, "[p]laintiff can ask the Court to lift the stay at that time." See Gonnocci v. Three M Tool & Mach., Inc., No. 02-74796, 2003 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 24423, at *12 n.6, 68 U.S.P.Q.2d 1755, 1758 n.6 (E.D. Mich. Oct. 7, 2003); see also Tesco, 2006 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 82047, at *14 ("This case is stayed at least until the PTO determines whether to conduct the reexamination."); Brown v. Shimano Am. Corp., No. CV 886565 WJR(Bx), 1991 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 9431, 18 U.S.P.Q.2d 1496 (C.D. Cal. Jan. 29, 1991) (same). III. DISCOVERY HAS NOT COMMENCED AND NO TRIAL DATE HAS BEEN SET.

There can be no doubt that the final factor, which inquires whether discovery is complete and a trial date has been set, favors a stay. Discovery has not begun. Initial disclosures under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26 have not yet been made. An initial case management -8-

Case 1:07-cv-00844-GMS

Document 12

Filed 06/03/2008

Page 13 of 14

conference has neither occurred nor been scheduled; the same is true for the Markman hearing. No trial date has been set. The fact that this litigation is in its infancy weighs heavily in favor of a stay. See, e.g., Abbott, 2006 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 57469, at *20 (finding that this factor weighed in favor of a stay where fact discovery was scheduled to close six months after date of the order and trial was scheduled to begin fourteen months from date of the order); Pegasus, 2003 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 8052, at *2, 4, 7 (granting a stay where case had been pending for two and a half years and summary judgment on invalidity and non-infringement had already been briefed); Gioello, 2001 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 26158, at *1-4 (granting stay where defendant had waited 17 months to file for reexamination, summary judgment motions were pending on invalidity and infringement, and trial was scheduled two and a half months from date of order). CONCLUSION For the foregoing reasons, the Court should stay the instant litigation pending the conclusion of the inter partes reexamination of the patent-in-suit. MORRIS, NICHOLS, ARSHT & TUNNELL LLP

/s/ Mary B. Graham
Mary B. Graham (#2256) James W. Parrett, Jr. (#4292) 1201 N. Market Street P.O. Box 1347 Wilmington, DE 19899-1347 (302) 658-9200 [email protected] [email protected] Attorneys for BondDesk Group, L.L.C. and BondDesk Trading, L.L.C.

OF COUNSEL: Michael A. Jacobs Rita F. Lin MORRISON & FOERSTER LLP 425 Market Street San Francisco, CA 94105-2482 (415) 268-7000 June 3, 2008
2351238

-9-

Case 1:07-cv-00844-GMS

Document 12

Filed 06/03/2008

Page 14 of 14

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that on June 3, 2008, I caused the foregoing to be electronically filed with the Clerk of the Court using CM/ECF which will send electronic notification of such filing to the following: Karen E. Keller, Esq. YOUNG CONAWAY STARGATT & TAYLOR, LLP

Additionally, I hereby certify that true and correct copies of the foregoing were caused to be served on June 3, 2008 upon the following individuals in the manner indicated: BY E-MAIL AND HAND DELIVERY John W. Shaw, Esq. Karen E. Keller, Esq. YOUNG CONAWAY STARGATT & TAYLOR, LLP The Brandywine Building 1000 West Street, 17th Floor Wilmington, DE 19801 [email protected] [email protected] BY E-MAIL Michael W. Shore, Esq. Alfonso Garcia Chan, Esq. SHORE CHAN BRAGALONE LLP 325 North Saint Paul Street Suite 4450 Dallas, TX 75201 [email protected] [email protected]

/s/ Mary B. Graham
______________________________________ Mary B. Graham (#2256)
2248875

Case 1:07-cv-00844-GMS

Document 12-2

Filed 06/03/2008

Page 1 of 45

EXHIBIT 1

Case 1:07-cv-00844-GMS

Document 12-2

Filed 06/03/2008

Page 2 of 45

Case 1:07-cv-00844-GMS

Document 12-2

Filed 06/03/2008

Page 3 of 45

Case 1:07-cv-00844-GMS

Document 12-2

Filed 06/03/2008

Page 4 of 45

Case 1:07-cv-00844-GMS

Document 12-2

Filed 06/03/2008

Page 5 of 45

Case 1:07-cv-00844-GMS

Document 12-2

Filed 06/03/2008

Page 6 of 45

Case 1:07-cv-00844-GMS

Document 12-2

Filed 06/03/2008

Page 7 of 45

Case 1:07-cv-00844-GMS

Document 12-2

Filed 06/03/2008

Page 8 of 45

Case 1:07-cv-00844-GMS

Document 12-2

Filed 06/03/2008

Page 9 of 45

Case 1:07-cv-00844-GMS

Document 12-2

Filed 06/03/2008

Page 10 of 45

Case 1:07-cv-00844-GMS

Document 12-2

Filed 06/03/2008

Page 11 of 45

Case 1:07-cv-00844-GMS

Document 12-2

Filed 06/03/2008

Page 12 of 45

Case 1:07-cv-00844-GMS

Document 12-2

Filed 06/03/2008

Page 13 of 45

Case 1:07-cv-00844-GMS

Document 12-2

Filed 06/03/2008

Page 14 of 45

Case 1:07-cv-00844-GMS

Document 12-2

Filed 06/03/2008

Page 15 of 45

Case 1:07-cv-00844-GMS

Document 12-2

Filed 06/03/2008

Page 16 of 45

Case 1:07-cv-00844-GMS

Document 12-2

Filed 06/03/2008

Page 17 of 45

Case 1:07-cv-00844-GMS

Document 12-2

Filed 06/03/2008

Page 18 of 45

Case 1:07-cv-00844-GMS

Document 12-2

Filed 06/03/2008

Page 19 of 45

Case 1:07-cv-00844-GMS

Document 12-2

Filed 06/03/2008

Page 20 of 45

Case 1:07-cv-00844-GMS

Document 12-2

Filed 06/03/2008

Page 21 of 45

Case 1:07-cv-00844-GMS

Document 12-2

Filed 06/03/2008

Page 22 of 45

Case 1:07-cv-00844-GMS

Document 12-2

Filed 06/03/2008

Page 23 of 45

Case 1:07-cv-00844-GMS

Document 12-2

Filed 06/03/2008

Page 24 of 45

Case 1:07-cv-00844-GMS

Document 12-2

Filed 06/03/2008

Page 25 of 45

Case 1:07-cv-00844-GMS

Document 12-2

Filed 06/03/2008

Page 26 of 45

Case 1:07-cv-00844-GMS

Document 12-2

Filed 06/03/2008

Page 27 of 45

Case 1:07-cv-00844-GMS

Document 12-2

Filed 06/03/2008

Page 28 of 45

Case 1:07-cv-00844-GMS

Document 12-2

Filed 06/03/2008

Page 29 of 45

Case 1:07-cv-00844-GMS

Document 12-2

Filed 06/03/2008

Page 30 of 45

Case 1:07-cv-00844-GMS

Document 12-2

Filed 06/03/2008

Page 31 of 45

Case 1:07-cv-00844-GMS

Document 12-2

Filed 06/03/2008

Page 32 of 45

Case 1:07-cv-00844-GMS

Document 12-2

Filed 06/03/2008

Page 33 of 45

Case 1:07-cv-00844-GMS

Document 12-2

Filed 06/03/2008

Page 34 of 45

Case 1:07-cv-00844-GMS

Document 12-2

Filed 06/03/2008

Page 35 of 45

Case 1:07-cv-00844-GMS

Document 12-2

Filed 06/03/2008

Page 36 of 45

Case 1:07-cv-00844-GMS

Document 12-2

Filed 06/03/2008

Page 37 of 45

Case 1:07-cv-00844-GMS

Document 12-2

Filed 06/03/2008

Page 38 of 45

Case 1:07-cv-00844-GMS

Document 12-2

Filed 06/03/2008

Page 39 of 45

Case 1:07-cv-00844-GMS

Document 12-2

Filed 06/03/2008

Page 40 of 45

Case 1:07-cv-00844-GMS

Document 12-2

Filed 06/03/2008

Page 41 of 45

Case 1:07-cv-00844-GMS

Document 12-2

Filed 06/03/2008

Page 42 of 45

Case 1:07-cv-00844-GMS

Document 12-2

Filed 06/03/2008

Page 43 of 45

Case 1:07-cv-00844-GMS

Document 12-2

Filed 06/03/2008

Page 44 of 45

Case 1:07-cv-00844-GMS

Document 12-2

Filed 06/03/2008

Page 45 of 45

Case 1:07-cv-00844-GMS

Document 12-3

Filed 06/03/2008

Page 1 of 47

Case 1:07-cv-00844-GMS

Document 12-3

Filed 06/03/2008

Page 2 of 47

Case 1:07-cv-00844-GMS

Document 12-3

Filed 06/03/2008

Page 3 of 47

Case 1:07-cv-00844-GMS

Document 12-3

Filed 06/03/2008

Page 4 of 47

Case 1:07-cv-00844-GMS

Document 12-3

Filed 06/03/2008

Page 5 of 47

Case 1:07-cv-00844-GMS

Document 12-3

Filed 06/03/2008

Page 6 of 47

Case 1:07-cv-00844-GMS

Document 12-3

Filed 06/03/2008

Page 7 of 47

Case 1:07-cv-00844-GMS

Document 12-3

Filed 06/03/2008

Page 8 of 47

Case 1:07-cv-00844-GMS

Document 12-3

Filed 06/03/2008

Page 9 of 47

Case 1:07-cv-00844-GMS

Document 12-3

Filed 06/03/2008

Page 10 of 47

Case 1:07-cv-00844-GMS

Document 12-3

Filed 06/03/2008

Page 11 of 47

Case 1:07-cv-00844-GMS

Document 12-3

Filed 06/03/2008

Page 12 of 47

Case 1:07-cv-00844-GMS

Document 12-3

Filed 06/03/2008

Page 13 of 47

Case 1:07-cv-00844-GMS

Document 12-3

Filed 06/03/2008

Page 14 of 47

Case 1:07-cv-00844-GMS

Document 12-3

Filed 06/03/2008

Page 15 of 47

Case 1:07-cv-00844-GMS

Document 12-3

Filed 06/03/2008

Page 16 of 47

Case 1:07-cv-00844-GMS

Document 12-3

Filed 06/03/2008

Page 17 of 47

Case 1:07-cv-00844-GMS

Document 12-3

Filed 06/03/2008

Page 18 of 47

Case 1:07-cv-00844-GMS

Document 12-3

Filed 06/03/2008

Page 19 of 47

Case 1:07-cv-00844-GMS

Document 12-3

Filed 06/03/2008

Page 20 of 47

Case 1:07-cv-00844-GMS

Document 12-3

Filed 06/03/2008

Page 21 of 47

Case 1:07-cv-00844-GMS

Document 12-3

Filed 06/03/2008

Page 22 of 47

Case 1:07-cv-00844-GMS

Document 12-3

Filed 06/03/2008

Page 23 of 47

Case 1:07-cv-00844-GMS

Document 12-3

Filed 06/03/2008

Page 24 of 47

Case 1:07-cv-00844-GMS

Document 12-3

Filed 06/03/2008

Page 25 of 47

Case 1:07-cv-00844-GMS

Document 12-3

Filed 06/03/2008

Page 26 of 47

Case 1:07-cv-00844-GMS

Document 12-3

Filed 06/03/2008

Page 27 of 47

Case 1:07-cv-00844-GMS

Document 12-3

Filed 06/03/2008

Page 28 of 47

Case 1:07-cv-00844-GMS

Document 12-3

Filed 06/03/2008

Page 29 of 47

Case 1:07-cv-00844-GMS

Document 12-3

Filed 06/03/2008

Page 30 of 47

Case 1:07-cv-00844-GMS

Document 12-3

Filed 06/03/2008

Page 31 of 47

Case 1:07-cv-00844-GMS

Document 12-3

Filed 06/03/2008

Page 32 of 47

Case 1:07-cv-00844-GMS

Document 12-3

Filed 06/03/2008

Page 33 of 47

Case 1:07-cv-00844-GMS

Document 12-3

Filed 06/03/2008

Page 34 of 47

Case 1:07-cv-00844-GMS

Document 12-3

Filed 06/03/2008

Page 35 of 47

Case 1:07-cv-00844-GMS

Document 12-3

Filed 06/03/2008

Page 36 of 47

Case 1:07-cv-00844-GMS

Document 12-3

Filed 06/03/2008

Page 37 of 47

Case 1:07-cv-00844-GMS

Document 12-3

Filed 06/03/2008

Page 38 of 47

Case 1:07-cv-00844-GMS

Document 12-3

Filed 06/03/2008

Page 39 of 47

Case 1:07-cv-00844-GMS

Document 12-3

Filed 06/03/2008

Page 40 of 47

Case 1:07-cv-00844-GMS

Document 12-3

Filed 06/03/2008

Page 41 of 47

Case 1:07-cv-00844-GMS

Document 12-3

Filed 06/03/2008

Page 42 of 47

Case 1:07-cv-00844-GMS

Document 12-3

Filed 06/03/2008

Page 43 of 47

Case 1:07-cv-00844-GMS

Document 12-3

Filed 06/03/2008

Page 44 of 47

Case 1:07-cv-00844-GMS

Document 12-3

Filed 06/03/2008

Page 45 of 47

Case 1:07-cv-00844-GMS

Document 12-3

Filed 06/03/2008

Page 46 of 47

EXHIBIT 2

Case 1:07-cv-00844-GMS

Document 12-3

Filed 06/03/2008

Page 47 of 47