C&A Mktg. v. GoPro - MSJ of Noninfringement

Case 1:15-cv-07854-RMB-JS Document 86 Filed 05/22/17 Page 1 of 3 PageID: 652
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY
C&A MARKETING, INC., Civil Action No. 1:15-cv-07854-RMB-JS

Plaintiff and Counter-Defendant, DOCUMENT FILED ELECTRONICALLY

v. Judge: Hon. Renee Marie Bumb

GOPRO, INC., Motion Day: June 19, 2017

Defendant and Counterclaimant. HEARING REQUESTED

DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL
AND RELATED COUNTERCLAIMS
NOTICE OF MOTION AND

MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT OF NON-INFRINGEMENT
KILPATRICK TOWNSEND & STOCKTON LLP

Frederick L. Whitmer (FW-8888)
1114 Avenue of the Americas
New York, NY 10036
Telephone: (212) 775-8700
Facsimile: (212) 775-8800

Mehrnaz Boroumand Smith (Pro Hac Vice)
Steven D. Moore (Pro Hac Vice)
Two Embarcadero Center, Suite 1900
San Francisco, CA 94111
Telephone: (415) 576-0200
Facsimile: (415) 576-0300
Attorneys for Defendant and Counterclaimant

GoPro, Inc.
TO: ALL COUNSEL
PLEASE TAKE NOTICE THAT Defendant, GoPro, Inc. (GoPro), by its undersigned
attorneys, moves for summary judgment of non-infringement before the United States District
Court, District of New Jersey, the Honorable Renee Marie Bumb, presiding, at the United
States Courthouse, Camden, New Jersey.
PLEASE TAKE FURTHER NOTICE THAT Defendant relies upon the pleadings and
proceedings herein and on the brief served herewith. Oral argument is requested pursuant to
L. Civ. R. 78.1(b).
A proposed form of Order is also submitted herewith.
DATED: May 22, 2017 Respectfully submitted,
By: /s/Frederick L. Whitmer

FREDERICK L. WHITMER (FW 8888)

GOPRO, INC.
-1-
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I hereby certify that on May 22, 2017 a true and correct copy of the foregoing was
served upon the counsel of record by filing it electronically with the Courts CM/ECF
system.

Frederick L. Whitmer
Case 1:15-cv-07854-RMB-JS Document 86-1 Filed 05/22/17 Page 1 of 32 PageID: 655





Defendant and Counterclaimant. DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL

AND RELATED COUNTERCLAIMS HEARING REQUESTED

REDACTED
MEMORANDUM IN SUPPORT OF GOPRO, INC.S


New York, NY 10036
Telephone: (212) 775-8700
Facsimile: (212) 775-8800

Telephone: (415) 576-0200
Facsimile: (415) 576-0300

GoPro, Inc.
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
I. INTRODUCTION .......................................................................................................... 1
II. STATEMENT OF UNDISPUTED FACTS ................................................................... 2
A. The Complaint and D423 Patent ....................................................................... 2
B. The Session Cameras .......................................................................................... 3
III. APPLICABLE LAW ...................................................................................................... 5
A. Standard for Summary Judgment........................................................................ 5
B. Standard for Design Patent Infringement ........................................................... 6
IV. GOPRO SHOULD BE GRANTED SUMMARY JUDGMENT OF

NON-INFRINGEMENT AS PLAINTIFF CANNOT SUSTAIN
ITS BURDEN ................................................................................................................. 8
A. The Prior Art Establishes that the D423 Patent Cannot Claim All Designs
for a Cubic Camera ............................................................................................. 8
B. The Undisputed Facts Demonstrate that C&A Marketing Cannot Show the
Claimed and Accused Designs Are Substantially the Same ......................... 10
1. A Side-by-Side Comparison of the Claimed and Accused Designs

Reveals Plainly-Dissimilar Appearances that Preclude
Infringement .......................................................................................... 10
2. C&A Marketing Lacks a Viable Infringement Theory ......................... 16
a) C&A Marketing Disregards Design Features Claimed in

the D423 Patent that Are Clearly Missing in the Session
Cameras..................................................................................... 16
b) C&A Marketings Remaining Infringement Assertions Are

Also Unsupported and Fail to Establish that the Session
Cameras Are Substantially the Same in Design ....................... 18
C. Purported Disputes about the Prior Art Cannot Prevent Summary

Judgment of Non-Infringement Here ................................................................ 24
D. Baseless Allegations of Confusion Do Not Preclude Summary Judgment ... 25
V. CONCLUSION ............................................................................................................. 27
-i-
TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
Page(s)
Cases
Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc.,

477 U.S. 242 (1986) ...................................................................................................................5
Arthur A. Collins, Inc. v. N. Telecom Ltd.,

216 F.3d 1042 (Fed. Cir. 2000)..................................................................................................6
Azur v. Chase Bank, USA, Natl Assn,

601 F.3d 212 (3d Cir. 2010).......................................................................................................6
Celotex Corp. v. Catrett,

477 U.S. 317 (1986) ...................................................................................................................6
Contessa Food Prods., Inc. v. Conagra, Inc.,

282 F.3d 1370 (Fed. Cir. 2002), abrogated in part on other grounds ............................. passim
Crocs, Inc. v. Intl Trade Commn,

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

543 F.3d 665 (Fed. Cir. 2008)....................................................................................1, 6, 10, 26
Ethicon Endo-Surgery, Inc. v. Covidien, Inc.,

796 F.3d 1312 (Fed. Cir. 2015)................................................................................7, 14, 15, 23
Fanimation, Inc. v. Dans Fan City, Inc.,

No. 1:08-cv-1071-TWP-WGH, 2010 WL 5285304 (S.D. Ind. Dec. 16, 2010) .............7, 10, 17
High Point Design LLC v. Buyers Direct, Inc.,

621 F. Appx 632 (Fed. Cir. 2015) ..........................................................................................13
Matsushita Elec. Indus. Co. v. Zenith Radio Corp.,

475 U.S. 574 (1986) ...................................................................................................................6
Pac. Handy Cutter, Inc. v. Quick Point Inc.,

No. SA CV96-399GLT(EEX), 1997 WL 607501 (C.D. Cal. July 7, 1997),
affd, 178 F.3d 1307 (Fed. Cir. 1998) ......................................................................................25
Tristar Prods., Inc. v. E. Mishan & Sons, Inc.,

Civil No. 17-1204 (RMB/JS), 2017 WL 1404315 (D.N.J. Apr. 19, 2017)
(Bumb, J.).....................................................................................................................18, 19, 22
- ii -
Unette Corp. v. Unit Pack Co., Inc.,

785 F.2d 1026 (Fed. Cir. 1986)................................................................................................25
Wallace v. Ideavillage Prods. Corp.,

No. 06-CV-5673-JAD, 2014 WL 4637216 (D.N.J. Sept. 15, 2014) ............................... passim
Wing Shing Prods. (BVI) Co. v. Sunbeam Prods., Inc.,

665 F. Supp. 2d 357 (S.D.N.Y. 2009)..................................................................................6, 19
Other Authorities
Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(c) ........................................................................................................................2
Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(a) ........................................................................................................................5
- iii -
I. INTRODUCTION
This brief supports GoPros Motion for an Order holding that GoPros HERO Session
(originally named HERO4 Session) and HERO5 Session cameras (collectively, Session
Cameras) do not infringe C&A Marketings design patent rights. As this brief demonstrates,
C&A Marketings claim of design patent infringement against the Session Cameras fails to
present any disputes of material fact. Rather, it presents a straightforward question: can a
reasonable jury find that two plainly-dissimilar camera designs nonetheless appear substantially
the same to the ordinary observer? The answer is simply no.
Under the relevant standard enunciated by the Federal Circuit in Egyptian Goddess, C&A
Marketing must introduce evidence warranting trial on whether a hypothetical ordinary
observer with knowledge of the prior art would consider the claimed and accused designs
substantially the same. C&A Marketing cannot do so. The notion at the heart of C&A
Marketings infringement allegationsthat it has exclusive rights in the cubic shape of a
cameradefies common sense. The abundance of prior art cube-shaped cameras establishes that
the asserted patent does not grant a monopoly over cube-like cameras. Moreover, in viewing
the claimed C&A Marketing designas set forth in all seven figures of its design patent
against each physical side of the Session Cameras and the cameras as a whole, no reasonable
factfinder could find infringement. Indeed, the manifest differences between the claimed and
accused designs compel a conclusion of non-infringement as a matter of law, as both the Federal
Circuit and this Court have ruled under similar circumstances.
Against this undisputed evidence, C&A Marketing is expected to offer the opinion of its
design expert, but conclusory expert testimony cannot change the appearance of the patented
design or the appearance of the Session Cameras. C&A Marketing also is likely to rely on
uncorroborated statements on websites that even its own expert admits are not competent
1
evidence of infringement, and to tout this Courts earlier denial of GoPros Rule 12(c) motion.
But now, with the completion of discovery and the Session Products before the Court, the
undisputed facts here warrant summary judgment in favor of GoPro on C&A Marketings
infringement claim for the reasons set forth in detail below.
II. STATEMENT OF UNDISPUTED FACTS
A. The Complaint and D423 Patent
On November 3, 2015, Plaintiff C&A Marketing, Inc. (C&A Marketing) sued GoPro,
Inc. (GoPro) for alleged design patent infringement asserting U.S. Patent No. D730,423 (the
D423 Patent). See Statement of Material Facts Not in Dispute (Undisputed Facts) 1. The
D423 Patent issued on May 26, 2015, with a priority date of no earlier than January 5, 2014.
See Undisputed Facts 2.
The D423 Patent claims [t]he ornamental design for a cubic action camera, as shown
and described [in the figures]. See Undisputed Facts 3. It does not purport to claim a design
for a camera of any particular size or color. See Undisputed Facts 4. The D423 Patent
contains seven figures showing different views of the claimed camera design:
2
See Undisputed Facts 5. C&A Marketing asserts its Polaroid Cube and Polaroid Cube+
products (depicted below) embody the design of the D423 Patent:
See Mosley Decl., 5; Ex. 1 (Ball Infringement Report) 6.
B. The Session Cameras
C&A Marketing accuses the Session Cameras of infringing the D423 Patent. See
Undisputed Facts 8. The HERO4 Session and HERO Session share an identical external
appearance, other than slightly different logos.1 Undisputed Facts 9; Gioscia Decl., 8. The
HERO5 Session shares the same design as the HERO4 Session and HERO Session, except that it
has a different logo, different color, a larger rear button, and a removable I/O door. See
1
The HERO Session is a rebranded version of the HERO4 Session. See Undisputed Facts 9.
3
Undisputed Facts 10. C&A Marketing admits the differences between the external appearance
of the Session Cameras are immaterial for purposes of evaluating infringement. See Undisputed
Facts 11.
GoPro began work in 2011 on what became the Session Cameras, in an effort to create a
small, rugged, and easily-mountable waterproof camerayears before C&A Marketing
commissioned an industrial design firm to design its Polaroid Cube. See Mosley Decl., Ex. 3
(Samuels Depo Tr.), at 229:19-234:22, 239:16-244:10, and Depo Ex. 409; Ex. 4 (Vandenbussche
Depo Tr.) at 10:19-23; Gioscia Decl., 4. So that its users could mount the product in different
ways on, for instance, a helmet, GoPro conceived of a camera with a square form factor that
could be mounted in any of four 90-degree orientations. Mosley Decl., Ex. 3 (Samuels Depo
Tr.), at 233:20-234:22; Gioscia Decl., 5. GoPro sought the smallest possible camera design
with this square form factor, and by 2012, it had internally drafted specifications for a 35 x 35 x
30 mm camera. See id. 5 and Ex. A; Mosley Decl., Ex. 3 (Samuels Depo Tr.), at 260:7-262:17,
289:15-291:4, and Depo Ex. 414. Development continued over several years to ensure that the
camera lived up to GoPros industry-leading standards for photo and video quality, durability,
and battery life within the context of the desired new design. Gioscia Decl., 6.
By Fall 2013prior to the announcement of the Polaroid CubeGoPro had largely
finalized the industrial design (that is, the external appearance) of the camera that became the
HERO4 Session, including the final dimensions of the product of 38 x 38 36.4 mm. See Gioscia
Decl., 6 and Ex. B; Mosley Decl., Ex. 3 (Samuels Depo Tr.), at 256:23-258:20. GoPro
subsequently learned about the Polaroid Cube in January 2014, when C&A Marketing
announced the product just ahead of the 2014 Consumer Electronics Show (CES) and showed a
non-functioning mock-up of the product there. See Gioscia Decl., 7; Mosley Decl., Ex. 3
4
(Samuels Depo Tr.), at 178:16-179:2; Ex. 5 (Tolbert Depo Tr.), at 177:19-24; Ex. 6 (Gioscia
8/25 Depo Tr.), at 54:2-8 and 108:7-17.
The HERO4 Session, which was released in July 2015, was the culmination of the
companys 2011 visiona small, rugged, and easily-mountable camera. See Gioscia Decl.,
4-6, 8. GoPros innovative design for the HERO4 Session is protected by, inter alia, U.S.
Patent No. D745,589 (the D589 patent), which issued on December 15, 2015. See id., 10-
11 and Ex. 8. Notably, the same U.S. Patent and Trademark Office Examiner (Adir Aronovich)
who allowed the application which led to C&A Marketings D423 Patent subsequently
examined and allowed the GoPro D589 patent to issue over the D423 Patentsignaling the
Examiner recognized that the D589 patent was sufficiently distinct over the D423 Patent
design. See Mosley Decl., 11-14; Ex. 8 (D589 Notice of Allowance), Ex. 9 (D589 patent)
and Ex. 10 (D423 patent).
Likewise, a side-by-side comparison of the Session Cameras with the figures of the
D423 Patent confirms the Examiners conclusion and that there can be no dispute that an
ordinary observer would not consider the designs to be substantially the same. That
conclusion, elaborated below, compels summary judgment of non-infringement.
III. APPLICABLE LAW
A. Standard for Summary Judgment
Summary judgment is appropriate if 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 fact is material if it might affect the outcome of the suit under the governing law.
Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 248 (1986). A genuine issue of material fact
exists for trial if the evidence is such that a reasonable jury could return a verdict for the
nonmoving party. Id.
5
Where, as here, the non-moving party bears the burden of proof at trial, the moving party
may discharge its burden by showing that there is an absence of evidence to support the
nonmoving partys case. Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 325 (1986). If the movant
meets this burden, the non-movant must then set forth specific facts that demonstrate the
existence of a genuine issue for trial. See id. at 324; Azur v. Chase Bank, USA, Natl Assn, 601
F.3d 212, 216 (3d Cir. 2010). The non-moving party must do more than simply show that there
is some metaphysical doubt as to the material facts to survive summary judgment. Matsushita
Elec. Indus. Co. v. Zenith Radio Corp., 475 U.S. 574, 586 (1986). Moreover, conclusory expert
testimony is not sufficient to create a genuine issue of material fact. See Arthur A. Collins, Inc.
v. N. Telecom Ltd., 216 F.3d 1042, 1046 (Fed. Cir. 2000) ([I]t is well settled that an experts
unsupported conclusion on the ultimate issue of infringement is insufficient to raise a genuine
issue of material fact.).
B. Standard for Design Patent Infringement
The test for design patent infringement is whether a claimed design and an accused
design appear substantially the same to the ordinary observer. See Egyptian Goddess, Inc. v.
Swisa, Inc., 543 F.3d 665, 678 (Fed. Cir. 2008) (emphasis added). The ordinary observer is not
just any observer or purchaser; rather, the test endows its hypothetical ordinary observer with
the knowledge and competence to distinguish between the patented object and its predecessors
[in the prior art]. Wing Shing Prods. (BVI) Co. v. Sunbeam Prods., Inc., 665 F. Supp. 2d 357,
361 (S.D.N.Y. 2009) (citing Egyptian Goddess, 543 F.3d at 67879).
The ordinary observer test requires a side-by-side comparison of the figures of the design
patent with the accused product. See Crocs, Inc. v. Intl Trade Commn, 598 F.3d 1294, 1304
(Fed. Cir. 2010). The court must consider each and every figure of the design patent as part of
the side-by-side comparison. See Contessa Food Prods., Inc. v. Conagra, Inc., 282 F.3d 1370,
6
137879 (Fed. Cir. 2002) ([T]he ordinary observer analysis is not limited to the ornamental
features of a subset of the drawings, but instead must encompass the claimed ornamental features
of all figures of a design patent.), abrogated in part on other grounds by Egyptian Goddess, 543
F.3d at 678. Moreover, the test requires consideration of not just the views of the accused
product that are visible when it is purchased, but of all ornamental features visible at any time
during normal use of the [accused] product. Id. at 1381.
Where the claimed and accused designs are sufficiently distinct and plainly
dissimilar, the patentee fails to meet its burden of proving infringement as a matter of law.
Ethicon Endo-Surgery, Inc. v. Covidien, Inc., 796 F.3d 1312, 1335 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (quoting
Egyptian Goddess, 543 F.3d at 678). Differences [in design] must be evaluated in the context
of the claimed design as a whole, and not in the context of separate elements in isolation. Id.
An examination of the prior art is important to determine the scope of the claimed design
and infringement (or lack thereof). Id. at 1337 (citing Egyptian Goddess, 543 F.3d at 678). This
is especially true when a field is crowded with many references relating to the design[.] See
Wallace v. Ideavillage Prods. Corp., No. 06-CV-5673-JAD, 2014 WL 4637216, at *4 (D.N.J.
Sept. 15, 2014) (citations/internal quotations omitted); see also Fanimation, Inc. v. Dans Fan
City, Inc., No. 1:08-cv-1071-TWP-WGH, 2010 WL 5285304, at *3 (S.D. Ind. Dec. 16, 2010)
([T]he need to review prior art is especially acute where, as here, the prior art is fairly robust.).
As shown below, this is a crowded field, requiring a careful assessment against the prior art.
The ordinary observer is presumed to be aware of all prior art designs and the
infringement analysis is done in light of the prior art, meaning the ordinary observer must
focus on aspects of the claimed design that are different from that which existed in prior art. See
Crocs, 598 F.3d at 1303.
7
IV. GOPRO SHOULD BE GRANTED SUMMARY JUDGMENT OF NON-

INFRINGEMENT AS PLAINTIFF CANNOT SUSTAIN ITS BURDEN
A. The Prior Art Establishes that the D423 Patent Cannot Claim All Designs
for a Cubic Camera
While the Court need not even consider the prior art to conclude the claimed and accused
designs are not substantially the same (or anything close to it), the prior art nonetheless
illustrates the futility of C&A Marketings infringement claim, which rests on the dubious
proposition that the D423 Patent grants a monopoly on any cube-like camera. To the
contrary, as the Federal Circuit stated in Crocs, [i]f the claimed design is close to the prior art
designs, small differences between the accused design and the claimed design assume more
importance to the eye of the hypothetical ordinary observer. See Crocs, 598 F.3d at 1303. The
plethora of prior art shows that cube-like cameras were known long before the D423 Patent.
Below are just a few of many examples of prior art cubic shaped cameras:
Exemplary Prior Art Cameras
(1) D935 (2011) (2) D480 (2010) (3) D386 (2001) (4) D868 (2013)
Microsoft Panasonic Fujitsu Amaryllo
The images depicted above are of: (1) Figure 8 of U.S. Patent No. D647,935, entitled
Electronic Camera, which issued November 1, 2011 and was assigned to Microsoft (far left);
(2) Figure 8 of U.S. Patent No. D616,480, entitled Network Camera, which issued May 25,
2010 and was assigned to Panasonic (center left); (3) Figure 1 of U.S. Patent No. D441,386,
8
entitled Body of a Video Camera, which issued May 1, 2001 and was assigned to Fujitsu
(center right); and (4) Figure 1 of U.S. Patent No. D713,868, entitled Wireless IP Camera,
which was filed June 19, 2013 and was assigned to Amaryllo (far right). See Visser Decl., Exs.
47, 11. Each of these prior art designs illustrates the prevalence of cube-like cameras long
before C&A Marketing secured its design patent.2
Because the hypothetical ordinary observer is presumed to be familiar with all prior art
designs, the ordinary observer will attribute less significance to features of claimed and accused
designs which are similar to the prior art. See Crocs, 598 F.3d at 1303 (When the differences
between the claimed and accused designs are viewed in light of the prior art, the attention of the
hypothetical ordinary observer may be drawn to those aspects of the claimed design that differ
from the prior art.). Here, the ordinary observer would discount entirely the cubic shape of the
D423 Patent in view of the multitude of earlier cube-like cameras:
Juxtaposition of D423 Patent Figure 1 (Center)

to Exemplary Prior Art Cameras (Left/Right)
D480 (2010) D423 Patent (2015) D386 (2001)

Panasonic C&A Marketing Fujitsu
As shown above, it is indisputable that cameras with cube-like designs were known well before
C&A Marketing filed the application which led to the D423 Patent. Consequently, the ordinary
2
Indeed, the Examiner was aware of three of these references when allowing the D423 patent
to issue despite this prior artall but the Microsoft cameraand thus found the specific design
elements of the D423 other than its cubic shape sufficiently distinct to allow the patent to issue
in the first place. Mosley Decl., 12 and Ex. 9 (citing prior art references).
9
observer will discount the general cube-like form of the D423 Patent and focus on the claimed
design elements within that overall formelements unmistakably different in or missing entirely
from the Session Cameras. Especially in light of the crowded field of prior art cube-like
cameras, the plain dissimilarity in overall appearance between the D423 Patent and the Session
Cameras is not a close question. See Ideavillage, 2014 WL 4637216, at *4; Fanimation, 2010
WL 5285304, at *3 ([T]he need to review prior art is especially acute where, as here, the prior
art is fairly robust.).
B. The Undisputed Facts Demonstrate that C&A Marketing Cannot Show the
Claimed and Accused Designs Are Substantially the Same
1. A Side-by-Side Comparison of the Claimed and Accused Designs

Reveals Plainly-Dissimilar Appearances that Preclude Infringement
A side-by-side comparison of the figures of the D423 Patent and the Session Cameras
reveals manifest differences between the claimed and accused designs, such that the ordinary
observer could not find the designs to be substantially the same. Egyptian Goddess, 543 F.3d
at 678. To aid this Courts evaluation of the claimed and accused designs, GoPro is concurrently
lodging physical specimens of each of the Session Cameras to compare to the figures of the
D423 Patent. A side-by-side comparison of the claimed and accused designs is also shown on
the following two pages:
10
Fig. 1 Perspective View
Fig. 2 Front
Fig. 3 Rear
11
Fig. 4 Left
Fig. 5 Right
Fig. 6 Top
Fig. 7 Bottom
12
See Undisputed Facts 12.3
As reflected in the images above, there are numerous differences between the claimed
and accused designs leading to a distinct overall visual impression, including for example:
A narrow stripe wraps around the left and right sides and portions of the front and back of
the camera depicted in D423 Patent (as shown in Figures 25), but is missing entirely
from the Session Cameras (Undisputed Facts 13);
A square front including a front view of the narrow stripe in the middle-left and middle-
right portions and a bezel that gradually tapers toward a domed lens is in the design
claimed in the D423 Patent (as shown in Figure 2). By contrast, the square-front
perimeter of the Session Cameras includes eight screws and eight small holes in the
upper-left portion of the perimeter, as well as a glass cover and a single, round step
centered further from the lens (Undisputed Facts 14);
A prominent large circle-shaped ornamentation with an inscribed, horizontal slot between
the wrap-around, narrow stripe is on the rear-side of the camera depicted in the D423
Patent (as shown in Figure 3), which is missing entirely from the Session Cameras
(Undisputed Facts 15);
An oversized top button covers a large portion of the top surface of the camera depicted
in the D423 Patent (as shown in Figures 1 and 6), in contrast to the smaller and visually
3
GoPro is also lodging specimens of the Polaroid Cube and Cube+, which C&A Marketing
contends embody the D423 Patent. See Undisputed Facts 6. However, the appropriate
analysis under the relevant law is between the figures of the D423 Patent and the Session
Cameras, not between the Cube or Cube+ and the Session Cameras. See High Point Design
LLC v. Buyer's Direct, Inc., 621 F. Appx 632, 642 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (We have long-cautioned
that it is generally improper to determine infringement by comparing an accused product with
the patentees purported commercial embodiment. The proper test for infringement is
performed by measuring the accused products against the claimed design.).
13
distinct button and separate user display screen on the top surface of the Session Cameras
(Undisputed Facts 16);
A large double-circular region is on the bottom-side of the camera depicted in the D423
Patent (as shown in Figure 7), which is missing entirely from the Session Cameras
(Undisputed Facts 17); and
A perfectly rounded cube, in which all corners are equally rounded in all directions, is in
the camera design depicted in the D423 Patent, whereas the corners of the Session
Cameras are not rounded towards the front and rear, only the sides (Undisputed Facts
18).
Numerous courts, including the Federal Circuit and this Court, have found non-
infringement as a matter of law when presented with analogous, plain dissimilarities between the
claimed and accused designseven where the claimed and accused designs may have a similar
overall shape on a conceptual level. For example, the Federal Circuit in Ethicon affirmed a
lower court grant of summary judgment of no design patent infringement where a claimed design
and accused surgical device simply d[id] not look alike except for the fact that both are hand-
held surgical devices with open trigger handles. 796 F.3d at 1335.
See id. In reaching its decision, the Federal Circuit specifically noted that:
14
[o]n a general conceptual level, both designs include an open trigger, a small
activation button, and a fluted torque knob in relatively similar positions within
the underlying ultrasonic device. Similarity at this conceptual level, however, is
not sufficient to demonstrate infringement of the claimed designs.
Id. at 133536 (emphasis added). The Ethicon Court then reviewed ornamental features of the
claimed and accused devices and concluded that the dissimilarities between the designs [were]
plain. Id. The Court held that summary judgment was appropriate because the two designs
were plainly dissimilardespite having similarity at a general conceptual level. See id. at
133637.
As another example, this Court in Wallace v. Ideavillage Products Corp. granted
summary judgment of no design patent infringement in a lawsuit concerning a body washing
brush. See No. 06-CV-5673-JAD, 2014 WL 4637216. An exemplary comparison of the claimed
and accused designs is depicted below:
Mosley Decl., Ex. 15 at 7 (No. 06-CV-5673-JAD, Dkt. No. 61-7, at *7).
The Ideavillage Court found manifest differences in the overall appearance of the
claimed and accused designs, including: (1) straight versus a curved handle; (2) a finger grip
which was missing from the accused design; (3) a flat threaded opening at the base of the handle
in the claimed design versus a pointed end with an aperture; (4) a round head with a two-tiered
brush in the claimed design versus an oblong head without a two-tiered brush; (5) a protrusion at
the back of the brush head in the claimed design versus a smooth back of the brush head with no
15
protrusion; and (6) the absence of a decoration at the back of the handle in the claimed design
versus an oval-shaped decoration at the neck of the handle in the accused design. Ideavillage,
2014 WL 4637216, at *34. On the basis of these differences, the Ideavillage Court found there
could be no infringement as a matter of law. See id. at *4.
Further, the Ideavillage Court noted the crowded field of prior art brush designs,
including a prior art design patent with a similar rounded head with a round protrusion on its
backside, a straight handle, and a similar finger grip. See id. at *5. The Ideavillage Court
observed how similarities between the claimed and prior art designs further accentuated the
differences between the claimed and accused designs. See id.
Here, C&A Marketing and its infringement expert admit that
. See Undisputed Facts 19
).
Thus, the numerous and substantial differences evident from a side-by-side comparison of the
D423 Patent figures to the Session Cameras means that the ordinary observer would not view
the two designs as substantially the same, precluding infringement as a matter of law.
2. C&A Marketing Lacks a Viable Infringement Theory
a) C&A Marketing Disregards Design Features Claimed in the

D423 Patent that Are Clearly Missing in the Session Cameras
Faced with plainly dissimilar claimed and accused designs, C&A Marketing and its
infringement expert endeavor to contort the law by arguing that numerous obvious design
differences are somehow immaterial to the infringement analysis. That is plain error. With
respect to the missing design features identified above (including the complete absence of the
design features shown on Figures 3 and 7 of the D423 Patent),
16
. See Undisputed Facts 20. As
he states in his February 10, 2017 expert report:
See Undisputed Facts 21. Left with no other options, C&A Marketing assigned Mr. Ball the
unenviable task of arguing that these missing design features simply do not matter to the
infringement analysis or the hypothetical ordinary observer.
Mr. Ball is wrong on the law, which requires that all of the figures of the patent and all of
the ornamental features in the D423 Patents figures be considered as part of the infringement
analysis. See Fanimation, 2010 WL 5285304, at *4 (rejecting plaintiffs argument that an
ordinary observer would disregard differences between the blades of a claimed and accused
ceiling fan design because the patent claims the entire ceiling fan: [T]he hypothetical ordinary
observer . . . is more discerning than [plaintiff] portrays. This ordinary observer is conversant in
the prior art and examines all features of the product. (emphasis in original)); Contessa, 282
F.3d at 1381 (ordinary observer test is not limited to those features visible at the point of sale,
but instead must encompass all ornamental features visible at any time during normal use of
the product. (emphasis added)).
This Court recently held that an ordinary observer would not view the design of [an
accused cooking pan] to be the same or a colorable imitation of the patented designs where the
claimed and accused designs contained obvious differences:
17
See Tristar Prods., Inc. v. E. Mishan & Sons, Inc., Civil No. 17-1204 (RMB/JS), 2017 WL
1404315, at *23 (D.N.J. Apr. 19, 2017) (Bumb, J.). This Court specifically noted differences
such as the plain center circle present in one of the asserted design patents but missing from the
accused product, as well as the difference in the number and alignment of the small circles
visible on both the claimed and accused designs. See id. at *3. Indeed, this Court held an
ordinary observer would not consider the designs substantially the same based on plain
dissimilarities visible from just this single view of the claimed and accused designs. See id.
Accordingly, C&A Marketing lacks any basis to dismiss the absence of design features from
multiple views of the Session Cameras as immaterial to the infringement analysis, particularly
where such absence illustrates the plain dissimilarity between the claimed and accused designs.
b) C&A Marketings Remaining Infringement Assertions Are Also

Unsupported and Fail to Establish that the Session Cameras Are
Substantially the Same in Design
In an attempt to assert infringement where none exists, C&A Marketing
18
See Mosley Decl., Ex. 1 (Ball Infringement Report) 116, 117, 122124. The descriptions
C&A Marketing gives these features are far too abstractfor instance, it ignores differences
even between the basic cubic shape or rounded corners of the D423 Patent and appearance
of allegedly similar features in the Session Cameras. But even if a factfinder could disregard the
absence of ornamental design features in evaluating design patent infringement, which would
ignore prevailing law (see Contessa, 282 F.3d at 137879; Tristar, 2017 WL 1404315, at *3),
C&A Marketing still cannot show the claimed and accused designs are substantially the same.
The crux of C&A Marketings infringement case rests on its assertion that the Session
Cameras are basically a cube. Yet, the prior art shown above and applicable law make clear
that the ordinary observer would give little or no weight to this alleged similarity. Crocs, 598
F.3d at 1303; Wing Shing Prods., 665 F. Supp. 2d at 361; see also Section IV(A) above.
Mosley Decl., Ex. 1 (Ball Infringement
Report) 167; Ex. 2 (Ball Depo Tr.) at 141:13-142:8.
C&A Marketings argument
also
fails. As shown below, the rounded corners of Figure 1 of the D423 Patent (depicted on the left)
are rounded in all three dimensions, and are manifestly distinct from the rounded edges of the
Accused Products (depicted on the right) (Visser Decl., 12):
19
D423 Patent Session Cameras
Notably, Mr. Ball . See Mosley Decl.,
Ex. 1 (Ball Infringement Report) 167. Indeed, the rounded edges of the Session Cameras
more closely resemble the prior art (e.g., Figure 8 of Microsofts U.S. Patent No. D647,935,
depicted on the right) than the D423 Patent, rendering Mr. Balls argument all the more futile:
D423 Patent (2015) Session Cameras (2015) Microsoft D935 (2011)
Likewise, a side-by-side comparison of the front-side view of the D423 Patent to a
corresponding view of the Session Cameras dispels any notion that the large, rounded, square
face panel in front with a round lens in the center of the Session Cameras looks even remotely
comparable. See Visser Decl., 14. An ordinary observer would not accord significance to a
round lens in the center in view of copious prior art cube-shaped cameras with round lenses in
their center, such as in the following example:
20
D423 Patent (2015) D386 Patent (2001) Fujitsu

Fig. 2 (front view) Fig. 2 (front view)
Rather, an ordinary observer would focus on the differences between the front of the D423
Patents camera and the Session Cameraswith the D423 having a front face with a narrow
stripe or band in the middle-left and middle-right and a bezel that gradually tapers toward a
domed-lens, compared to the Session Cameras having a visually-distinct, square-front perimeter
with eight screws, eight small holes in the upper-left portion of the perimeter, a glass cover, and
a single, round step centered further from the lens. (Visser Decl., 16.)
Fig. 2 Front
C&A Marketings Mr. Ball, himself,
See
Mosley Decl., Ex. 2 (Ball Depo Tr.) at 147:23-148:8.
21
C&A Marketings claim that the round button on top of the Session Cameras is
substantially the same as the button claimed in the D423 Patent similarly disregards the obvious
difference between the relative sizes of the top button depicted in the D423 Patent and the
Session Cameras, as well as the overall visual dissimilarity apparent from a side-by-side
comparison of their top-side views reflecting distinct button designs, distinct corner designs, and
an electronic display featured on the Session Cameras:
Fig. 6 Top
See Undisputed Facts 22. The difference in both the size, shape, and design of the top buttons
of the claimed and accused designs shows the claimed and accused designs are not substantially
the same, much like the difference between the claimed and accused induction plates this Court
compared in Tristar:
See Tristar, 2017 WL 1404315, at *23.
22
Finally, with respect to the horizontal band-shaped door (a functional component which
covers a USB port and microSD card slot), C&A Marketing simply grasps at straws by trying to
equate a feature which consumes the vast majority of one side of the Session Cameras to the
narrow decorative stripe claimed in the D423 Patent that wraps around the sides and parts of the
front and back, as depicted in Figures 15. In addition to looking nothing alike in the first
instance, C&A Marketings attempt to equate these design features fails because the narrow
decorative stripe of the D423 Patent wraps around to the front- and back-side views of the
D423 Patent, whereas neither the horizontal band-shaped door of the Session Cameras nor
any feature of the side opposite that door wraps around in this fashion (
). See Undisputed Facts 23.
Here, precisely as in each of the decisions referenced above, there are manifest
differences between the design claimed in the D423 Patent and the design of the Session
Cameras, notwithstanding any superficial similarity at a general conceptual level owing merely
to the cube-like appearance of the Session Cameras. See Ideavillage, 2014 WL 4637216, at *3
4; Ethicon, 796 F.3d at 133637. Likewise, the complete absence of design features from the
D423 Patent from multiple views of the Session Cameras (depicted below) is alone sufficient to
find non-infringement in this case. See Undisputed Facts 12, 13, 15, and 17; Ideavillage,
2014 WL 4637216, at *34. Moreover, because the ordinary observer must heavily discount the
cube-like appearance of the Session Cameras in evaluating whether the patented and accused
designs are substantially the same, no reasonable juror could find in C&A Marketings favor
on the issue of design patent infringement. See Ethicon, 796 F.3d at 1335; Ideavillage, 2014 WL
4637216, at *4. GoPro should be granted summary judgment on that basis.
23
C. Purported Disputes about the Prior Art Cannot Prevent Summary

Judgment of Non-Infringement Here
C&A Marketing may dispute the relevance of GoPros identified prior art because the
references are not action camerasan arbitrary distinction that is inconsistent with the history
of cameras and the D423 Patents file history. See Visser Decl., 13. Such an argument lacks
merit. C&A Marketing itself
See Mosley Decl.,
. This is confirmed by C&A Marketings documents, which emphasize its desire to target
Mosley Decl., Exs. 1719.
Even C&A Marketings expert
See Mosley Decl., Ex. 2
(Ball Depo Tr.), at 52:16-53:2.
Moreover, action cameras are cameras. There is no sound legal or factual basis to
exclude any cameras from the universe of pertinent prior art. Plaintiffs distinction is a
litigation-inspired characterization. It should be ignored. Indeed, the USPTO made no such
distinction during the prosecution of either the D423 Patent or the GoPro D589 Patent
described above. During the prosecution of each of those design patents, Examiner Aronovich
considered numerous prior art camera patents, including U.S. Patent Nos. D616,480 (left) and
D441,386 (right), without regard to whether they were action cameras:4
4
Notably, the USPTO does not recognize an action camera prior art category,
notwithstanding that such products have existed for well over a decade. See Mosley Decl.,
24
In any event, any argument C&A Marketing may raise in regards to the prior art is not
sufficient to defeat summary judgment. As set forth above, no reasonable jury could find the
claimed and accused designs are substantially the same under the applicable standard.
D. Baseless Allegations of Confusion Do Not Preclude Summary Judgment
In an effort to overcome the many differences in the design elements between the D423
Patent and the Session Cameras, C&A Marketing may attempt to trumpet unverified remarks
from online outlets and anonymous consumers about alleged similarities between the Polaroid
Cube and the Session Cameras as evidence of confusion between the claimed and accused
designs. However, any such attempt would not raise a dispute of material fact because it is not
competent evidence of design infringement under the relevant legal standard.
First, allegations of confusion are irrelevant to the question of design patent infringement.
Likelihood of confusion as to the source of the goods is not a necessary or appropriate factor
for determining infringement of a design patent. Unette Corp. v. Unit Pack Co., Inc., 785 F.2d
1026, 102829 (Fed. Cir. 1986) (emphasis added); see also, Pac. Handy Cutter, Inc. v. Quick
Point Inc., No. SA CV96-399GLT(EEX), 1997 WL 607501, at *4 (C.D. Cal. July 7, 1997)
(holding that evidence relating to consumer confusion would not raise a triable issue of fact
22. The USPTO classifies the D423 Patent in the same art category as the references
depicted above: Class D16 - Photography and Optical Equipment. See id. C&A
Marketings foreign patents on the same design are likewise classified as camera products.
See id.
25
and granting summary judgment of no design patent infringement), affd, 178 F.3d 1307 (Fed.
Cir. 1998).
Rather, as discussed above in detail, C&A Marketing must establish that an ordinary
observer, familiar with the prior art, would believe the claimed and accused designs were
substantially the same taking into account all figures of the design patent, and all views of the
accused design visible in ordinary use. Egyptian Goddess, 543 F.3d at 678; Contessa, 282 F.3d
at 1381. None of the alleged website bloggers or anonymous consumers making these
statements qualifies as the hypothetical ordinary observer presumed to be familiar with the
prior art, and in whose eyes the Egyptian Goddess test measures whether a claimed and accused
design are substantially the same. Nor is there any indication these individuals compared all
views of the claimed and accused designs as the relevant test requires. See Crocs, 598 F.3d at
1303; Contessa, 282 F.3d at 1381. Thus, these stray remarks by unidentified witnesses (whom
C&A Marketing never bothered to depose or otherwise speak to), who are neither familiar with
the prior art nor in some instances even held the Session Cameras in their hand, are irrelevant.
Indeed, even
See Mosley Decl., Ex. 2 (Ball Depo Tr.) at 117:12-21.
Second, even if evidence of confusion were relevant, C&A Marketing has not adduced
any evidence of confusionrather, the anonymous statements upon which it relies merely note
alleged similarities at a broad level, such as size, or speculation about copying. But C&A
Marketings expert Mr. Ball . See
Mosley Decl., Ex. 2 (Ball Depo Tr.) at 118:24-119:2. Nor does C&A Marketing provide any
26
evidence whatsoever that any industry observer or consumer has ever confused a Session
Camera with a Polaroid Cube or Cube + camera (or vice versa). See id.
C&A Marketings bare allegations of confusion are simply irrelevant to the question of
design patent infringement, making summary judgment in GoPros favor appropriate.
V. CONCLUSION
For the foregoing reasons, GoPro respectfully requests that the Court grant its motion for
summary judgment of non-infringement and enter judgment in its favor.
By: /s/ Frederick L. Whitmer


GOPRO, INC.
27
served upon the counsel of record by filing it electronically with the Courts CM/ECF system.

28







DECLARATION OF STEVEN VISSER

IN SUPPORT OF GOPRO, INC.S

New York, NY 10036
Telephone: (212) 775-8700
Facsimile: (212) 775-8800

Telephone: (415) 576-0200
Facsimile: (415) 576-0300

GoPro, Inc.
I, Steven Visser, hereby declare and state:
1. I have been retained as an expert witness on design issues on behalf of defendant
and counterclaimant GoPro, Inc. (GoPro) and am being compensated at my usual and
customary hourly rate of $350. I have no financial interest in, or affiliation with, the defendant
or the plaintiff, which I understand to be C&A Marketing, Inc. My compensation is not
dependent upon the outcome of, or my testimony in, the present District of New Jersey case or
any litigation proceedings.
2. I make this declaration in support of GoPros 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 previously submitted two expert reports (Reports) in this case:
a. The February 10, 2017 Expert Report of Steven Visser on Obviousness of the
U.S. D730,423 Patent, a true and correct copy of which is attached as
Exhibit 1.
b. The March 31, 2017 Rebuttal Report of Steven Visser on Non-Infringement of
the U.S. D730,423 Patent, a true and correct copy of which is attached as
Exhibit 2.
5. A summary of the relevant background and my qualifications can be found in
paragraphs 3 through 9 of Ex. 1, and my curriculum vitae is attached to Ex. 1 as Exhibit B.
6. Attached hereto as Exhibit 3 is a true and correct copy of U.S. Patent No.
D730,423 (D423 Patent), entitled Cubic Action Camera, which was filed January 5, 2014
and assigned to C&A Marketing.
2
D647,935 (D935 Patent), entitled Electronic Camera, which issued November 1, 2011 and
was assigned to Microsoft.
D616,480 (D480 Patent), entitled Network Camera, which issued May 25, 2010 and was
assigned to Panasonic.
9. Attached hereto as Exhibit 6 is a true and correct copy of U.S. Patent No. U.S.
Patent D441,386 (D386 Patent), entitled Body of a Video Camera, which issued May 1,
2001 and was assigned to Fujitsu.
D713,868 (D868), entitled Wireless IP Camera, which was filed June 19, 2013 and
assigned to Amaryllo.
11. My Reports discuss the prevalence of cube-like cameras in the prior art to the
D423 Patent. For example, I discuss and show:
a. the D935 Patent (Ex. 4 Fig. 8, below left), discussed at Ex. 1 11, 81101,
13438, 163; Ex. 2 27, 4571, 7475, 111, 11417, 12425, 13638, 145
50;
b. the D480 Patent (Ex. 5 Fig. 8, below center), discussed at Ex. 1 11, 4749,
7174, 77; Ex. 2 27, 4570, 75, 100, 110, 11417, 121, 12431, 13638,
14550; and
c. the D386 Patent (Ex. 6 Fig. 1, below right), discussed at Ex. 1 4748, 50
58, 6566, 79; Ex. 2 27, 98.
3
I also discuss and show:
d. the D868 Patent (Ex. 7 Fig. 1, below right), discussed at Ex. 1 47; Ex. 2
102, 140.
12. The D423 Patent discloses a perfectly rounded cube camera. The Session
Cameras 1 differ significantly from the D423 Patent in this regard, especially when comparing
the D423 Patents rounded corners to the Sessions rounded edges. Ex. 2 11217. My
Non-Infringement Report includes a computer model illustrating this distinction. Id. 113.
13. I understand that C&A Marketing has argued that the prior art references cited in
the D423 Patent, as well as those discussed above and in my Reports, are less relevant because
C&A Marketing does not consider these references to be action cameras. This attempt to
1
The GoPro HERO4 Session (now branded HERO Session) and HERO5 Session are identical in
all relevant respects, and I refer to them collectively as the Session Cameras or the Accused
Products. See Ex. 2 6.
4
carve out and narrowly define action cameras is inconsistent with the history of cameras and
the D423 Patents file history. Ex. 2 24, 96.
14. Below is a side-by-side comparison of the D423 Patents claimed design (left
column) and the accused HERO5 Session (right column):
Fig. 2 Front
Fig. 3 Rear
5
Fig. 4 Left
Fig. 5 Right
Fig. 6 Top
Fig. 7 Bottom
6
15. The D423 Patent includes a narrow band or stripe that wraps around the left (Fig.
4) and right (Fig. 5) sides and portions of the front (Fig. 2) and rear (Fig. 3) sides. The GoPro
Session does not have these design elements. Ex. 1 33, 49, 58, 61, 89, 96, 135; Ex. 2 56
59, 62, 63, 6971, 73, 80, 88, 89, 13944.
16. The front view of the D423 Patent includes a square front face with a narrow
stripe or band in the middle-left and middle-right, as well as a bezel that gradually tapers
toward a domed lens. By contrast, the front view of the GoPro Session has a visually-distinct,
square-front perimeter, which includes eight screws and eight small holes in the upper-left
portion of the perimeter, as well as a glass cover and a single, round step centered further from
the lens. Ex. 1 33, 49, 61, 89, 96, 135; Ex. 2 45, 5658, 6465, 71, 8889, 119, 13944.
17. An oversized top button 2 covers a large portion of the top surface of the D423
Patent. By contrast, the GoPro Session has a smaller and visually-distinct button and a user
display screen on its top surface. Ex. 1 49, 53, 6263, 67, 77, 90, 97, 115, 118, 125; Ex. 2
32, 57, 60, 67, 72, 74, 78, 79, 81, 82, 85, 133, 13638.
18. The rear side of the D423 Patent has a prominent, large, circle-shaped
ornamentation with an inscribed, horizontal slot between a narrow stripe or band. By contrast,
the GoPro Session has no such design elements. Ex. 1 49, 62, 67, 78, 91, 98, 115, 119, 126;
Ex. 2 22, 32, 59, 66, 72, 75, 14546.
19. The D423 Patent has a large, double-circular region on its bottom-side. By
contrast, the GoPro Session has no such design feature. Ex. 1 37, 49, 6263, 77, 90, 97, 115,
118, 125; Ex. 2 61, 68, 74, 7879, 85, 147.
2
To be clear, the D423 Patent does not define this design element as a button. Ex. 1 53; Ex. 2
85. I use button here only for the sake of comparison to the Accused Product.
7
I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the United States of America that the
foregoing facts are true and correct based on my own personal knowledge.
Executed on May 22, 2017 in West Lafayette, Indiana.
Steven Visser
8
system.

69381928V.1
9
EXHIBIT 1
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY
C&A MARKETING, INC.,

Plaintiff and Counter Defendant,
v.
GOPRO, INC.,
Defendant and Counterclaimant
Case No. 1:15-7854-RMB-JS
EXPERT REPORT OF STEVEN VISSER

ON OBVIOUSNESS OF THE
US D730,423 PATENT
I have been retained as a technical consultant on behalf of GoPro, Inc.,
the defendant and counterclaimant in the present proceeding, and I am
being compensated at my usual and customary hourly rate of $350. I
have no financial interest in, or affiliation with, the defendant, or the
plaintiff, which I understand to be C&A Marketing, Inc. My
compensation is not dependent upon the outcome of, or my testimony in,
the present District of New Jersey case or any litigation proceedings.
1
A. Background
In preparing this report, I have reviewed the documents listed in Exhibit
A.
U.S. Patent No. D730,423 (the D423 patent) was filed on January 5,
2014. For the purposes of my analysis, I assume the date of purported
invention of the D423 patent to be January 5, 2014.
My background, qualifications, and experience relevant to the issues in
this proceeding are summarized below. My curriculum vitae is attached
as Exhibit B.
a. I received a Masters of Fine Art with a major in Industrial Design in
1988 from the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign. I have
also received a Bachelor of Art with a major in Fine Art in 1982 from
Northwestern College, Orange City, Iowa.
b. I have been involved in the industrial design field for 31 years and
have experience in both the practical and academic areas of the
industrial design field, which is detailed in my curriculum vitae.
c. I am currently a tenured Full Professor at Purdue University in the
area of Industrial Design. I have been teaching at Purdue since 1989.
In 199697, I served as a Fulbright Professor at the University of Art
2
and Design Helsinki. Before teaching, I worked as an industrial
designer at Hari and Associates in Skokie, Illinois.
d. I have designed a variety of devices as an industrial designer, ranging
from medical equipment to furniture, as detailed on my curriculum
vitae. I have designed the housing for many consumer and electronic
products during my 25+ years of design experience, a few examples
are: a computer interface device for Inter-serve Inc., an iPod accessory
for Klipsh Audio Corp., a USB Drive for Filadex, and a BLU
Network, which was exhibited internationally.
e. Of particular relevance to the present matter, I have specifically
designed cameras. In 1989, I designed the Ansco Vision AL 35mm
camera. It was a point and shoot camera. In 2005, I designed a
number of cell phones for Samsung that included cameras. In 2012,
for the Braun Prize competition, I designed a personal health video
camera. It was a cell phone linked system that allowed video
recording of hard to reach areas of the body (e.g., to see if a molar was
chipped).
f. My design work has been recognized nationally and internationally.
The recognitions my work has received at international design
competitions include: Award of Excellence in the Taiwan
3
International Design Competition, Finalist in the Korean International
Travel Souvenir Design Competition, Second Place in Neste Forma
Finlandia 3 International Plastic Design Competition, and Silver
Winner in Idea95 Industrial Designers Excellence Award.
g. My designs have been exhibited both nationally and internationally,
including at the Museum of Modern Art in New York, the Chicago
Athenaeum: Museum of Architecture and Design, the Cooper Hewitt
National Design Museum (Smithsonian) in New York, the Groninger
Museum (Netherlands), Veletrzni Palc Prague (Czech Republic), and
the Biennale Internationale Design 2000 and 2002, which is sponsored
by the Museum of Modern Art in Saint-tienn (France).
In view of the foregoing, I am qualified to testify as an expert witness
with respect to the designs at issue in this matter. Particularly relevant is
my experience designing the housings for a variety of electronic devices
and cameras; my role as a professor at Purdue University, where I teach
students to design innovative new consumer products, taking into account
aesthetics, function, and manufacturing techniques; and my experience
both in personally designing and in instructing students in the design of
projects for devices such as those disclosed in the D423 patent.
I am the named inventor in a number of patents including:
4
a. U.S. Patent No. D463,925, issued in 2002, and titled Support
Structure for a Chair.
b. U.S. Patent No. D440,786, issued in 2001, and titled Rotary Assembly
Table.
c. U.S. Patent No. 5,625,931, issued in 1997, and titled Resilient Clamp.
d. U.S. Patent No. 5,522,290, issued in 1996, and titled Compliant Pliers.
e. U.S. Patent No. D382,604, issued in 1997, and titled Video Game
Controller.
f. U.S. Patent No. D375,531, issued in 1996, and titled Video Game
Controller.
g. U.S. Patent No. 5,568,928, issued in 1996, and titled Video Game
Controller.
I am the named inventor in a number of pending patents including:
a. US Design Patent Application 29/620,159, filing Date July 26, 2016,
and titled Soft Tissue Therapy Tool.
b. US Design Patent Application 29/566,202, filing Date May 27, 2016,
and titled Closed Vehicle Lift Arm.
c. US Design Patent Application 29/566,180, filing Date May 27, 2016,
and titled Vehicle Lift Platform.
5
d. US Design Patent Application 29/566,196, filing Date May 27, 2016,
and titled Vertical Channel Vehicle Lift Arm.
I have authored a number of publications in the last 10 years including:
a. Breaking the Rules of Visual Perception, Steve Visser and Cheryl
Qian. IDSA National Education Symposium, Published online,
www.idsa.org/sites/default/files/VisserPaper_Breaking_the_rules_of_
Visual_Perception.pdf, Chicago, IL, August 21, 2013.
b. Beyond the Computer Screen: Applying Information Visualization in
Product Design, Cheryl Qian, Steve Visser and Victor Chen, IDSA
National Education Symposium, Published online at
www.idsa.org/sites/default/files/QianPaper_BeyondTheComputerScre
en.pdf, Chicago, IL, August 21, 2013.
c. What You Can Get From 48 Hours: The Future of Design Leadership,
IDSA Education Symposium, Published online at
http://www.idsa.org/what-you-canget-48-hours-future-design-
leadership, Boston MA. Visser S. Qian C.Z. Chen V.Y., 2012.
d. A Collaborative Effort: Integrating Interaction Design Evaluation
into Product Design Process, IDSA Education Symposium 2011,
Published online at
6
http://www.idsa.org/sites/default/files/ACollaborativeEffortIXDEvalu
ation.pdf, New Orleans LA, Qian C.Z. Visser S.
e. Enhancing Interaction Design Education with a Multidisciplinary
Approach, in Proceedings of the 4th International Conference on
Mechanical Engineering and Mechanics, Suzhou, P.R. China, p. 904-
910. Visser S. Qian C.Z., 2011.
f. Integrating User Experience Research into Industrial Design
Education: Interaction Design Program at Purdue, Cheryl Qian,
Steve Visser and Victor Chen, National Collegiate Inventors and
Innovators Alliance Conference, Published online at
http://nciia.org/sites/default/files/u7/Qian.pdf Washington DC, March
25, 2011.
g. How to Effectively Incorporate Corporate Sponsored Projects and
Design Competition into Design Curriculum, published in
Proceedings of International Conference on Mechanical Engineering
and Mechanics, Wuxi China, p. 2219-2224, 2007.
7
In the last four years, I have testified or been deposed in the following
cases:
a. Nordock, Inc. v. Systems, Inc., Eastern District of Wisconsin, Case
No. 11-CV-0118, in which I gave declarations and testified as an
expert witness.
b. Frito-Lay North America Inc. v. Medallion Foods, Eastern District of
Texas, Sherman Division, Case No. 4:12-CV-00074-ALM, in which I
was deposed and testified as an expert witness.
c. MSA Products, Inc. v. Nifty Home Products, Inc., District of New
Jersey, Case No. 2:11-CV-0526, in which I was deposed.
d. M-Edge, Accessories LLC v. Amazon.com, Inc., District of Maryland,
Case No. MJG 11-CV-3332, in which I was deposed.
e. PNY v. Phison Electronics, United States Patent Trial and Appeal
Board, Case IPR2013-00472, in which I was deposed.
f. Cablz v. Chums, United States Patent Trial and Appeal Board, Case
IPR2014-01240, in which I gave a declaration and was deposed.
g. Luv N Care, LTD v. Groupo Rimar, Western District of Louisiana
Monroe Division, Case No. 3:14-CV-02491-RGJ-KLH, in which I
was deposed.
8
h. Kingston Technology Company Inc. v. CATR LTD., United States
Patent Trial and Appeal Board, Case IPR2015-00149, in which I gave
a declaration and was deposed.
i. Aristrocrat Technologies Inc. v. IGT, United States Patent Trial and
Appeal Board, Case IPR2015-02083, in which I gave a declaration.
j. Denon v. Sonos, United States Patent Trial and Appeal Board, Ex
Parte Reexamination control number 90/013,497, in which I gave
declarations.
k. Sonos v. D&M Holdings Inc. (Denon), United States District Court for
the District of Delaware, Case No. 14-1330-RGA, in which I gave
declarations.
l. Gamon Plus Inc. v. Campbells Soup, United States District Court for
the Northern District of Illinois Eastern Division, Case No. 15-cv-
8940, in which I gave a declaration.
B. Summary of Opinions
As a preliminary matter, it is my opinion that GoPros HERO4 Session
and HERO5 Session cameras do not infringe the D423 patent. I plan to
discuss this opinion in detail in a forthcoming rebuttal report.
If, however, specific design elements of the D423 patent are sufficiently
disregarded so as to make it substantially the same as the accused
9
products or if C&A Marketings construction of the D423 patent
(discussed below) is adopted, then it is my opinion that a designer of
ordinary skill in the art would have found the D423 patent obvious in
light of either the following combinations:
a. The combination of the Microsoft patents U.S. Patent No. D647,935
(the D935 patent) and U.S. Patent No. D614,223 (the D223
patent), which together create a cube-like camera with an overall
visual impression closer to the D423 patent than the accused
products.
b. The combination of the Panasonic Home Network Camera and the
Amaryllo camera, which together create a cube-like camera with an
overall visual impression closer to the D423 patent than the accused
products.
C. Applicable Law
1. Claim Construction
It is my understanding that while courts have a duty to conduct claim
construction in design patent cases, ordinarily, the preferable course is to
not attempt to construe a design patent claim by providing a detailed
verbal description of the claimed design because design patents are
typically claimed as shown in drawings.
10
It is also my understanding that it may, nevertheless, be helpful to point
out various features of the claimed design as they relate to the accused
design and the prior art. For example, I understand that the Federal
Circuit provided an example of pointing out that a design element
appeared on three sides of the patented design but on all sides of the
accused product and prior art.
I understand that, in this case, the Court has declined to conduct claim
construction of the D423 patent to date and that it agreed with C&A
Marketing that formal claim construction was not required. Nonetheless,
as discussed below, C&A Marketing has offered a verbal claim
construction of its own.
2. Obviousness
It is my understanding that design patents are subject to the non-
obviousness requirement of 35 U.S.C. 103 and that an inquiry into
whether a claimed design would have been obvious to a person of
ordinary skill in the art has four parts:
a. determine the scope and content of the prior art;
b. determine the level of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the
invention;
11
c. identify the differences between the claimed invention and the prior
art; and
d. consider the objective evidence of so-called secondary considerations
of non-obviousness (e.g., commercial success, unexpected results, the
failure of others to achieve the results of the invention, long-felt need
which the invention fills, and copying by others).
It is also my understanding that, in the context of design patents, the
ultimate inquiry under section 103 is whether the claimed design would
have been obvious to a designer of ordinary skill who designs articles of
the type involved.
As I understand the law, answering that question requires determining
whether one of ordinary skill would have combined teachings of the prior
art to create the same overall visual appearance as the claimed design.
This determination involves a two-step process.
First, a single, existing reference must be found, the design
characteristics of which are basically the same as the claimed design.
Basically the same in this context requires consideration of the visual
impression created by the patented design as a whole.
Second, once a primary reference is found, other secondary references
may be used to modify it to create a design that has the same overall
12
visual appearance as the claimed design. However, these secondary
references must be so related to the primary reference that the appearance
of certain ornamental features in one would suggest the application of
those features to the other.
Finally, it is my understanding that any secondary considerations (listed
above in 15(d)) must be considered when present. I also understand that
the patentee has a burden of production to demonstrate a nexus between
the claimed design and the secondary considerations.
D. History of Cube-Like Cameras
It is my understanding that both the ordinary observer and the ordinary
designer would be aware of all of the prior art camera designs. Below I
have shown and described a few historical cameras as a background.
C&A Marketing was not the first to use a cube or cube-like shape for a
camera. Some of the earliest cameras had an overall box or cubic shape.
For example, below are some of the earliest cameras from the 1800s.
13
1829 Daguerre1 Nicphore Nipce 17651833 2
The Kombie camera had a band on the side of the box that wrapped
around the front and rear to an inset square and around the back to near a
large circular element.
Kombi Camera 1892 3
1
http://www.devoir-de-philosophie.com/images_dissertations/27371.jpg
2
http://www.honda67.vn/forum/showthread.php?24676-L%E1%BB%8Bch-s%E1%BB%AD-
m%C3%A1y-%E1%BA%A3nh
3
https://s-media-cache-
ak0.pinimg.com/736x/87/cd/1d/87cd1d18809f54a5fb9dfd4e983b36ce.jpg (left) and
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/5/5d/Kombi_Camera_004.jpg/686px-
Kombi_Camera_004.jpg
14
Advertisement for Kombi Camera 4
The Kodak brownie was a basic box like shape. It brought photography
to the masses. The No. 1 Brownie, which was manufactured from 1901
1916, is shown below. 5
4
http://www.historiccamera.com/cgi-bin/librarium/pm.cgi?action=display&login=kombi
5
http://www.brownie-camera.com/51.jpg
15
Some other early consumer cameras had an overall cubic shape. For
example, the Eho Baby-Box camera and the Gnome Pixie Camera from
the 1930s and 1940s.
Eho Baby-Box Camera or No.182 circa 1932-39 6
6
http://picclick.ca/EHO-ALTISSA-EHO-BOX-3X4-WITH-DECENT-ORIGINAL-
381879475157.html (left) and http://picclick.ca/EHO-ALTISSA-EHO-BOX-3X4-WITH-
DECENT-ORIGINAL-381879475157.html (right)
16
Gnome Pixie 1949 7
Some cameras had an overall cubic shape with the edges rounded. For
example, the Suter Liliput camera below has all the edges rounded. C&A
Marketing was not the first to round the edges of a cubic camera.
Suter Liliput Camera Circa 19418
7
https://s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/736x/4f/2a/1e/4f2a1e2d238c983c1d8462086f1b655f.jpg
(left) and http://www.rockycameras.com/ekmps/shops/rockcameras/images/gnome-pixie-box-
vintage-camera-9.99-19259-p.jpg (right)
8
http://historiccamera.com/images2/tom/datasheet_2828_datasheet_image1.gif
17
Some cameras had an overall cubic shape with the select edges rounded.
For example, the Majestic camera below has the edges partially rounded.
It has the four edges on the sides rounded, but the edges on the front and
rear are not rounded.
Majestic Box Camera 19509
Kodak made many Brownie Camera models over the years. For
example, Kodak introduced the Brownie Flash Six-20 in 1946.
Kodak Brownie Flash Six-2010
9
https://s-media-cache-
ak0.pinimg.com/564x/1d/d4/48/1dd448319ef408147f7b3481b413482a.jpg
18
Another model is the Hawkeye Flash, which was manufactured from
19491961 and had a rounded square Bakelite body. I remember owning
one of these cameras. Manufacturing the body in plastic permitted it to
be made with rounded corners to soften the square shape.
Hawkeye Flash11
The classic Hasselblad camera body has a rounded cube-like shape. This
example is one that went into space in 1962 on the Mercury Atlas
mission. Mr. Samuels stated during his October 7, 2016 deposition that
the Hasselblad 1000 F camera inspired him to create a square-fronted
camera, which became the GoPro HERO4 Session. The professional
look of the camera inspired him as well. The Hasselblad camera body
had a variety of accessories that could be added, such as lenses, various
viewfinders, film backs, power drives, and hand cranks.

10
GOPRO_00001243
11
https://utahfilmphotography.com/2015/11/11/kodak-brownie-hawkeye-flash/
19
Hasselblad 500c from 1962 12
Hasselblad 1000 F had interchangeable lenses, backs, and viewfinders.13
12
http://absolutephoto.com/index.php/news/cameras/hassleblad/339-space-hasselblad-rockets-to-
281-250
20
E. The D423 Patent
The D423 patent is for a cubic action camera, as claimed in the
drawings. It is assigned to C&A Marketing from Ridgefield, New Jersey.
It is my understanding that C&A Marketing licenses the Polaroid brand
for cameras it imports into the USA.
The internal components of the camera are not shown in the D423
patent, only the outside portions (housing) are shown. The D423 patent
includes 7 figures, one perspective view and six orthographic views, one
of each side of the cube. The patent does not include any phantom lines
(dashed), which can be used in design patents to indicate portions of the
design not claimed. Instead, all elements of the D423 patent are shown
as solid lines.
13
https://www.keh.com/media/catalog/product/cache/1/image/1800x/040ec09b1e35df139433887a
97daa66f/i/m/image_2570.jpg
21
Figures of the D423 Patent
F. The D423 Patent Has Shading for Surfaces
The D423 patent has hatching lines indicating the surfaces. On the
sides, the hatching is drawn straight up and down indicating a flat
portion. On the band, which wraps around the sides, front, and back, the
hatching is drawn horizontally. This is done consistently in all the views,
indicating separate, opaque surfaces. The edges of the cube are all
rounded softly, with hatching lines to indicate the tangency point of the
rounding. Hatching on the rounded portion is parallel with the tangency
lines.
22
I understand that to show transparent, translucent, highly polished, or
reflective surfaces, such as a mirror, a patent owner must use oblique line
shading as opposed to straight-line shading. The circle in the center on
the front is hatched with curved oblique lines, indicating a transparent
material that has a domed shape.
Behind this transparent material are a series of concentric circles,
indicating a tapered inward surface. This can be seen by comparing the
hatching in the front view and the perspective views. In the perspective
view, the circles are closer together on the right side and more spread
apart on the left side. Whereas in the front view, the circles are evenly
spaced around the center. Additionally, outside of the clear dome, the
front surface has concentric hatching also indicating an angled inward
surface.
The front surface of the D423 has only two bold lines on it, one a square
line with rounded corners and a centralized circle around the clear dome.
The portion between these two is angled inward. This can be seen by
comparing the front view and the perspective views. In the front view,
the hatching is evenly spaced between the square and the circle.
However, in the perspective view, the lines converge together on the
right side and are spread apart on the left side.
23
On the bottom view, the central circular area has no shading. This would
normally indicate a void, but this would be inconsistent with the top and
perspective views. Instead, it appears to simply be a round element that
could be formed of any type of material, texture, or finish, or even be an
opening into the camera.
G. Level of Ordinary Skill in the Art
As discussed, the D423 patent is directed to a Cubic Action Camera,
as claimed in the drawings. It is my understanding that the function of a
device is not claimed in a design patent; rather it is the ornamental
appearance of whatever portion of the device that is claimed. It is my
opinion that a person having ordinary skill in the art (PHOSITA) at the
time of the invention claimed in the D423 patent either would have at
least a degree in industrial design or mechanical engineering with one to
two years of experience as a designer of housings of consumer products
such as cameras, or have less formal education but five to ten years of
experience in designing the ornamental appearance of cameras or similar
devices.
H. Explanation of Analysis
On September 19, 2013, I presented a keynote lecture at the 4th
International Innovation Design Education Forum in Nanjing, China.
24
The lecture was titled Perceiving Design: Design Perceived. In the
lecture, I explained how people identify objects. I just happened to use a
cube as an example for the lecture. In the lecture, I explained that
[p]eople dont typically think about how they perceive or identify an
object, they just do it intuitively.
I went on to explain that [i]n identifying a design, consumers rely upon
three major factors to understand the products form: the profile or
silhouette of the product, the details of a product, and the topography of
the surfaces. Each of these factors is depicted below.
I went on to explain that [c]ognitive scientists have built up the
understanding of how humans perceive and recognize an object.
Furthermore, I explained that [i]t is important that designers understand
how people recognize and categorize objects, so that they can effectively
design objects and adjust their features to achieve the desired visual
effects.
25
I went on to give examples of how radii can affect how a cube is
perceived. I gave three examples, which I have shown below. The first
is a cube on the left, which has sharp corners. In the middle is a cube
with all of the edges rounded evenly with the same radii applied to all of
the edges. Finally, on the right, is a cube rounded with large radii on four
of the edges and the rest with much smaller radii, which create dominant
faces on two of the sides of the cube. The cubes are shown in three rows
of drawings: as a silhouette, a detail drawing, and with surfaces. Below
are three cubes shown in the three types of drawings.
26
In the lecture, I went on to explain how these findings affect design
decisions, for example, in the speaker design below. The speaker designs
are shown in three types of drawings. The first row shows the three
designs as silhouettes. The second row shows the designs as detail
drawings, and the third row shows the designs as surface drawings. The
speaker on the left has a simple flat front, and smooth surfaces with no
additional details. The speaker in the middle has a recessed front face,
and a tapered recess on the top surface and a notch on the left sides
27
surface. You can notice that the tapered recess and the notch each impact
the silhouette and detail drawings, while the front recess does not affect
them. The speaker on the right has the same recess in the front face, but
has horizontal lines cutting through the recess, and a vertical element that
pierces the recess. It should be noted that the horizontal lines and the
vertical element help define the recess in the front surface, as can be seen
in both the surfaces drawings, and the detail drawings. Below are these
three speakers shown in three types of drawings. As was pointed out in
the lecture, people first identify the profile of objects, as seen in a
silhouette. Then the eyes are drawn to edges, such as those shown as
lines in a detail drawing. Edges are created by two surfaces meeting,
such as a ridge, a valley, or a tangency line where curved and flat
surfaces meet. Also, holes and internal profiles show up as lines.
Finally, people see the shading that defines surfaces. These are typically
caused by lighting effects on the surface such as shadows and highlights,
and are impacted by surface qualities such as reflectivity and textures.
28
In doing my analysis for this report, I will use a similar methodology
when analyzing the silhouettes, details, and surfaces of the various
designs.
I. Claim Construction / C&A Marketings Contentions
On March 29, 2016, in response to GoPros invalidity contentions, C&A
Marketing pointed out what it considered the primary design element and
additional design elements of the D423 patent. Specifically, they stated:
The primary design element of the D423 patent is its overall

cubic shape with rounded edges. Additional design elements
include: a circular button on the top surface; a front surface that
29
includes an inset square with rounded corners, the center of

which contains a recessed round lens; and a horizontal band on
the sides.
C&A Marketings Responses to GoPros Invalidity Contentions, dated
March 29, 2016, page 8: lines 2528. I understand that in a joint letter to
the court, C&A denies that its list of differences is a claim construction.
However, whether or not they call it a claim construction, it seems to act
as a de facto claim construction.
To the extent this represents C&A Marketings claim construction for the
D423 patent or a list of design elements that it believes should comprise
the primary focus of the infringement and invalidity analysis, I disagree.
The D423 patent depicts numerous design elements other than those
noted above. As but one example, the D423 patent shows very specific
designs on the back and bottom of the camera, but C&A Marketing
ignores those sides. As for the other sides, C&A Marketing presents an
overly simplified description of what the D423 patent depicts.
J. Prosecution History of the D423 Patent
During the prosecution of the D423 patent, the examiner cited eight
references, and one of the references (the D480 patent) has two
embodiments. Below I have shown the D423 patent on the top center,
30
with 9 perspective views of the prior art considered by the examiner
while reviewing the D423 patent application:
31
32
U.S. Patent D118,296 (D296 patent) filed August 31, 1938 by John
Tuomey. 14
U.S. Patent D441,386 (D386 patent) issued May 1, 2001 to Yoichi
Yamazaki.15
14
GOPRO_00000277-278
15
GOPRO_00000279-283
33
U.S. Patent D504,904 (D904 patent) issued May 10, 2005 to Kouzi
Nagai.16
U.S. Patent D564,562 (D562 patent) issued March 18, 2008 to
Toshihiko Homma. 17
16
GOPRO_00000292-296
17
GOPRO_00000862-868
34
U.S. Patent D585,925 (D925 patent) issued February 3, 2009 to Da
Yong Kuo.18
U.S. Patent D616,480 (D480 patent) filed December 10, 2008 and
assigned to Panasonic Corp. 19
18
GOPRO_00000869-876
19
GOPRO_00000333-347
35
U.S. Patent D713,868 (D386 patent) filed June 19, 2013 and
assigned to Amaryllo International. 20
U.S. Patent Application 2013/0242181 (D181 patent application)
published September 19, 2013 for Flextronics.21
20
GOPRO_00000412-417
21
GOPRO_00000835-849
36
I have reviewed each of these references, and it is my opinion that: All
of the cited prior art references are square shaped cameras or camera
related products. All of them have a major circular element on one of the
square faces. Five of the cited prior art references are cube-like, the
D296 patent, D386 patent, D480 patent, D925 patent, and D386
patent. Two of the cube-like references have at least some edges
rounded, the D480 patent, and D904 patent.
However, the prior art references cited by the examiner are different from
the D423 patent in a number of ways. First, none of them show a
consistently rounded cube; the D423 patent has all of the edges rounded
consistently. Second, none of them show a narrow horizontal band at the
midpoint that wraps around the front and the back of the cube, which the
D423 patent has. Third, the cited prior art is different than the D423
patent, in that none of them show top and bottom views with only a
single large circular element on both of them. Fourth, none of the cited
prior art shows a large circular element on the rear surface of the cube.
Fifth, none of the cited prior art shows a cone-like recessed front surface.
The D423 patents front surface is angled inward starting at a rounded
square and tapering inward gradually to a small circle in the center.
Sixth, none of the cited prior art shows a domed clear circular element
37
over the central portion of the tapered inward surface. However, the
D480 patent shows a clear domed element but it does not appear to have
a tapered inward surface under the dome, and the D904 patent shows a
clear flat circular element, and it is unclear what the surface does under
the clear element.
1. The Yamazaki Patent Under C&As Claim Construction
Under C&A Marketings description of the D423 patents design, the
Yamazaki U.S. Patent No. D441,386 (Yamazaki patent),22 issued in 2001
and considered by the Patent Examiner when examining and deciding to
issue the D423 patent, would have all of these ornamental features and
thus the D423 patent would not have issued over it, particularly if these
features are read so broadly as C&A Marketing reads them in its attempt
to include the accused GoPro products within the scope of the D423
patent.
a. overall cubic shape with rounded edges
C&A Marketing proposed that [t]he primary design element of the
D423 patent is its overall cubic shape with rounded edges. The
Yamazaki patent has this feature. However, the D423 patent is not that
broad it has the same profile from all six views, that is, a square with all
22
GOPRO_00000279-283
38
of the corners rounded. The Yamazaki patent does not have this overall
cube shape with rounded edges because it is neither consistently square
nor does it have all the edges rounded. In fact, most of the edges are
chamfered, not rounded, and the Yamazaki patent is deeper than it is tall.
Finally, the profiles contain variation because of steps, slight curves,
part-lines and a mix of chamfers and radii for edges. But none of this
would matter if the D423 patent is applied to cover any camera with an
overall cubic shape with rounded edges as Yamazaki has that design
element.
Perspective view of the D423 patent Perspective view of the Yamazaki patent
If the court decides that a cube shape with rounded corners were so
broad, as suggested by C&A, as to encompass the accused products, it
would also apply to generally cube-like shape with mostly chamfered
edges and includes at least some rounded edges, and under this
39
definition the Yamazaki patent would meet this primary design
element as defined by C&A.
b. a circular button on the top surface
C&A went on to suggest that additional design elements of the D423
patent would include a circular button on the top surface. The D423
patent does not define the circle on the top as a button or anything else
specific. While the circle on the top of the Polaroid Cube product is a
button, the D423 patent is broader, and it is not appropriate to narrow it
by looking at an alleged embodiment of the patent. It would therefore be
inappropriate to limit the circular element on the top to a button. The
D423 patent simply does not have such a limitation. The D423 patent
shows a circular element on the top surface.
Top Plan View of the D423 Patent Top Plan View of the Yamazaki Patent
40
The Yamazaki patent has a top surface with three circular elements on it,
including one near to the center of the top. While the circular elements
on the Yamazaki patent are considerably smaller than the circular
element of the D423 patent, C&A Marketings description makes no
mention of the size the circular element must be. It also has part-lines
and texture lines not present in the D423 patent. However, if the court
finds that the size of the circular element and the existence of other
elements can be ignored, as C&A Marketing apparently believes it
should, then the Yamazaki patent would have this circular feature.
c. a front surface that includes an inset square with rounded

corners, the center of which contains a recessed round lens
Front Elevational View D423 patent Front Elevational View Yamazaki Patent
One of ordinary skill would understand that a camera such as the ones
shown in the D423 patent and the Yamazaki patent would have a round
lens elements. It is unclear if C&A is referring to the round lens cover
41
(the larger circle) or the lens elements themselves the smaller circle
behind the cover. I will assume they are referring to the lens cover,
which a designer could change the shape of if they choose to, as opposed
to the lens element itself, which must be round for functional reasons. In
the Yamazaki patent the drawing shows two concentric circles in the
center of the front surface. The larger circle is nearly the same size as
that shown in the D423 patent. As can be seen in the perspective view
both of these lines are on the recessed front surface.
The Yamazaki patent also has a front surface that includes an inset
square with rounded corners, the center of which contains a recessed
round lens, which is similar to the D423 patent. Like the D423 patent,
it has an inset square in the front surface. However, the Yamazaki front
surface has additional design elements not present in the D423 patent. It
has side caps that divide the front into three segments and the raised tube
around the two recessed circles. Neither of these elements are present in
the D423 patent. However, if the court finds that these elements can be
ignored, as C&A Marketing apparently believes it should, then the
Yamazaki patent would have this feature as well.
Likewise, the accused products have additional features that differentiate
it from the D423 patent. If additional features are ignored to find
42
infringement, then the Yamazaki patent would meet this limitation as
well.
d. a horizontal band on the sides
C&A contends that an additional design element of the D423 patent is a
horizontal band on the sides. The Yamazaki patent does not have a
horizontal band on the sides in the same way that the D423 patent
depicts such a band. However, the sides do have a rectangular shaped
area defined by lines from the chamfers. These areas look nothing like
the band on the side of the D423 patent because they do not wrap around
43
the front or rear of the cube and because they are of significantly different
proportions. Likewise, the accused products do not have bands that look
anything like the bands shown in the D423 patent. However, if a
rectangular section on the sides, defined by lines on the sides, is
considered a band even if it does not wrap around the edges or have the
same basic proportions, then the Yamazaki patent would similarly have
this element.
e. C&A ignores some views and elements.
When presenting the ornamental design of the D423 patent, C&A
Marketing chose to present the camera in seven drawings, a perspective
view and six orthographic views, one of each side of the cube.
When all of the drawings of the D423 patent are viewed together, it is
apparent that C&A Marketings claim construction has ignored important
elements of the overall appearance by its isolation of select elements.
By focusing on a horizontal band on the sides, C&A Marketing ignores
the fact that the band wraps around the rounded edges, and can be seen
from the front and rear, as well as both sides.
By focusing on the top and front and ignoring the rear and bottom, C&A
Marketing ignores the design theme of the D423 patent of having four
similarly sized circles arranged radially on a vertical plane with one circle
44
on each of the four surfaces, front, top, rear, and bottom. These elements
give the design an overall sense of bilateral symmetry.
The top and bottom have no band; however, they each have a single
centered element. These elements are both similarly sized circular
elements. The bottom circle varies from the top circle in that it has an
additional smaller concentric circle inside the larger circle.
f. Conclusion on C&As claim construction.
It is my opinion that C&A Marketing attempts to selectively focus on
certain design elements and ignore others in its claim construction to find
infringement. C&A Marketings claim construction ignores two of the
seven views, the rear view and the bottom view. It also ignores stylistic
themes that clearly flow around the cube. Finally, as was pointed out
above, focusing on select features in isolation in an effort to find
infringement, and ignoring other features of the prior art/accused product
that are different, leads to a distorted claim construction.
Therefore, it is my opinion that the court should reject C&A Marketings
verbal description of the D423 patent. It is my opinion that if C&A
Marketings verbal description of the ornamental elements is used and
applied in the same way that it has been applied in an attempt to find
infringement, then the Examiner should have found the Yamazaki patent
45
to invalidate the D423 patent. Since the Examiner did not do so, it
appears that the Examiner properly considered the full scope of the
D423 patents design as distinguishing features over the prior art, and
not merely the subset of design elements C&A Marketing cites.
Alternatively, if the overall ornamental appearance as shown in all of the
figures of the D423 patent is used as the standard for comparison, then
the Yamazaki does not anticipate the D423 patent. As can be seen
below in the comparison of all of the drawings, the overall designs are
clearly different, yet if C&As claim construction is applied in the same
way that it is to attempt to find infringement, then the Yamazaki patent
would invalidate the D423 patent. Therefore, it is my conclusion that
C&As proposed verbal description should not be used.
46
47
2. D423 Design Elements and the Prosecution History
Above I analyzed the D423 patent and the Yamazaki patent in light of
C&As description of the design elements (claim construction). Below is
a detailed analysis of the D423 patent drawings, considering all of the
views and design elements of the D423 patent. The drawings have been
presented in standard orthographic projection, arrangement so that all of
the views can be seen at one time. One of ordinary skill in the art would
understand standard orthographic projection is like unwrapping the sides
of a box. The front view is shown in center, the top view is shown above
and the bottom view is shown below. The side views are shown or the
right and left of the front view respectively. The rear view is shown to
the far left. Finally, the perspective view is shown in the upper right
corner.
48
Consistently Rounded Cube:
As stated above, it is my opinion that none of the prior art references
cited by the Examiner show a consistently rounded cube with all of the
edges rounded with the same radii. As can be seen below, the D423 has
identical silhouettes for all of the six orthographic views. This
consistently rounded cube is not found in any of the cited prior art.
Below are the silhouettes of the D423 patent. These drawings show the
outer profile of each of the views with black for all interior spaces.
49
Below are detail drawings of the D423 patent. The drawings have been
inverted with white lines on the black silhouette shape. The detail
drawings show the major lines as defined by parts and the meeting of
various surfaces. The surface hatching lines of the patent drawing are not
shown; however, the tangency lines have been shown to understand
transitions of the radii and the flat surfaces.
50
Below are the D423 patent drawings inverted to black to show the
surfaces. The hatching lines help define form of the surfaces.
51
In addition to my analysis of Yamazaki above, if the D423 patent is read
so broadly as to cover the accused products, then the D480 patents
second embodiment would have this feature as well because it has a
silhouette that is more similar to the D423 patent in its rounded cube
shape. Specifically, it has a body that is nearly a perfect cube (having the
same height, width and depth). Also, the D480 patents body has 8
edges rounded with nearly identically radii to the 12 rounded edges of the
D423 patent. However, the front face of the D480 patent has 4 edges
that are not rounded. Additionally, it has a clear domed element over the
52
lens area on the front face of the cube that protrudes from the front face.
Whereas the clear dome element in the D423 is recessed and does not
protrude.
The D480 patent has a main body that is closer to a perfect cube than the
accused products and is more rounded like the D423 patent than the
accused products. Below are the silhouettes of the D480 patent.
53
Below are the detail lines drawings of the D480 patent drawings.
54
surfaces.
Narrow horizontal band at the midpoint wraps around the front and
the back of the cube:
I have reviewed each of the cited prior art references, and it is my opinion
that none of them have a narrow band that wraps around the middle of
the camera and wraps around all the elevational views.
The D904 patent is the closest to having this horizontal band feature;
however, the band is a wider band than the band in the D423 patent.
55
Also, the band in the D904 only wraps around the front of the camera, as
can be seen in the perspective view below on the left. However, it does
not wrap around the rear of the camera, as can be seen in the rear view on
the right below.
A single large circular element on the top and bottom surfaces:
None of the prior art cited by the Examiner has a single large circular
element on the top and bottom as the only design elements on those
surfaces. The first embodiment of the D480 patent does not have a large
circular element on the top; however, it has a similarly sized rectangular
element which has rounded corners. Additionally, the D480 does not
have a similar large element on the bottom; it only has four small bumps
for feet.
56
A single large circular element on the rear surface:
None of the cited prior art references have a large circular element on the
rear surface. The D296 does not show the rear surface, all of the other
cited references show rear views, and all lack this element.
A cone-like recessed front surface:
None of the prior art references cited by the Examiner have a cone-like
front surface. The D423 patent front has an angled inward surface that
starts at a rounded square and tapers inward gradually to a small recessed
circle in the center. The D423 patent is shown below on the right with
the cone-like surface highlighted in blue. As explained earlier, the front
surface of the D386 patent, shown on the right below, has a recessed
front surface and a rounded square; the recessed rounded square is
highlighted in blue. The D386 patent lacks the gradually tapered inward
57
surface to a small circle in the center; instead it has cylindrical bezel with
a stepped inward central portion.
In conclusion, the cited prior art is different than the D423 patent in at
least the previous ways. However, if the D423 were read so broadly as
to include the accused products, then under this broad interpretation
many of these features would be present in the cited prior art as well.
K. The Invalidating Prior Art
1. Microsoft D935
I understand that U.S. Design Patent No. D647,935 23 (the D935
patent) is prior art to the D423 patent because it issued in 2011, while
the D423 patent was applied for in 2014. The D935 patent discloses an
Electronic Camera that has a cube-like shape and is shown with a clamp
23
GOPRO_00074361-371
58
that is unclaimed. It is my understanding that the USPTO did not
consider D935 patent during the prosecution of the D423 patent.
Below is a detailed analysis of the D935 patent drawings. They have
been presented in standard orthographic projection arrangement so that
all of the views can be seen at one time. One of ordinary skill in the art
would understand standard orthographic projection is like unwrapping
the sides of a box. The front view is shown in center, the top view is
shown above and the bottom view is shown below. The side views are
shown or the right and left of the front view respectively. The rear view
is shown to the far left. Finally, the perspective view is shown in the
upper right.
59
60
Below are the silhouettes of the D935 patent. These drawings show the
outer profile of each of the views with black for all interior spaces.
61
Below are the detail lines of the D935 patent drawings.
62
surfaces.
For my analysis, I compared all of the drawings of the D423 patent with
drawings of the D935 patent. I arranged them in standard orthographic
layout and compared them as silhouettes, detail drawings, and surface
drawings, as well as the original patent drawings. It should be
appreciated that the orthographic drawings match the patent figures, but
the perspective view is shown from a different angle.
If the D423 patent is read so broadly as to be infringed by the accused
products or if C&A Marketings verbal description of the purportedly key
63
design elements of the D423 patent is applied, then the D935 patent
would be a primary reference for purposes of the obviousness analysis I
undertake below, because under this broad reading, the D935 would be
basically the same as the D423 patent. Below is a detailed description
explaining why I have come to this conclusion notwithstanding the
differences I also discuss below between the D935 and the D423
patents.
First, the D423 shows a consistently rounded cube with identical
silhouettes in all orthographic views. The D935 patent has a generally
cube-like tapered shape with several sharp corners, small steps, and
rounded corners that vary. Below see the silhouettes of the D423 patent
and the D935 patent farther below.
64
Silhouettes of the D423 Patent (top) and D935 Patent (bottom)
65
Second, the D935 does not have a narrow horizontal band at the
midpoint that wraps around the front and the back of the cube. Below,
see the horizontal band of the D423 patent. I have shown the four
elevational views of the D423 patent with the horizontal band
highlighted in blue. The D935 patent does not have such a horizontal
band. See the same four elevational views of the D935 farther below.
Third, the D935 patent does not have a top and bottom each with only a
single large circular element. Instead, the D935 patent has two elements
on the top, a large rounded square element located near the center and a
small capsule shaped element in the lower right. The bottoms of these
two patents each have a similar shaped circular element; however, it is
slightly raised off the surface, and smaller in the D935 patent. The
66
D423 bottom element is not raised and is the very close in size to the
circle on its top. Below on the left, the D935 patents top view and
bottom view are shown with elements highlighted in blue. Below on the
right, are the top view and bottom view of the D423 patent with the
elements highlighted in blue.
Fourth, the D935 patent does not have a large circular element on the
rear surface of the cube. Below is the rear view of the D935 patent on
the left and the rear view of the D423 patent with the large circular
element highlighted in blue.
67
Fifth, the D935 patent does not have a cone-like recessed front surface.
As can be seen below on the right, the angled inward front surface starts
at a rounded square and tapers inward gradually to a small circle in the
center. Instead, the D935 patent has a distinctive front face with a
rounded square frame with a large rectangular element in the middle of a
flat face. Below on the left is the D935 patent perspective view with the
front face highlighted in blue. Below on the right is the D423 patent
perspective view with the front face highlighted in blue.
68
Sixth, the D935 patent does not show a domed clear circular element
over a tapered inward surface. The D935 patent does not show any lens
at all; instead this central area is defined with a dashed line as an
unclaimed portion of the design.
As noted above, if the D423 patent is read so broadly as to be infringed
by the accused products, then the D935 patent would be a primary
reference. Below is a detailed description explaining why I have come to
this conclusion.
silhouettes in all orthographic views. While the D935 patent does not
show a consistently rounded cube but has several sharp corners, small
steps, and rounded corners that vary, the accused products likewise do
not show a consistently rounded cube. In fact, the cube-like form of the
accused products is closer to the cube-like form of the D935 patent than
to the D423 patent. The accused products and the D935 patent are only
rounded on the four side edges; the profiles of these rounded edges can
be seen in both from the front and rear views. Additionally, both the
accused products and the D935 patent have sharp corners, chamfers, and
steps that define the profiles of the front and back edges, these can be
seen in the side views and plan views. Therefore, if the accused products
69
would have this feature, then the D935 patent would also have this
feature because they are rounded more similar to each other than either is
to the D423 patents rounded cube.
Second, neither the accused products nor the D935 have a narrow
horizontal band at the midpoint that wraps around the front and the back
of the cube. Additionally, the accused products have a door, hinge, and
latch on one side that differentiate it even more than the smooth sides of
the D935 patent when compared to the D423 patents horizontal band on
smooth sides.
Third, the top and bottom elements of the D935 and D423 patents are
more similar to each other, including their size, relative to their
respective surfaces, than to the elements of the accused products.
Fourth, neither the accused product nor the D935 patent have a large
circular element on the rear surface of the cube. The backs of the
accused products are more similar to the D935 patent than they are to
the D423 patent.
Fifth, neither the accused products nor the D935 have a cone-like
recessed front surface. Neither has an angled inward front surface starts
at a rounded square and tapers inward gradually to a small circle in the
70
center. Instead, both have distinctive front faces with a rounded square
frame and other distinctive elements.
Sixth, the D935 does not show a lens with a clear domed portion in the
center. However, one skilled in the art would understand that a camera
needs a lens, and lenses are typically domed and clear. Neither the
D935 nor the accused products show a tapered in surface on the face or
under a domed clear portion. As mentioned above both have other
distinctive elements for their front faces.
In conclusion if the D423 patent is read so broadly as to be infringed by
the accused product, then under that broad reading the D935 would be a
primary reference to one of ordinary skill in the art.
2. Microsoft D223
I understand that U.S. Design Patent No. D614,223 24 (the D223
patent) is prior art to the D423 patent because it issued in 2010, while
the D423 patent was applied for in 2014. The D223 patent discloses an
Electronic Camera that has a rounded square shape from the front view
with a folding stand that frames around the rounded square of the camera
concentrically. It is my understanding that the USPTO did not consider
D223 patent during the prosecution of the D423 patent.
24
GOPRO_00074324-345
71
The D223 patent is a square face camera with rounded corners. The
visual appearance of the front of the D223 patent is similar to that of the
D423 patent. It does not have a narrow band wrapping around sides, or
the exactly same cone like recessed front face. Additionally, it does not
have a cubic body, though it has a square front. The D223 patent has a
bezel around the lens area that sticks out slightly from the front of the
body, and it has a chamfer around the outer edge of the square shaped
folding stand, with a noticeable change in the chamfer along the bottom
center. The folding stand also has two part-lines in the bottom center and
a slight gap between stand and the inner square. However, if the accused
products were found to be infringing then the D223 would be pertinent
72
prior art as a secondary reference because it has a significantly closer
design to the face of the D423 patents face, than the accused product.
Below, see the front view of the D223 on the left and the front view of
the D423 on the right. Both have a similar sized large circular element
in center. The surface inside of this circular area is tapered inward and
has been highlighted in blue. Additionally, the area outside of this circle
is a transition from a rounded square to the circle. While the D223 does
not have this area taper inward like the D423 patent, under the broad
reading of the patent needed to find infringement this would be pertinent
prior art because of its visual similarity as seen below and above.
3. Panasonic Home Network Camera
I understand that the Panasonic Home Network Camera was sold in the
USA at least as early as November 19, 2010 at which time a consumer
73
posted an unboxing video on YouTube. 25 The model shown was a
wireless version, the BL-C230A. I also understand that Panasonic
produced documents for this legal matter and that PAN000166 shows
sales of the BL-C230A at least as early as February 2010. For these
reasons, I understand the Panasonic BL-C230A to be prior art to the
D423 patent.
Panasonic also made a wired model the BL-C210A, which was shown on
another YouTube video, published Oct. 7, 2010. 26
It is my understanding that the USPTO did not consider the production
versions of any of the Panasonic Home Network Camera models, during
the prosecution of the D423 patent. Below are a few brochure images
and Internet images of various models of the Panasonic Home Network
Camera.
25
GOPRO_00074558
26
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oQqcWhb0Ujg
74
Panasonic BL-C230A 27
Panasonic BL-C210A (left) and BL-C230A (right) 28
27
GOPRO_00001223-224
28
https://www.amazon.com/Panasonic-BL-C210A-Internet-Security-Camera/dp/B002JLZMN8
(left) and https://www.google.com/search?q=BL-
c230+panasonic&espv=2&biw=1940&bih=1240&tbm=isch&source=lnms&sa=X&ved=0ahUK
Ewj56Y37gbnRAhUH6oMKHVyHCycQ_AUICCgD#imgrc=a54VZxXxxv6s9M%3A (right).
75
In addition to the BL-C210A and BL-C230A, I am aware of two
additional models of the Panasonic Home Network Camera: the BL-
C210CE/E and the BL-C230CE/E. As can be seen below, they all have
the same family of design elements. The wired units, the BL-
C210A/CE/E, appear to have identical housings. The wireless units, the
BL-C230A/CE/E, appear to have slightly longer housings compared to
the wired units, and the various wireless models appear to have identical
housings. Below is a copy from the Panasonic website with the various
models of the Panasonic Home Network Camera.
76
Panasonic Cameras 29
I have examined a Panasonic Home Network Camera wired model BL-
C210. It is labeled specifically, as the BL-C210CE-BX PKL-BL-
C210CE-BX (A) and dated 2012/10/11. I have also examined a
Panasonic Wireless BL-C230 model. Both appear to be of similar
designs, with the difference that the wireless model has an antenna and is
longer in depth. The wireless model has a switch on the bottom for
toggling between wired and wireless, the switch is not present on the
29
http://www.m-abs.net/Panasonic-Find/Manual/manual/BL-C210-230A-CE/en/HTML_A/gs01/
77
wired version. Additionally, the wireless version has an additional slot
for wires on the rear of the camera.
Below is a detailed analysis of the Panasonic Home Network Camera. I
have photographed the camera from similar views to those presented in
the D423 patent. The photographs and derivative drawings have been
presented in standard orthographic projection arrangement so that all of
the far left. Finally, the perspective view is shown in the upper right.
78
79
Below are the silhouettes of the photographs of the Panasonic Home
Network Camera. These drawings show the outer profile of each of the
views with black for all interior spaces.
80
Below are the detail lines of the photographs of the Panasonic Home
Network Camera.
I have reviewed the Panasonic Home Network Camera, and it is my
opinion that it is a cube-like camera. Both models have a major circular
element on one of the square faces. Both are basically cube-like shapes
having mostly rounded edges.
If the D423 patent is read so broadly as to be infringed by the accused
products or if C&A Marketings offered claim construction is applied,
81
then the Panasonic Home Network Camera would be a primary
reference, because under this broad reading the Panasonic Home
Network Camera would be basically the same as the D423 patent.
Below is a detailed description explaining why I have come to this
conclusion as well as the differences I have identified.
Specifically, the differences include that first, neither model of the
Panasonic Home Network Camera shows a consistently rounded cube.
Second, neither have a narrow horizontal band at the midpoint that wraps
around the front and the back of the cube. Third, neither model of the
Panasonic Home Network Camera has tops and bottoms with only a
single large circular element on them. Fourth, neither model has a large
circular element on the rear surface of the cube. Fifth, none of the
Panasonic Home Network Camera models has a cone-like angled inward
front surface. The D423 patent has an angled inward front surface that
starts at a rounded square and tapers inward gradually to a small circle in
the center. Instead, the Panasonic Home Network Camera has domed
central area that is forward of the front face of the camera.
Below see the silhouettes of the D423 patent and the Panasonic Home
Network Camera farther below.
82
Silhouettes of the D423 (top) and Panasonic Home Network Camera (bottom)
83
The Panasonic Home Network Camera does not have a narrow horizontal
band at the midpoint that wraps around the front and the back of the
cube. Below see the horizontal band of the D423 patent. I have shown
the four elevational views of the D423 patent with the horizontal band
highlighted in blue. The Panasonic Home Network Camera does not
have such a horizontal band. See the same four elevational views of the
Panasonic Home Network Camera farther below.
Third, the Panasonic Home Network Camera does not have a top and
bottom with only a single large circular element. Instead, the Panasonic
Home Network Camera has two elements on the top a rounded square
element located near the center and a part-line near the front edge. The
circular element of the D423 is missing in the bottom of the Panasonic
Home Network Camera, and many other features are present such as
84
screws and small details. Below on the left, the Panasonic Home
Network Cameras top view and bottom view are shown with elements
highlighted in blue. Below on the right, are the top view and bottom
view of the D423 patent with the elements highlighted in blue.
Fourth, the Panasonic Home Network Camera does not have a large
circular element on the rear surface of the cube. Below is the rear view
of the Panasonic Home Network Camera on the left and the rear view of
the D423 patent with the large circular element highlighted on in blue.
The Panasonic Home Network Camera has a large door on the rear
85
surface, which is highlighted in blue, but it is different in location and
shape.
Fifth, the Panasonic Home Network Camera does not have a cone-like
recessed front surface. As can be seen below on the right, the angled
inward front surface starts at a rounded square and tapers inward
gradually to a small circle in the center. Instead, the Panasonic Home
Network Camera has a distinctive front face with a rounded square frame
with a large clear domed element in the middle of a flat face. Below on
the left is the Panasonic Home Network Camera perspective view with
the front face highlighted in blue. Below on the right is the D423 patent
perspective view with the front face highlighted in blue.
86
Sixth, the Panasonic Home Network Camera does not show a domed
clear circular element over a tapered inward surface. The Panasonic
Home Network Camera has a clear domed area in the center of the front
surface, but it lacks a tapered inward surface. Additionally, the dome on
the Panasonic Home Network Camera protrudes outward.
As noted above, despite these differences, if the D423 patent is read so
broadly as to be infringed by the accused products or if C&A
Marketings offered claim construction is applied, then the Panasonic
Home Network Camera would be a primary reference because under this
broad reading the Panasonic Home Network Camera would be basically
the same as the D423 patent.
silhouettes in all orthographic views. While the Panasonic Home
87
Network Camera does not show a consistently rounded cube and has
most edges rounded at nearly identical radius to the D423 patent with
the front edges having a much smaller radius and lacking this larger
radius, the accused products likewise do not show a consistently rounded
cube. The Panasonic Home Network Camera has an overall rounded
cube that is closer to the rounded cube presented in the D423 patent.
The accused products are only rounded on the four side edges, the
profiles of these rounded edges can be seen in both from the front and
rear views. Whereas the Panasonic Home Network Camera has eight of
the twelve edges rounded at nearly the identical radius as the D423
patent. Therefore, if the accused products would have this feature then
the Panasonic Home Network Camera would also have this feature
because its rounded cube-like form is closer to the D423 patents
rounded cube.
Second, neither the accused products nor the Panasonic Home Network
Camera have a narrow horizontal band at the midpoint that wraps around
the front and the back of the cube. Additionally, the accused products
and the Panasonic Home Network Camera have a door on one side of the
camera. The accused product also has a hinge, and latch on one side that
differentiate it even more. The rectangular door on the Panasonic Home
88
Network Camera does wrap around the side and rear of one corner of the
camera, but is not like the narrow band on the D423 patent that wraps
around. Therefore, if this band can be ignored to find infringement with
the accused product it can be ignored on the Panasonic Home Network
Camera.
Third, Panasonic Home Network Camera is similarly lacking the large
round circular elements on the top and bottom views. Both the accused
products and the Panasonic Home Network Camera have a button on the
top but the overall look of the tops both are different from the D423
patent. Neither have the large circular element on the bottom.
Fourth, neither the accused product nor the Panasonic Home Network
Camera have a large circular element on the rear surface of the cube. If it
can be ignored in the accused products to find infringement, then it can
be ignored to find obviousness.
Fifth, neither the accused products nor the Panasonic Home Network
Camera have a cone-like recessed front surface. Neither has an angled
inward front surface starts at a rounded square and tapers inward
gradually to a small circle in the center. Instead, both have distinctive
front faces with a rounded square frame and other distinctive elements.
89
Sixth, the Panasonic Home Network Camera shows a lens with a clear
domed portion in the center. However, neither the Panasonic Home
Network Camera nor the accused products show a tapered in surface on
the face or under a domed clear portion. As mentioned above both have
other distinctive elements for their front faces.
In conclusion if the D423 patent is read so broadly as to be infringed by
the accused product, then under that broad reading the Panasonic Home
Network Camera would be a primary reference to one of ordinary skill in
the art.
4. Amaryllo HD Cameras
It is my understanding that Amaryllo International produces security
systems, which include the iCam HD, iBabi HD and iSensor HD. The
Amaryllo HD Cameras were prior art to the D423 patent because they
were described in a printed publication at least as early as August 28,
2013 and in public use or otherwise available to the public at least as
early as September 6, 2013.30 According to a press release from
Amaryllo dated Dec. 14, 2013, the Amaryllo iBabi HD was to be shown
at CES 2014.31 The press release included five images of the iBabi
30
GOPRO_00001255
31
https://www.prlog.org/12256320-amaryllo-unveils-ibabi-hd-worlds-first-hd-skype-baby-
monitor-with-wireless-motion-control-at-ces.html
90
camera. It also had links to two YouTube postings. One of the postings
was dated Dec. 12, 2013.32 The other posting was dated Dec. 10, 2013.33
All three sources show the cube-shaped design that has a horizontal stripe
in a contrasting color that wraps around the cube. They describe a
camera that can rotate 360 degrees with a lens that can rotate up and
down via remote commands with a phone.
Below is a detailed analysis of the Amaryillo HD Camera. I have
photographed the camera from similar views to those presented in the
D423 patent. The photographs and derivative drawings have been
presented in standard orthographic projection arrangement so that all of
32
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4Hud2sYF8v8
33
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UrdVb9wKuYQ
91
the far left. Finally, the perspective view is shown in the upper right.
92
Below are the silhouettes of the photographs of the Amaryllo HD Camera.
These drawings show the outer profile of each of the views with black for
all interior spaces.
93
Below are the detail lines of the photographs of the Panasonic Home
Network Camera.
L. The Combination of the Prior Art
1. Combining the Microsoft Patents
It is my opinion that a designer of ordinary skill in the art would have
found it obvious to combine the Microsoft patents to create a cube-like
camera with an overall visual impression closer to the D423 patent than
the accused products. Therefore, if the D423 patent is read so broadly as
to be infringed by the accused products (which I do not believe it can be),
94
then I believe a designer of ordinary skill would find the claimed design
obvious in light of the combination of the Microsoft D935, a primary
reference and the Microsoft D223 patent, a secondary reference.
The overall shape of the accused products is more similar in form to the
Microsoft D935 than they are to the rounded cube of the D423 patent.
If the accused product were found to have an overall rounded cube shape,
then the Microsoft D935 would also have an overall rounded cube
shape. Additionally, the Microsoft D935 patent has plan views (top and
bottom) that are much closer in appearance to the D423 patent than the
plan views of the accused product are to the D423 patent. Neither the
accused product, nor the D935 patent, have a horizontal band wrapping
around the cube in the elevational views. However, the D935 patent is
relatively simple on all four sides of the cube, similar to the D423
patent. The accused product has more complex details on all four sides,
with chamfers, steps, screws, part-lines and textural areas defining each
of the four elevational views. The Microsoft patent does not show the
lens on the front. However, one of ordinary skill would realize that a
camera would include a lens. Therefore, it is my opinion that if the
D423 patent is read so broadly that the accused products are found to be
infringing, then the Microsoft D935 patent would be considered
95
basically the same as the claimed design, because it would create the
same overall visual impression when all of the views are considered.
Moreover, under the same circumstances the Microsoft D223 would be
considered a secondary reference that would supply a front view that
looks basically the same as the D423 patent, and an ordinary designer
would have found it obvious to combine the D935 and D223 patents
and would have been motivated to do so for the reasons discussed below.
2. Motivation to Combine the Microsoft Patents
Both Microsoft patents are for electronic cameras. Further, both cover
Microsoft webcams, a specific type of camera designed to facilitate
video conferencing over the Internet. The patents also issued very close
in time to one another, in 2010 and 2011. Microsoft was also a leader in
this design space, and an ordinary designer would be especially
motivated to follow their designs for this reason. Both patents belong to
Microsoft and have square fronts with very similar profiles. A designer
of ordinary skill, aware of the Microsoft patents, would therefore be
motivated to combine them to make a compact and adjustable camera.
Specifically, the primary reference of the cube-like D935 patent could be
modified by integrating the adjustable stand of the D223 patent into the
front of the D935 patent. This combination would add more degrees of
96
freedom for adjusting the camera and allow the camera to sit on a table
with the base of the D223 patent, or alternatively, be supported with the
addition of the disclaimed support of the D935 patent.
Below see the perspective views of the Microsoft patents D935 and the
D223. These drawings can be compared with the D423 patent shown
above and the Microsoft patents below. One of ordinary skill would be
motivated to combine these two Microsoft references because they are so
related in function, related rounded square profile and for improved
advantages as listed above. The combination would be more similar to
the D423 patent than the accused products are. Therefore, if the patent
is read so broadly as to be infringed, then the obvious combination of the
Microsoft patents by a designer one of ordinary skill would invalidate the
D423 patent.
97
98
Below is the front view of the D423 patent, and below it are the two
front views of the Microsoft patents make the obvious if the patent is
read broadly.
3. Combining the Panasonic Home Network Camera with the

Amaryllo HD Camera
It is my opinion that a designer of ordinary skill in the art would combine
Panasonic Home Network Camera BL-C230/210 and the Amaryllo iCam
HD to create a cube like camera with an overall visual impression closer
99
to the D423 patent than the accused products. Therefore, if the D423
patent is read so broadly as to be infringed by the accused products, then
I believe a designer of ordinary skill would have found the claimed
design obvious in light of the combination of the Panasonic BL-
C230/C210 camera and the Amaryllo iCam HD.
Specifically, this combination would involve replacing the bulged
rotating mechanism of the Panasonic camera with the flat fronted
Amaryllo camera to allow more dynamic rotation of the lens. This
change would naturally allow a stripe due to the horizontal partlines for
the rotating mechanism of the Amaryllo camera. This change would add
to the Panasonic camera a stripe along the side that wraps around the
front and back of the middle of the camera, from the Amaryllo iCam HD,
which would place the combined design closer to the D423 patent than
the accused products are and render it obvious under a broad reading of
the D423 patent as C&A Marketing attempts to use in an effort to find
infringement. An ordinary designer would have been motivated to do so
as explained below.
100
Panasonic Home Networking Camera (left) and Amaryllo iCam HD (right)34
4. Motivation to Combine the Panasonic Network Camera

with the Amaryllo Camera
The Panasonic Network Camera has a lens that can rotate up and down
and side-to-side to provide various angles of views. However, it cannot
rotate fully 360. The Amaryllo Camera has a different way to rotate
side-to-side. It has a stationary base; it is shown in blue above. The rest
of the camera, the red and white sections, can rotate 360 above this base.
The lens of the Amaryllo Camera has a flush lens that rotates up and
down about a horizontal axis. A designer of ordinary skill would be
motivated to adapt the Panasonic Network Camera to attain the 360
34
(left) and
http://www.virginmegastore.com.sa/ContentPhotos/Photos/AMARYLLO%20ICAM%20HD%2
0360%20W%20REMOTE%20PAN%20and%20TILT%20RED%20WHITE_125636.jpg (right)
101
rotation of the Amaryllo Camera, by changing from the ball rotation lens
of the Panasonic Network Camera to the mechanism shown in the
Amaryllo Camera. This mechanism can be clearly seen working in the
videos that were published prior to the D423 patents application.
The designer of ordinary skill would also be motivated to make the
horizontal stripe in colors because it would be obvious to try. The part-
lines would naturally allow these color variations.
The D423 patent does not claim a particular size camera. While slightly
larger than the accused products, for example, it is my opinion that the
Amaryllo Camera is nevertheless small enough to be within the range of
an action camera.
M. Secondary Considerations of Non-Obviousness
I understand that on August 2, 2016, GoPro served the following
Interrogatory No. 15 on C&A Marketing:
For the asserted claim of the [D423 patent], identify all facts
that you contend support any secondary indicia, secondary
considerations, or objective evidence of alleged non-
obviousness (e.g., commercial success, long-felt need,
expressions of skepticism or disbelief, copying, teaching away,
etc.), including any alleged nexus between the secondary
considerations and the claimed ornamental design, and the
identity of all documents and things referring or relating thereto
and all persons with knowledge of any such facts.
102
I have reviewed C&A Marketings responses, dated September 6, 2016
and October 14, 2016, to this interrogatory, as well as the documents
cited in these responses. I focus on C&A Marketings October 14, 2016
supplemental (i.e., cumulative) response. To the extent that C&A
Marketing is permitted to supplement this response or identify additional
evidence or arguments in its rebuttal expert report, I reserve the right to
address that information in a supplemental report.
The first two substantive paragraphs of this response selectively quote
from reviews of the Polaroid Cube. C&A Marketing offers these reviews
as purported evidence of the designs innovation and speculates in
conclusion that C&As Polaroid Cube design was highly successful and
its success is linked to the design of the Polaroid Cube camera. I
understand that C&A Marketing is arguing that the patented design led to
the Cubes alleged commercial success.
First, I note that C&A Marketing merely asserts the commercial success
of the Polaroid Cube but that the cited evidence, however, does not
support this assertion. In particular, C&A Marketing fails to establish the
required nexus between the claimed design and any alleged commercial
success. C&A Marketing also fails to show that the Polaroid Cube has
been commercially successful in the first place. For example, one article
103
states, Polaroid doesnt have a significant market share in [the video
camera or action camera categories] yet, and notes GoPros 47.5%
action camera market share. CA0000597. This article is dated August
13, 2014, which is shortly after the Cubes release. C&A Marketing does
not cite additional evidence to suggest that its market share grew in any
category. Instead, another cited article, dated July 8, 2015 and from the
same publication, notes that GoPro had about 70% of the action camera
market at that time. CA0000033.
I have also reviewed the four, cited financial spreadsheets. These,
however, do not provide a basis for establishing the Polaroid Cubes
commercial success because they appear in isolation and do not suggest
commercial success standing alone based on the numbers presented.
Moreover, I understand that raw sales figures alone do not evince
commercial success; rather, an analysis of capture or growth of market
share following adoption of the accused design or other similar factors
should be considered. C&A Marketing fails to provide any such
evidence.
Even assuming the Polaroid Cubes commercial success, it is my opinion
that C&A Market has not met its burden to demonstrate a nexus between
the claimed design and any secondary consideration but merely
104
speculates as to its existence. Even if the Polaroid Cube were a
commercial success, C&A Marketing fails to establish that this occurred
due to the patented design as opposed to the price of the product, its
technical features, the Polaroid brand and its nostalgia factor, or C&A
Marketings efforts to market and sell the product, among other things.
Further, cherry-picked quotes from favorable Internet product reviews
such as those C&A Marketing cites are not helpful evidence in evaluating
a products design. Such evidence is neither objective nor representative.
This evidence also comes solely from tech sites, not design sites, and
focuses predominantly on the Polaroid Cubes hardware features. This
evidence does not appear to include independent design awards or
objective surveys.
Further, while C&A Marketing quotes these articles to show the
Polaroid Cubes innovative camera design, the articles generally
discuss how the design is cute, not innovative. Much of the praise also
seems relative to Polaroids market position, for example, referring to the
Polaroid Cube as a surprise to come from the faded photo brand but
concluding that [i]ts no GoPro. CA0000005.
C&A Marketings evidence also fails to show a connection between the
Polaroid Cubes design and any market success. The selected quotes
105
merely comment on one aspect of the camera, while the articles discuss
many other factors that may contribute to any success.
Specifically, I read these articles as more strongly suggesting that price,
not design, would be the driving factor for any success:
If youre looking for a versatile, high-performance action cam for
extreme sports or any other purpose, youll want to check out the
Editors Choice GoPro Hero4 Silver. But the Cube, which costs
less than half the price of either [the older GoPro Hero3 White or
Kodak PixPro SP1], makes up in performance and sheer fun what it
lacks in features. CA0000016 (emphasis added).
Its clear Polaroid doesnt mean to compete with the likes of GoPro.
Not with a price point of $99 USD. CA0000019.
Giving the Polaroid Cube a 3.5 out of 5 stars and listing
Inexpensive as a product highlight. CA0000026. Polaroid does
have a series of action cameras designed for the budget user.
CA0000027. No, this affordable camera cant compete against the
GoPros and Sonys. CA0000027. With its low price tag.
CA0000031. It doesnt have the hip-factor or performance of a
GoPro or Sony camera, but it isnt as expensive. CA0000031.
106
Both CA0000033 and CA0000036 discuss the GoPro Session as
being costlier than the Polaroid Cube camera.
Taken together, it is my opinion that C&A Marketing has done no more
than speculate as to any nexus between the design and any secondary
considerations. Moreover, there appear to have been many other factors,
including but not limited to price, hardware features, and marketing that
contribute to any purported commercial success of the Polaroid Cube, as
opposed to the claimed design of the D423 patent.
The remaining substantive paragraphs of C&A Marketings response to
interrogatory number 15 discuss the alleged similarities between the
Polaroid Cube and the HERO Session cameras. To establish these
similarities, C&A Marketing selectively quotes internet reviews and user
comments. It is my understanding that C&A Marketing relies on these
documents as evidence of alleged copying.
It is my opinion that C&A Marketings evidence does not show copying.
As an initial matter, cherry-picked quotes from favorable internet product
reviews and internet comments are not helpful evidence in evaluating
copying. Such evidence is neither objective nor representative.
Moreover, C&A Marketing offers nothing more than bare statements on
web pages, and provides no actual evidence from any of the authors or
107
commentators it cites. Further, in this instance, I note that the provided
evidence is all dated before the actual release of the HERO4 Session and
does not indicate that the persons quoted actually had seen the product
itself. This suggests that these comments were made by internet users
who had not seen the camera beyond the released promo shots, let alone
held and examined one from all angles in view of the prior art as is
required to show infringement.
Further, even if C&A Marketings proffered evidence could show
infringement (which I do not believe it does), none of these third-party
documents shows evidence of actual copying by GoPro. I understand
that merely showing infringement (which C&A Marketing has not done
either) does not establish copying. C&A Marketing merely speculates
that such copying exists but points to no evidence that GoPro
intentionally designed its accused products to mimic the Polaroid Cube.
In fact, this bare allegation contradicts objective evidence in the record,
showing that GoPro began designing the HERO4 Session camera in the
fall of 2011 and had finalized its design before the announcement of the
Polaroid Cube. See, e.g., October 7, 2016 Deposition of Rudy Samuels
and accompanying exhibits, including GOPRO_00075034,
GOPRO_00073688, and GOPRO_00002761.
108
C&A Marketings concluding paragraphs highlight the Polaroid Cube
and HERO4 Sessions form factor as a contributor to their success.
However, C&A Marketing conflates form factor (a products general
configuration), which is not protectable, with its much narrower, patented
design (a products ornamental appearance). It is therefore my opinion
that this evidence is irrelevant to any secondary considerations.
Finally, C&A Marketing has failed to show that the HERO4 Sessions
form factoror even its ornamental designcontributed to any of its
success, as opposed to GoPros strong brand, its superior hardware
features, and its marketing efforts. In fact, a survey GoPro conducted
suggests that the HERO4 Sessions form factor did not drive any of its
success. GOPRO_00073195.
Accordingly, I do not believe that any of the alleged evidence of
secondary considerations suggests non-obviousness.
N. Conclusion
It is my opinion that if C&A Marketings verbal description of the
ornamental features is used, and is applied in a similar manner as was
used to attempt to find infringement, then the D423 patent would be
invalidated by the prior art.
109
It is my opinion that the D423 patent would be obvious to a designer of
ordinary skill in the art, if it is read and applied so broadly as to be
infringed by the GoPro Session HERO4/5.
Firstly, it is my opinion that a designer of ordinary skill in the art would
combine the two Microsoft patents to create a cube like camera with an
overall visual impression closer to the D423 patent than the accused
products. Therefore, if the D423 patent is read so broadly as to be
infringed by the accused products, then I believe a designer of ordinary
skill would find the claimed design obvious in light of the combination of
the Microsoft D935 and the Microsoft D223 patent.
Secondly, it is my opinion that a designer of ordinary skill in the art
would combine the Panasonic Home Network Camera and the Amaryllo
HD Camera to create a cube like camera with an overall visual
impression closer to the D423 patent than the accused products.
Therefore, if the D423 patent is read so broadly as to be infringed by the
accused products, then I believe a designer of ordinary skill would find
the claimed design obvious in light of the combination of the Panasonic
Home Network Camera and the Amaryllo HD Camera.
I hereby declare that all statements made herein of my own knowledge
are true and that all statements made on information and belief are
110
Exhibit A
Exhibit A - Materials Considered by Visser
CA0000001-004 GOPRO_00000243-259
CA0000005-011 GOPRO_00000260-276
CA0000012-014 GOPRO_00000277-278
CA0000015-017 GOPRO_00000279-283
CA0000018-025 GOPRO_00000284-291
CA0000026-032 GOPRO_00000292-296
CA0000033-035 GOPRO_00000297-305
CA0000036-038 GOPRO_00000306-309
CA0000039-041 GOPRO_00000310-313
CA0000042 GOPRO_00000314-315
CA0000043-047 GOPRO_00000316-321
CA0000048-059 GOPRO_00000322-327
CA0000060-061 GOPRO_00000328-332
CA0000125-132 GOPRO_00000333-347
CA0000133-189 GOPRO_00000348-384
CA0000596 GOPRO_00000385-393
CA0000597-598 GOPRO_00000394-403
CA0000599-601 GOPRO_00000404-411
CA0000602-604 GOPRO_00000412-417
CA0000605-607 GOPRO_00000418-420
CA0000608-609 GOPRO_00000421-429
CA0000610-614 GOPRO_00000430-438
CA0000615-616 GOPRO_00000439-441
CA0000617-619 GOPRO_00000442-454
CA0000620 GOPRO_00000455-467
CA0000621-623 GOPRO_00000468-475
CA0000624 GOPRO_00000476
CA0015887 GOPRO_00000477-502
CA0015888 GOPRO_00000503
CA0015889 GOPRO_00000504-505
CA0015890 GOPRO_00000506
GOPRO_00000021-027 GOPRO_00000507-532
GOPRO_00000028-034 GOPRO_00000533-558
GOPRO_00000035-041 GOPRO_00000559-572
GOPRO_00000042-052 GOPRO_00000573-580
GOPRO_00000053-058 GOPRO_00000581-606
GOPRO_00000059-067 GOPRO_00000607-619
GOPRO_00000068-074 GOPRO_00000620-635
GOPRO_00000075-081 GOPRO_00000636-659
GOPRO_00000082-096 GOPRO_00000660-682
GOPRO_00000097-124 GOPRO_00000683-686
GOPRO_00000125-148 GOPRO_00000687-696
GOPRO_00000149-172 GOPRO_00000697-747
GOPRO_00000173-176 GOPRO_00000748-766
GOPRO_00000177-191 GOPRO_00000767-779
GOPRO_00000192-203 GOPRO_00000780-793
GOPRO_00000204-228 GOPRO_00000794-825
GOPRO_00000229-242 GOPRO_00000826-834
GOPRO_00000835-849 GOPRO_00001100
GOPRO_00000850-851 GOPRO_00001101-103
GOPRO_00000852-856 GOPRO_00001104-106
GOPRO_00000857-861 GOPRO_00001107-108
GOPRO_00000862-868 GOPRO_00001109-110
GOPRO_00000869-876 GOPRO_00001111-113
GOPRO_00000877-891 GOPRO_00001114-115
GOPRO_00000892-897 GOPRO_00001116
GOPRO_00000898-905 GOPRO_00001117-119
GOPRO_00000906-911 GOPRO_00001120-121
GOPRO_00000912-918 GOPRO_00001122-124
GOPRO_00000919-922 GOPRO_00001125-129
GOPRO_00000923-924 GOPRO_00001130-132
GOPRO_00000925-929 GOPRO_00001133-137
GOPRO_00000930-934 GOPRO_00001138-140
GOPRO_00000935-943 GOPRO_00001141-143
GOPRO_00000944-958 GOPRO_00001144-146
GOPRO_00000959-964 GOPRO_00001147-150
GOPRO_00000965-973 GOPRO_00001151-153
GOPRO_00000974-981 GOPRO_00001154-159
GOPRO_00000982-992 GOPRO_00001160-170
GOPRO_00000993-994 GOPRO_00001171-176
GOPRO_00000995-997 GOPRO_00001177-179
GOPRO_00000998-999 GOPRO_00001180-182
GOPRO_00001000 GOPRO_00001183-185
GOPRO_00001001-003 GOPRO_00001186-188
GOPRO_00001004-005 GOPRO_00001189-194
GOPRO_00001006-008 GOPRO_00001195-197
GOPRO_00001009-013 GOPRO_00001198-202
GOPRO_00001014-016 GOPRO_00001203-206
GOPRO_00001017-021 GOPRO_00001207-210
GOPRO_00001022-024 GOPRO_00001211-218
GOPRO_00001025-027 GOPRO_00001219
GOPRO_00001028-031 GOPRO_00001220-222
GOPRO_00001032-034 GOPRO_00001223-224
GOPRO_00001035-040 GOPRO_00001225-227
GOPRO_00001041-051 GOPRO_00001228-231
GOPRO_00001052-057 GOPRO_00001232-236
GOPRO_00001058-060 GOPRO_00001237-239
GOPRO_00001061-063 GOPRO_00001240-242
GOPRO_00001064-066 GOPRO_00001243-244
GOPRO_00001067-069 GOPRO_00001245-247
GOPRO_00001070-075 GOPRO_00001248-249
GOPRO_00001076-078 GOPRO_00001250-254
GOPRO_00001079-083 GOPRO_00001255
GOPRO_00001084-087 GOPRO_00001256-258
GOPRO_00001088-091 GOPRO_00001259-262
GOPRO_00001092-099 GOPRO_00001263-264
GOPRO_00001265-270 GOPRO_00074324-345
GOPRO_00001271-274 GOPRO_00074346-360
GOPRO_00001275-279 GOPRO_00074361-371
GOPRO_00047179-184 GOPRO_00074372
GOPRO_00052358-361 GOPRO_00074373-378
GOPRO_00052509 GOPRO_00074379
GOPRO_00073195-218 GOPRO_00074380
GOPRO_00074044 GOPRO_00074381-484
GOPRO_00074045-046 GOPRO_00074485-510
GOPRO_00074047-052 GOPRO_00074511-517
GOPRO_00074053-063 GOPRO_00074518
GOPRO_00074064 GOPRO_00074519
GOPRO_00074065 GOPRO_00074520
GOPRO_00074066 GOPRO_00074521
GOPRO_00074067 GOPRO_00074522
GOPRO_00074068 GOPRO_00074523
GOPRO_00074069 GOPRO_00074524-530
GOPRO_00074070 GOPRO_00074531-534
GOPRO_00074071 GOPRO_00074535-554
GOPRO_00074072-080 GOPRO_00074555-556
GOPRO_00074081-091 GOPRO_00074557
GOPRO_00074092-094 GOPRO_00074558
GOPRO_00074095-098 GOPRO_00074559
GOPRO_00074099-100 GOPRO_00074560-565
GOPRO_00074101-107 GOPRO_00074566-567
GOPRO_00074108-109 GOPRO_00074568-747
GOPRO_00074110 GOPRO_00074748-749
GOPRO_00074111 GOPRO_00074750-753
GOPRO_00074112 GOPRO_00074754-757
GOPRO_00074113 GOPRO_00074758-761
GOPRO_00074114 GOPRO_00074762-764
GOPRO_00074115-120 GOPRO_00074765-5008
GOPRO_00074121-122 GOPRO_00075009-016
GOPRO_00074123 GOPRO_00075017-018
GOPRO_00074124 GOPRO_00075019-021
GOPRO_00074125-134 GOPRO_00075022
GOPRO_00074135-137 GOPRO_00075023-026
GOPRO_00074138-140 GOPRO_00075027-031
GOPRO_00074141 GOPRO_00075032
GOPRO_00074142-143 GOPRO_00075046-049
GOPRO_00074144-147 GOPRO_00075274
GOPRO_00074148-150 GOPRO_00075275
GOPRO_00074151-157 GOPRO_00075276
GOPRO_00074158-160 GOPRO_00075277
GOPRO_00074161-223 GOPRO_00075278
GOPRO_00074224-320 GOPRO_00075279
GOPRO_00074321-322 GOPRO_00075280
GOPRO_00074323 GOPRO_00075281
GOPRO_00075282 GOPRO_00075318
GOPRO_00075283 GOPRO_00075319
GOPRO_00075284 GOPRO_00075320
GOPRO_00075285 GOPRO_00075321
GOPRO_00075286 GOPRO_00075322
GOPRO_00075287 GOPRO_00075323
GOPRO_00075288 MS_SUB_CA_GOPRO_000001-003
GOPRO_00075289 MS_SUB_CA_GOPRO_000004
GOPRO_00075292-309 MS_SUB_CA_GOPRO_000103-104
GOPRO_00075311 PAN000001-076
GOPRO_00075312 PAN000077-080
GOPRO_00075313 PAN000081-156
GOPRO_00075314 PAN000157-158
GOPRO_00075315 PAN000159-165
GOPRO_00075316 PAN000166
GOPRO_00075317
Complaint for Patent Infringement (Dkt. 1), dated 11/03/15

C&As Infringement Contentions, Exhibit A, dated 01/26/16
GoPros Rule 12(c) Motion for Partial Judgment on the Pleadings (Dkt. 27-1), dated 02/11/16
C&As Opposition to Rule 12(c) Motion for Partial Judgment on the Pleadings (Dkt. 35), dated 03/07/16
GoPros Reply to Rule 12(c) Motion for Partial Judgment on the Pleadings (Dkt. 37), dated 03/14/16
GoPros Invalidity Contentions, Exhibits A-G, dated 03/15/16
GoPros Non-Infringement Contentions, Exhibit A, dated 03/15/16
C&As Response to Invalidity Contentions, dated 03/29/16
Opinion on GoPros Rule 12(c) Motion for Partial Judgment on the Pleadings(Dkt. 42), dated 04/25/16
Joint Letter re Claim Construction (Dkt. 44), dated 04/29/16
Letter Order re Claim Construction (Dkt. 49), dated 05/11/16
C&As Response to 2nd Set of Interrogatories (No. 15), dated 09/06/16
C&As Amended Infringement Contentions, dated 10/03/16
GoPros Amended Non-Infringement Contentions, dated 10/12/16
C&As Responses to Interrogatory No. 15, dated 10/14/16
Declaration of Robert S. DiMaggio Regarding Production of Panasonic Documents, dated 10/18/16
GoPros Amended Invalidity Contentions (with Exhibit H), dated 10/21/16
Declaration of Patrick Gogerty Regarding Production of Microsoft Documents, dated 11/01/16
Robert Brunner deposition transcript and exhibits, dated 10/06/16

Rudy Samuels deposition transcript and exhibits, dated 10/07/16
Gregoire Vandenbussche deposition transcript and exhibits, dated 06/29/16
U.S. Patent No. 488,331

U.S. Patent No. D745,920
A Guide to Filing a Design Patent Application, USPTO, 2009
http://www.honda67.vn/forum/showthread.php?24676-L%E1%BB%8Bch-s%E1%BB%AD-m%C3%A1y-
%E1%BA%A3nh
https://www.google.com/search?q=Kodak+brownie&espv=2&biw=2151&bih=1051&tbm=isch&tbo=u&s
ource=univ&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwi6ptCO29PRAhVi7IMKHZ_mCmIQsAQIbA#imgrc=SAfW4dea0GSYGM%3
A
http://kurtmunger.com/kodak_brownie_hawkeyeid149.html
http://collectiblend.com/Cameras/images/Suter-Swiss-Box.jpg
http://picclick.ca/EHO-ALTISSA-EHO-BOX-3X4-WITH-DECENT-ORIGINAL-381879475157.html
http://d2ydh70d4b5xgv.cloudfront.net/images/2/a/vintage-eho-baby-box-camera-made-in-germany-
9676e2983c522244f16f5e0600e07a5a.jpg
http://www.rockycameras.com/ekmps/shops/rockcameras/images/gnome-pixie-box-vintage-camera-
9.99-19259-p.jpg
https://darlscamerashelf.files.wordpress.com/2013/07/gnome_pixie_montage.jpg
https://s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/564x/1d/d4/48/1dd448319ef408147f7b3481b413482a.jpg
http://www.pacificrimcamera.com/pp/kemper/kombi.jpg
https://s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/736x/87/cd/1d/87cd1d18809f54a5fb9dfd4e983b36ce.jpg
https://s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/736x/38/fb/db/38fbdbbb6fdc5ceeae048ceb2e66a044.jpg
http://historiccamera.com/cgi-
bin/librarium2/pm.cgi?action=app_display&app=datasheet&app_id=238&
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/3/3e/Kombi_Camera_001.jpg
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/3/3e/Kombi_Camera_001.jpg/599px-
http://www.earlyphotography.co.uk/Images/C8.JPG
http://www.historicacamera.com/cgi-bin/librarium/pm.cgi?action=display&login=kombi
https://www.keh.com/shop/hasselblad-500cm-chrome-500c-medium-format-camera-body-
267275.html
http://absolutephoto.com/index.php/news/cameras/hassleblad/339-space-hasselblad-rockets-to-281-
250
https://www.keh.com/media/catalog/product/cache/1/image/1800x/040ec09b1e35df139433887a97da
a66f/i/m/image_2570.jpg
http://www.clubsnap.com/forums/showthread.php?t=1439505
http://www.brownie-camera.com/51.shtml
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4Hud2sYF8v8
https://www.google.com/search?q=BL-
c230+panasonic&espv=2&biw=1940&bih=1240&tbm=isch&source=lnms&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwj56Y37gb
nRAhUH6oMKHVyHCycQ_AUICCgD#imgrc=a54VZxXxxv6s9M%3A
http://thumbs2.picclick.com/d/l400/pict/322112822253_/Panasonic-BL-C230-Wireless-Pan-tilt-
Camera.jpg
https://images-na.ssl-images-amazon.com/images/I/31KvUiII2PL.jpg
http://ss-support.eww.panasonic.com/pss/security/products/bbbl/lineup/bl-c210/spec.html
http://www.virginmegastore.com.sa/ContentPhotos/Photos/AMARYLLO%20ICAM%20HD%20360%20W
%20REMOTE%20PAN%20and%20TILT%20RED%20WHITE_125636.jpg
https://www.prlog.org/12256320-amaryllo-unveils-ibabi-hd-worlds-first-hd-skype-baby-monitor-with-
wireless-motion-control-at-ces.html
69055351V.1
Exhibit B
Exhibit B
Curriculum Vitae
Steve Visser
2472 Gala Court
West Lafayette, IN 47907
svisser@purdue.edu
765-494-2295 office
765-491-9633 cell
Education
1988 University of Illinois at Champaign-Urbana
MFA in Industrial Design
1982 Northwestern College
BA in Fine Arts, Sculpture
Academic Appointments
2006-Present Professor
Industrial Design
Patti and Rusty Rueff Department of Visual and Performing Arts
Purdue University
1996-2006 Associate Professor
Industrial Design
Purdue University
1990-1996 Assistant Professor
Industrial Design
Department of Visual and Performing Arts
Purdue University
1989-1990 Visiting Assistant Professor
Industrial Design
Department of Creative Arts
Purdue University
1986-1988 Teaching Assistant
University of Illinois at Champaign-Urbana
Professional Positions
1990-Present Steve Visser Design
Industrial Design Consultant
West Lafayette, IN
2005-2014 DesigNapkin
Co-Founder
West Lafayette, IN
1988-1989 Hari and Associates
Industrial Designer
Skokie, IL
Exhibit B
Awards and Honors

2015 SAI Faculty Fellow
Domus Academy in Milan (see Fellowships and Residencies)
2014 Associate Fellow
American Academy in Rome (see Fellowships and Residencies)
2007 Honorary Professor
Nanjing University of Science and Technology, Nanjing China
2005 Regional Competition: Indiana Venture Idol
Winner: Coolest Idea (see Design Competitions and Exhibitions)
2004 National Design Competition: ID Magazine
Honorable Mention (see Design Competitions and Exhibitions)
2003 Taiwan International Design Competition
Award of Excellence (see Design Competitions and Exhibitions)
2003 International Eyewear Design Competition: Opus Design Award
Award Winner (see Design Competitions and Exhibitions) Japan
1999 Malaysian Polytechnic Curriculum Development Project
Malaysia (see Grants)
1997 Fulbright Scholar
Finland (see Fellowships and Residencies)
1995 National Design Competition: Idea95 Industrial Designers Excellence Award
Silver Winner (see Design Competitions and Exhibitions)
1993 Neste Forma Finlandia 3 International Plastic Design Competition
2nd Place (see Design Competitions and Exhibitions) Finland
Membership
1992-Present Industrial Designers Society of America (IDSA)
Design Competitions and Exhibitions

2016 Juror
1st Greater China Smart Home Appliances Design Competition
Hong Kong Nov. 4
Jury:
Steve Visser Professor Purdue University
Ms Jiang Feng President of China Household Electrical Appliance Association
Mr Liu Chun Peng President of Taipei Electrical Commercial Association
Dr Roy Chung Founding President of Hong Kong Electrical Appliance Industries Association Jury:
2016 Juror
Appliance Design Excellence in Design Competition
Troy, MI
Jury:
Tucker Viemeister President Viemeister Industries NYC
Jerome Caruso Creative Director Sub-Zero
John C. Davis VP Marketing & Products, Unified Brands
Page 2 of 30
Exhibit B
2016 Juror
International Housewares Association Student Design Competition
Chicago, IL
Jury:
Sarah OBrien, lead designer for Kohler Co., Kohler WI, Kaitlyn Benoit, Industrial Designer Whirlpool Corporation,
Benton Harbor, MI, John Caruso, professor of industrial design, Milwaukee Institute of Art & Design; Gil Cavada, design
director, Product Development Technologies, Lake Zurich, Ill.; Joe Fiore, III, senior QA and technical designer, product
integrity-quality, J.C. Penney, Plano, Texas; Marianne Grisdale, vice president, creative director, TEAMS Design, Chicago;
Rachel Sandoval, industrial designer, Ignite USA/Newell, Chicago; Dogan Sekercioglu, industrial designer, IDEO, Chicago;
Greg Thune, chair of industrial design and director of the FabLab, Columbus (Ohio) College of Art and Design; Steve
Visser, professor and area representative, industrial design, Purdue University, West Lafayette, Ind.; Christopher White,
senior brand consultant, Dallas, Texas; Michael Werner, IDSA Chicago Student Liaison and industrial designer, Wilton,
Woodbridge, Ill.; and Christina Whitehouse, industrial designer, Newell Rubbermaid, Kalamazoo, Mich.
2015 One-Person Design Exhibition
Purdue University
West Lafayette, IN
August 31-September 4
Inspirations from Rome and Nepal
Domus Academy/NABA
Milan, Italy
July 21-August 4
Inspirations from Ancient Rome
2014 3-Person Invitational Design Exhibition
Designer in Residence Exhibition
Kathmandu, Nepal
October 21
Balance Stool and Table
Egg Bowls
Umbrella Birdfeeder
Glass Rain Chain
Three-Horned Trivet
2013 Invitational International Design Exhibition
4th International Innovation Design and Education Forum Exhibition
Nanjing, China
September 18-19
Exclamation Stacking Chair
Published in
Cross-Disciplinary and Integration: Portfolio of Nanjing Innovation International Universities Design Exhibition. Pages 20-24
YODEX
Taipei, Taiwan
May 17-20
2013 Juror
Troy, MI
Jury:
3 of 30 Page
Exhibit B
2012 Invitational Regional Exhibition

Chatham Home Interiors
Indianapolis, IN
September 7, 2012
Apple2 Table Line
2012 Invitational International Exhibition
Groovy Stuff Booth
International Casual Furniture and Accessories Market
The Merchandise Mart
Chicago, IL
September 20-23, 2012
Apple2 Pedestal Table
2012 Juror
Troy, MI
June
2012 Juror
Nanjing Innovation Design Competition
Nanjing China
August 13-14
2011 Poster Session
Mudd Design W orkshop
Claremont CA
May 28-30
Design for Relieving: Home-based Healthcare Products
Cheryl Qian Primary Author
Steve Visser Poster Layout and Co-Author
2009 Invitational International Design Summit and Exhibition
Nanjing China
October 25-26
StoneStalk Bench
2009 Juried National Exhibition
BECA Gallery "Next" exhibition
New Orleans, LA
February 5-28
Woodstalk Bench
Nanjing China
November 7-8
Astro Lounge Chair
2006 Juried Exhibition at the Industrial Designers Society of America
National Education Conference
Austin TX
September 17-20
Astro Lounge Chair
2005 Indiana Venture Idol Competition
Venture Club of Indiana
Indianapolis IN
September 27
Winner: Coolest Idea $1000 (30 Finalists, 4 Winners)
DesigNapkin Presentation
Scott Shim and Steve Visser
Page 4 of 30
Exhibit B

Washington, D.C.
August 21-23
Giwa: Build-it-yourself Souvenir
BLU Network: Borrow Lend Unite
Safety Stove: for South Africa
Flip: Invertible Organizer
2005 PASASA International Safe Stove Competition
Selected for prototyping (85 entries/ 35 prototyped)
Paraffin Safety Association South Africa
Johannesburg, South Africa
June 1
Design Director: Steve Visser
Design Team: Jim McGlothlin, Human Factors
Scott Shim, Industrial Design
Jeff Youngblood, Materials Engineer
Dan Leard, Engineering
Rick Paul, Sculpture
Jeff Bazarko, Engineering Student
Zach Mundy, Industrial Design Student
2005 Invitational Exhibition
Ehwa Art Center
Ehwa Women University
Seoul, Korea
April 15-19
2005 International Travel Souvenir Design Competition
Selected Design (about 630 entries from 39 countries, 142 selected)
Ministries of: Culture & Tourism, Commerce, Industry & Energy,
Korean Association of Industrial Design, ICSID
Kintex Exposition Center
Gyeonggi, Korea
April 14-17
Published in
International Travel Souvenir Design Competition 2005 Korea
(Seoul Korea: Gyeonggi Tourism Organization), 41
2005 Satelite Sallone International Invitational Design Exhibition
(Only two schools from the USA were in invited to exhibit in the Satelite Sallone, Purdue
University and Pratt Institute)
Milan Furniture Fair
Milan, Italy
April 13-18
2004 50th Annual International Design Competition: I.D. Magazine
Honorable Mention (over 2000 entries/ 159 selected)
New York, NY
July
Design Team: Steve Visser and Scott Shim
Published in
I.D. Magazine 50th Annual Design Review
Volume 52, number 5, (July 2004): 184
5 of 30 Page
Exhibit B
2004 International Aluminum Extrusion Competition

Selected for Exhibition (109 entries from 9 countries/ 36 selected)
ET Foundation
International Aluminum Extrusion Seminar and Exposition
Orlando, FL
May 18-21
Design Team: Scott Shim and Steve Visser
Birdie Aluminum Extrusion Concept
2003 International Eyewear Design Competition: Opus Design Award 2003
Award Winner (1771 entries from 62 counties/ 313 winners)
Eyetec Co., Ltd.
Tokyo, Japan
December 1
Shades Eyewear
2003 Taiwan International Design Competition: Creating a Digital Culture Design
Award of Excellence (356 entries from 25 countries/ 20 selected)
Taiwan Design Center
Taiwan Industrial Development Bureau
Taipei, Taiwan
November 8-30
Published in
Taiwan Design Center, 2003 Taiwan Creative Design Expo (Taipei, Taiwan: Taiwan Industrial Development Bureau),
115.
Pratt Institute
New York, NY
August 11-12
Box Recycled Container
Compliers Fishing Pliers
Forest Eyewear
Civil Table
Buffalo Mask
Quantum Armchair
Ateria Reliquary
Stone Fruit Bowl
Published in
Eastman National IDSA Education Conference Proceedings New York 2003 (Dulles, VA: Industrial Designers Society of
America), 259
2002 Invitational Exhibition at the Biennale Internationale Design 2002
Museum of Modern Art, Saint-tienn
Saint-tienn, France
November 16-24
Civil Interactive Play Table
2002 Humanscale/WWF National Mask Design Competition
Honorable Mention (51 designs entered)
Humanscale, Inc.
New York, NY
September 26
Buffalo Mask
Page 6 of 30
Exhibit B
2001-2002 29th Annual National Juried Toys Designed by Artists Exhibition

Decorative Arts Museum
Arkansas Art Center
Little Rock, AR
November 22, 2001-January 6, 2002
Principle Designer: Steve Visser
Designer: Nicol Visser
Herman the Dino
2001-2002 National Furniture Design Competition: The Chair Show 4
Selected Design (234 entries, 45 selected)
Southern Highland Craft Guild
Asheville, NC
Quantum Armchair
Traveling Exhibition: The Chair Show 4
Folk Art Center, Asheville, NC, September 30, 2001-January 13, 2002
L. Y. W. Art Museum Wausaw, WI, February 2-April 7
Wellington Gray Gallery Greenville, NC, June 6-September 21
Published in
David McFadden, The Chair Show 4 (Asheville, NC: Southern Highland), 44.
University of Lapland
Rovaniemi, Finland
August-November
Ateria Reliquary
Yalpsid Fruit Bowl
Award Winner (1639 entries from 30 countries/ 138 award winners)
(The only winner from the USA)
Eyetec Co., Ltd.
Tokyo, Japan
September 13-14
Egypt Eyewear
2001 Jan Ken Pon: Gifu World Design Competition
The World Design Foundation
Gifu Prefecture
Gifu City, Japan
May 9-June 12
Stone Fruit Bowl
2001 Herman Miller Office-Supply Creation National Competition
Honorable Mention
Herman Miller
www.Hermanmillerred.com
Zeeland, MI
Herman the Dino
2000 Biennale Internationale Design 2000 Invitational Exhibition
Saint tienn, France
October 7-15
Egypt Eyewear
Demi Fruit Bowl
7 of 30 Page
Exhibit B
2000 2000 Objects for the New Millennium Juried Exhibition

Gallery 91
New York, NY
July-September
Forest Eyewear
2000 Mid-States Crafts Regional Juried Exhibition
Evansville, IN
January-March
Forest Eyewear
1998-1999 Unlimited by Design National Invitational Exhibition
Cooper Hewitt National Design Museum (Smithsonian)
New York, NY
November 17, 1998-March 21, 1999
Principal Designer: Steve Visser
Engineer: Ashok Midha
Compliers Flexural Fishing Pliers
1997 Mutant Materials in Contemporary Design International Invitational Exhibition
Groninger Museum
Groninger, Netherlands
September 13-December 7
Veletrzni Palc
Prague, Czech Republic
May 15-August 17
1996-1997 Innovations for Living/Industrial Design Excellence Awards 1989-1995
National Invitational Exhibition
Brook Stevens Gallery at Milwaukee Institute of Design
Milwaukee, WI
October 18, 1996-August 23, 1997
Design Team: Kyle Bennett and Steve Visser
Kudo Crafters Clamp
1995-1996 National Design Competition: Good Design Award Exhibition
Selected Design (500 entries/ 120 selected)
The Chicago Athenaeum: Museum of Architecture and Design
Chicago, IL
October 24, 1995-January 13, 1996
Design Team: Don Herring: Dan Julian and Don Woods
ExerTron Video Game Controller
1995-1996 National Design Competition: Good Design Award
Good Design Award (Nearly 500 entries/ 80 selected)
Chicago, IL
Page 8 of 30
Exhibit B
1995 Idea95: National Design Competition

Silver Winner for New Product Concepts (766 entries/ 56 selected)
Industrial Designers Excellence Award
IDSA National Conference
Santa Fe, NM
September 13-16
Kudo Crafters Clamp
Published in
Innovation: Journal of the Industrial Designers Society of America, 14, no. 4, (Fall 1995): 207.
Cited in
Business Week (June 7, 1993): 102.
Museum of Modern Art
New York, NY
May 24-August 22
Design Team: Miro Tasic and Brian McGreevy
Compliant Fishing Pliers
Published in
Paola Antonelli, Mutant Materials in Contemporary Design Exhibition Bulletin (New York: Museum of Modern Art), 6.
1995 Permanent Collection
Chicago, IL
1994 94 Nagaoka International Design Competition
Selected Design (615 entries from 40 nations/ 57 selected)
Shinanogawa Technopolis
Nagaoka City, Japan
October 21-23
Design Team: Bennett Kyle and Visser Steve
Kudo Crafters Clamp
Published in
Interior Exterior International Design Competition 9 (Nagaoka, Japan: Shinanogawa Technopolis), 59
Museum Die Neue Sammlung (Invitational)
Industrial Design Collection
Munich, Germany
1993-1994 The Fine Line Between Art and Design Invitational Exhibition
Tepasky Art Gallery
Northwestern College
Orange City, IA
January 31, 1993-February 28, 1994
Two-Person Exhibition
1993 Crafts Regional Juried Exhibition
John A. Logan Museum and Art Gallery
Carterville, IL
November 19-December 31
Rossetti Kitchen Utensil
9 of 30 Page
Exhibit B

Silver Winner, for New Product Concepts (678 entries/ 26 selected)
Atlanta, GA
August 11-14
Designers: Miro Tasic and Brian McGreevy
Published in
Innovation: Journal of the Industrial Designers Society of America 12, no. 4 (Fall 1993): 125.
Cited in
1993 Neste Forma Finlandia: International Plastics Design Competition 3
Second Prize $18,000 (576 entries from 36 countries/ 2nd)
Neste Corporation
Espoo, Finland
Traveling Exhibition: Neste Forma Finlandia 3

Finland Tapiola, Espoo April 19-25
Sweden Svenska Mssan in Gothenburg May 10-15
France Parc de la Villette, Paris June 7-13
Germany Rhein Ruhr Center, Mulheim-Ruhr June 21-27
Belgium Zuiderdokken, Antwerp September 20-26
Italy Milan October 4-10
Portugal Espinho, near Oporto October 20-26
UK National Exhibition Center, Birmingham November 7-11
Published in
David Vickery, Neste Forma Finlandia International Plastic Design Competition 3 (Helsinki: Abbeygate), 12
1992 Architectonics: Regional Juried Exhibition
Performing Arts Center
Fort Wayne, IN
October 22-November 20
Nurkka Corner Floor Lamp
1984 Solo Exhibition of Recent Sculptures
Concordia College
Seward, NE
Patents
2016 Soft Tissue Therapy Tool
Filing Date July 26
US Design Patent Application 29/620,159
2016 Closed Vehicle Lift Arm
Filing Date May 27
2016 Vehicle Lift Platform
Filing Date May 27
Page 10 of 30
Exhibit B
2016 Vertical Channel Vehicle Lift Arm

Filing Date May 27
2016 Vertical Lift Platform Hand Switch
Filing Date May 27
2002 Support Structure for a Chair
Issued October 8
Design Patent Number D463,925
Inventor: Steve Visser
2001 Rotary Assembly Table
Issued April 24
Inventors: Steve Visser, Sang-Gyeun Ahn, Laura Drake, Haolong Ma, and Seung-Jo Park
1997 Resilient Clamp
Issued May 6
Patent Number 5,625,931
Inventors: Steve Visser and Kyle Bennett
1997 Video Game Controller
Issued August 19
1996 Compliant Pliers
Issued June 4
Inventors: Ashok Midha and Steve Visser
Issued November 12
Issued October 29
Inventors: Bruce Munson and Steve Visser
Designs Reproduced in Publications

2013 Steve Visser, Exclamation Chair
Published in
Cross-Disciplinary and Integration: Portfolio of Nanjing Innovation International Universities
Design Exhibition
July 25, 2013 (Nanjing, China) 20-21
2009 Steve Visser, StoneStalk pedestal
Published in
Portfolio of 09 International Universities Design
09
2009910 (Nanjing, China) 8-9
2008 Steve Visser and Scott Shim, Timex Season and profile of Designapkin design firm
Published in
Charlotte and Peter Fiell, Design Now
(London: Taschen Publishing) 118-123
11 of 30 Page
Exhibit B
2004 Steve Visser and Scott Shim BLU Network: Borrow Lend Unite
Published in
Design (Taipei, Taiwan)
Vol.114 (December/January): 71
2002 Steve Visser, Quantum Armchair
Published in
American Style Magazine
(Winter 2001-2002): 16
2001 Steve Visser, Ateria Reliquary
Published in
Luisa Collina and Giuliano Simonelli, Eds.
Designing Designers: Training Strategies for the Third Millennium
(Milan, Italy: Politecnico di Milano), 73
1997 Steve Visser and Kyle Bennett, Kudo Crafters Clamp
Published in
George Covington and Bruce Hannah, Access by Design
(New York: Van Nostrand Reinhold), 201
Published in
Universal Design Excellence Project
(Takoma Park, MD: Universal Designers and Consultants, Inc. in cooperation with The National Endowment for the
Arts and the National Building Museum) slides.
1996 Steve Visser, and Ashok Midha, Compliers Flexural Fishing Pliers
Published in
Design Report (Hamburg, Germany)
(January/February 1996)
Published in
Plastics
(May 1995): 7
1994 Steve Visser, Miro Tasic, and Ashok Midha, Compliant Fishing Pliers
Published in
Taka Sihvola, Mikko, Design in Finland 1994
(Helsinki: The Finnish Foreign Trade Association), 60
Published in
Innovation: Award-Winning Industrial Design
(Glen Cove, NY: PBC International, Inc.), 82
Published in
Paola Antonelli, Mutant Materials in Contemporary Design
(New York: Museum of Modern Art and Rizzoli Press), 35
Page 12 of 30
Exhibit B
Published in
Design (London) 534 (June 1993): 8
Form Function Finlandia (Helsinki) no. 2 (June 1993): 91
K Plastic & Kautscherl Zeikey (Germany) (May 1993): 10
Plastverarbeiter (Heidelberg, Germany) 44 no. 5 (1993): 73
Form (Zurich, Germany) no. 143 (1993): 129
Design in Kunststoff (Germany) no. 44 (1993): 72-74
Domus (Milan, Italy) no. 752 (September 1993): 80-81
Kunstof Magazine (Doetinchem, Netherlands) no. 5 (May 1993): 32
Machine Design (July 9, 1993): 12
Industrial Design Activities

2016 Fuzion Mini, (product Graphics)
FASTR Inc.
Indianapolis, IN
2015-2016 Herculaneum Coffee Table, (furniture design)
Steve Visser Design
West Lafayette, IN
2015 River Desk and Silver Apple2 Pedestal, (furniture design and development)
Steve Visser Design
West Lafayette, IN
2015 Hand Pendant (product design)
Design Team: Max Cao and Steve Visser
Braun-Ability
Winamac, IN
2015 QLD Wheelchair Lift (product design)
Braun-Ability
Winamac, IN
2014 Balance Stool, Egg Bowls, Umbrella Birdfeeder, and Button Clock (product design)
Association of Craft Producers
Kathmandu, Nepal
2014 3 Horned Trivet, Copper Candle Holder (product design)
Design Team: Sari Visser and Steve Visser
Kathmandu, Nepal
2011-2014 Mini Massage Tool, (product design)
Soft Tissue Therapy Tools Inc.
Indianapolis, IN
2013 Circle Chair, (furniture design and development)
DesigNapkin
West Lafayette, IN
2012 Exclamation Chair, (concept development)
DesigNapkin
West Lafayette, IN
2011-12 Apple2 table line, (furniture design and development)
DesigNapkin
West Lafayette, IN
13 of 30 Page
Exhibit B
2009-2010 Fuzion ST3, (product design and development)

Indianapolis, IN
2007 Pendant Lighting Design, Origins 212 Collection (product design)
Omega Lighting
Tupelo, MS
Principal Design: Steve Visser and Scott Shim
2006-2007 Track Lighting Design (product design)
Omega Lighting
Tupelo, MS
Design Team: Milan Jovanovic,
2006-2007 Bike Seat Design (product design)
David Porter
Kansas City, MO
Principal Design: Scott Shim and Steve Visser
2006 Cell Phone Design (product design)
Samsung Electronics
Sacramento, CA
2006 MXR programmable light (product design)
Apollo Design Technology Inc.
Ft. Wayne, IN
2005-2006 Portable Electronics (product design)
Klipsch Audio Corp.
Indianapolis, IN
Design Team: Nick Poteracki, Milan Jovanovic, Faraz Shah and Scott Collins
2005-2006 Wardrobe Valet (product design)
Proman Products LLC.
Loves Park, IL
2005 Identity Mouth Guard (product design)
Reliance Inc.
Taipei, Taiwan
Principal Designers: Scott Shim and Steve Visser
Design Team: Nick Poteracki, Colt Stander, Bria Helgerson, Jason Boyer, and Brian Beaver
2005 USB Drive (concept design)
Filadex Inc.
West Lafayette, IN
2004-2005 Contact Lens Travel Case (product design)
Reliance, Inc.
Taipei, Taiwan
2004 Sanitary Toilet Care System (product design)
Dr. Seok-Jin Kim
Indianapolis, IN
Design Team: Milan Jovanovic and Alex Cantoni
Page 14 of 30
Exhibit B
2001 Civil Interactive Play Table (furniture design)

Imagination Station
West Lafayette, IN
2001 Knock-Down Stool (concept development)
Matt Striebel
Bloomington, IN
Design Team: Laura Drake and Kyungsook Song
2001 Interactive Trolley Exhibit (exhibit design)
Imagination Station/City bus
West Lafayette, IN
Design Team: Nathaniel Grady, Michael Lah and Kiley Reed
2001 Quantum Armchair (furniture design)
Patent assigned to Purdue Research Foundation
West Lafayette, IN
1999-2000 Fiber Optic Cross (design/ build commission)
St. Thomas Aquinas Church
West Lafayette, IN
1999 Wooden Decorative Products (product design)
Reliance, Inc.
Taipei, Taiwan
Design Team: Braden Smith and Haolong Ma
1999 Self-Watering Flowerpots (concept design)
Reliance, Inc.
Taipei, Taiwan
1998 Faucet Design (product design)
Delta Faucet
Indianapolis, IN
Principal Designer: Judd Lord
Design Team: Steve Visser and Loren Hill
1995-1996 Portable Bassinet (product design)
Redmon, Inc.
Peru, IN
Design Team: Don Herring, Don Woods and Dan Julian
1993-1995 Compliers Flexural Fishing Pliers (product design)
Compliers, Inc.
West Lafayette, IN
1994 Stenfors Temperature Control System (product design)
Stenfors OY
Oulu, Finland
Design Team: Kyle Bennett and Don Woods
15 of 30 Page
Exhibit B
1994 Computer Interface Device (product graphics)

Inter-serve, Inc.
Rockfort, IL
1994-1995 ExerTron Video Game Controller (product design)
ExerTron, Inc.
Muncie, IN
Design Team: Don Herring and Scott Jost
1994 Tele-Talker (product design)
Amuze Technologies
Indianapolis, IN
Design Assistant: Braden Smith
1994 Kudo Crafters Clamp (product design)
Fiskars, Inc.
Madison, WI
1993 Mini Printer (concept design)
Quixale America, Inc.
NPC Limited
Taipei, Taiwan
Principal Designer: Chao-Hsi Wu
Design Team: Steve Visser and Brian McGreevy
1993 ZARD printer sharing system (concept design)
Power Print Systems
Rossville, IN
Design Team: David Winn and Brian McGreevy
1992 Trim Line Vending Machine (concept design)
Standard Changemakers, Inc.
Indianapolis, IN
1992 Display Case (furniture design commission)
Elastic Mechanism Lab
Mechanical Engineering Building
Purdue University
1992 River Valley Evangelical Free Church (logo design)
West Lafayette, IN
1991 Tricorder Radio Frequency Meter (product design)
Trilithic, Inc.
Indianapolis, IN
1991 Water Soluble Packaging System (concept development)
Great Lakes Chemical
West Lafayette, IN
Design Assistant: Richard Johnson
Page 16 of 30
Exhibit B
1991 ECG Analyzer (product graphics)

Vetronics, Inc.
Lafayette, IN
1990 KG Software (logo design)
Micro Data Base Systems, Inc.
Lafayette, IN
1989 Ansco Vision AL 35mm camera (product design)
Haking, Inc.
Hong Kong
Principal Designer: Hari Matsuda
Design Assistant: Steve Visser
1989 Whistler 750 radar detector (product design)
Whistler, Inc.
Westford, MA
1989 Shure Beta 58 wireless microphone (design detailing)
Shure Brothers, Inc.
Chicago, IL
1989 Whistler 2se radar detector (product graphics)
Whistler, Inc.
Westford, MA
1989 Point of purchase poster (graphic design)
Ansco, Inc.
Glen View, IL
1989 Coulter blood analyzer (product design)
Coulter, Inc.
Miami, FL
Principal Designer: Robert Coons
1989 Ansco Vision Gift Pack (package design)
Ansco, Inc.
Glen View, IL
Design Team: Peter Langmar and Steve Visser
1988 Top Flight Video Game Clam Pack (package design)
Konomi, Inc.
Chicago, IL
Expert Witnessing
2016 Gamon vs. Campbell Soup (expert witness, design patent)
Cozen OConnor
New York, NY
Prepared declaration on invalidity, October 14, 2016
17 of 30 Page
Exhibit B
2016 IGT vs. Aristocrat Technologies (expert witness, design patent)

Covington and Burling LLP
Washington, DC
Prepared declaration on invalidity, March 15, 2016
2015-2016 Sonos vs. Denon (expert witness, design patent)
Lee Sullivan Shea & Smith LLP
Chicago IL
Prepare declaration on validity, October 26, 2016
Prepare declaration on claim construction, September 9, 2016
KPPB LLP
Anaheim, CA
Prepare supplemental declaration on validity, September 29, 2016
Prepared declaration on validity, March 30, 2016
Completed informal interview with USPTO, Alexandria VA, February 13, 2016
2015 CATR vs. Kingston Electronics (expert witness, utility patent)
Renaissance IP Law Group LLP
Portland, OR
Completed deposition as expert, Lafayette IN, September 21, 2015
Prepared declaration on validity, July 16, 2015
2015 Luv N Care vs. Sauvinex (expert witness, contract dispute)
Banner & Witcoff LTD.
Washington DC
Completed deposition as expert, Lafayette, IN, September 4, 2015
Prepared expert report on copying, June 18, 2015
2014-2015 Cablz vs. Chums (expert witness, utility patent)
Stoel Rives LLP
Salt Lake, UT
Prepare declaration on invalidity, January 22, 2015
Completed deposition as expert, Dallas, TX, August 15, 2014
Prepared declaration on invalidity, August 1, 2014
Prepared rebuttal report on invalidity, August 1, 2014
Prepared report on invalidity, May 26, 2014
2013-2014 PNY vs. Phison Electronics (expert witness, utility patent)
Fish and Richardson PC
Dallas, TX
Completed deposition as expert, Dallas, TX, July 23, 2014
Prepare declaration on validity, July 8, 2014
2013-2014 M-Edge vs. Amazon (expert witness, utility patent)
Alston and Bird LLP
Washington, DC
Completed deposition as expert, Chicago, IL, April 10, 2014
Prepared report on non-infringement, March 7, 2014
Prepared report on invalidity, January 30, 2014
2012-2013 MSA vs. Nifty Home Products (expert witness, design patent)
Gibson & Dernier LLP
Woodbridge, NJ
Completed deposition as expert, Woodbridge, NJ, May 8, 2013
Prepared report on infringement, March 15, 2013
Page 18 of 30
Exhibit B
2012-2013 Frito-Lay vs. Medallion Foods, Inc. (expert witness, trademark)

Baker Botts LLP
Dallas, TX
Testified at trial, Sherman TX, February 15, 2013
Completed deposition as expert, Dallas, TX, November 20, 2012
Prepared report on trademark, October 8, 2012
2012-2013 Nordock Inc. vs. Systems Inc. (expert witness, design patent)
Sokol Law Office
Milwaukee, WI
Testified at jury trial, Milwaukee, WI, March 19 & 25, 2013
Testified in claim construction hearing, Milwaukee, WI, January 30, 2013
Gave declaration in summary judgment motion, November 5, 2012
Prepared rebuttal report, July 20, 2012
Prepared report on infringement/validity, June 20, 2012
2012 Sofpool LLC vs. Kmart and Big Lots (expert witness, design patent)
Troutman Sanders LLP
Irvine, CA
Gave declaration in summary judgment motion, October 29, 2012
Gave declaration in claim construction hearing, June 18, 2012
Prepared report on validity, February 10, 2012
2010-2011 Spellbound vs. Pacific Handy Cutter/Stanley Black & Decker (expert witness, utility patents)
Miller Canfield
Chicago, IL
Prepared rebuttal second supplemental report, September-October, 2011
Gave declaration on statement of facts, September 26, 2011
Gave declaration in support of summary judgment, August 5, 2011
Prepared second supplemental report, July-August, 2011
Gave declaration in support of summary judgment, February 7, 2011
Prepared rebuttal expert report, January-February, 2011
Prepared expert report, October-December, 2010
Gave declaration on infringement and validity, December 17, 2010
Prepared supplemental expert report, December, 2010
2010-2011 Microsoft vs. Datel Inc. (expert witness, design patents)
Howard, Rice, Nemerovski, Canady, Falk & Rabkin PC
San Francisco, CA
Completed deposition as expert, June 8, 2011
Prepared rebuttal report, May, 2011
Prepared expert report, March-April, 2011
Worked on ITC expert report, June-August 2010
2010 Magnadyne vs. Best Buy/EverWin (expert witness, design patent)
Irvine, CA
Prepared expert report and declaration, March-April, 2010
Prepared supplemental expert report, May, 2010
Completed deposition as expert, Detroit MI, June 3, 2010
2009 Plastipak (expert witness, design patent)
Dykema Gossett LLP
Chicago, IL
Provided opinion on patent infringement, September, 2009
2008 Trover Group, Inc. vs. Diebold (expert witness, design patent)
Thompson & Knight, LLP
Dallas, TX
Prepared preliminary reports on invalidity and non-infringement, SeptemberNovember, 2008
19 of 30 Page
Exhibit B
2008 Hanamint Corp. vs. Home Casual (expert witness, design patent)
Fabyanske, Westra, Hart & Thomson, P.A.
Minneapolis, MN
Completed deposition on expert report, July 10, 2008
Prepared expert report on invalidity, January-April, 2008
2007-2008 Sofpool LLC vs. Intex Recreational Corp. (expert witness, design patents)
Baker & Daniels LLP
Indianapolis, IN
Testified in jury trial as a design expert, Marshall Texas, April 15, 2008
Prepared expert report on non-infringement February-March, 2008
Gave declaration for markman hearing February 19, 2008
Prepared expert report on invalidity July-February, 2008
2006-2007 Calphalon vs. Meyer (expert witness, design patent)
Dykema Gossett LLP
Chicago, IL
Testified in jury trial as a design expert, June 12, 2007
Completed deposition on expert report, Chicago IL, May 9, 2006
Prepared expert report for Meyer Inc. in a design patent dispute, April, 2006
2006 Zuna Corporation vs. Atico, Walgreen & Target (expert witness, utility patent)
Wiley Rein & Fielding LLP
Washington D.C.
Reviewed patents, claim construction and manufactured products in view of a utility patent owned by Zuna
Corporation, February-March
2005-2006 Fisher-Price vs. Evenflo (expert witness, utility patent)
Milbank, Tweed, Hadley & McCloy LLP
Washington D.C.
Testified in preliminary injunction hearing as an design expert, May 24, 2006
Completed deposition on the expert report, Buffalo, NY, December 22, 2005
Prepared expert report on two product that Evenflo produces and a patent that Fisher-Price owns, August-
November 2005
2005 Fabio Perini S.p.A. vs. Chan Li Machinery Co. Ltd. (expert witness, utility patent)
Baker & McKenzie LLP
Washington, D.C.
Worked as non-testifying expert in an International Trade Regulation & Customs case involving an Italian
manufacturer and a Taiwanese Manufacturer. October-December
Created visual images to help explain the issues involved in the case.
Created claim charts for US patents 5,979,818 and Re 35,729
2003-2004 Fisher-Price vs. Graco (expert witness, utility patent)
Washington D.C.
Assisted in preparation for Markman hearing, Philadelphia, PA, March, 2004
Testified in Preliminary Injunction hearing, Philadelphia, PA, November, 2003
Prepared a preliminary report for a lawsuit between Fisher-Price and Graco, Inc. concerning a product that
Graco, Inc. produces and patent 6,520,862 that Fisher-Price owns, July-September, 2003
Page 20 of 30
Exhibit B
2001-2003 Fisher-Price vs. Safety 1st (expert witness, utility and design patents)
Washington D.C.
Testified in a trial concerning seven products and on four patents in dispute, Wilmington, DE, January 14-
15, 2003
Assisted with patent reply brief for Summary Judgment
Prepared PowerPoint presentations for trial, November-December, 2002
Prepared exhibits for trial, May, 2002
Reviewed courts claim construction, April, 2002
Gave declaration for court on claim construction, Wilmington, DE, March, 2002
Prepared expert report on five products that Safety 1st produces and five patents that Fisher-Price owns,
January, 2002
Reviewed prior art and claim construction, October, 2001
2001 Stein Industries vs. Display Specialties (expert witness, design patent)
Fish & Richardson P.C.
Minneapolis, MN
Reviewed patent history and depositions in the case, July-August, 2001
2001 The Kong Company vs. Mann Design (expert witness, utility patent)
Minneapolis, MN
Gave opinions on definition of claim language in patent 6,129,053 and visual comparisons with design patent
388,559, March, 2001
2000 3-M vs. Cabot (expert witness, utility and design patents)
Minneapolis, MN
Prepared expert report, February-March, 2000
Prepared declaration, April, 2000
Completed deposition, Indianapolis, IN, September, 2000
International Fellowships and Residencies

Selected for four-week residency at Domus Academy in Milan. The project was focused on industrial design inspiration
from Etruscan objects.
Milan, Italy
July 19-August 14
2014 Designer in Residence
Served as a designer in residency at the Association of Craft Producers in Nepal. The project was focused on designing
crafts for fair trade industry
Kathmandu, Nepal
September 1-October 22
Selected for four-week residency at the American Academy in Rome. The project was focused on industrial design
inspiration from 1st Century Rome.
Rome, Italy
April 28-May 24
2013 International Workshop
Organized and team-taught 48 students during an intensive 48-hour design challenge with student in China.
Nanjing, China
September 20-22
2002 Study Abroad Program
Taught British Style course at Oxford University.
Oxford, UK
June 30-August 4
21 of 30 Page
Exhibit B
2000 International Faculty Exchange

Taught at the University of Lapland for six weeks; included a Product Design course for international students from
several countries within Europe, and an Advanced Research and Design course with group of Finnish students,
designing a robot for domestic yard work.
Rovaniemi, Finland
April 1-May15
1996-1997 Fulbright Scholar
Won a scholarship to teach and research at the University of Art and Design Helsinki. Teaching included courses in
Industrial Design, Materials and Processes and Compliant Mechanisms. Research focused on creative endeavors with
computer aided industrial design.
Helsinki, Finland
August 1996-August 1997
Lectures
2016 Panelist: Industrial Design Education Symposium
National Conference IDSA
Detroit, MI
August 17
2015 Domus Academy (see International Fellowships)
Perception: How We Identify Great Design
Milan, Italy
July 28
2013 Keynote Lecture at the 4th International Innovation Design Education Forum
Perceiving Design: Design Perceived
Nanjing, China
September 19
2013 Breaking the Rules of Visual Perception
Steve Visser and Cheryl Qian
IDSA National Education Symposium
Chicago, IL
August 21
Published online:
www.idsa.org/sites/default/files/Visser Paper_Breaking_the_rules_of_Visual_Perception.pdf
2013 Beyond the Computer Screen: Applying Information Visualization in Product Design
Cheryl Qian, Steve Visser and Victor Chen
Chicago, IL
August 21
Published online:
www.idsa.org/sites/default/files/Qian-Paper_BeyondTheComputerScreen.pdf
2012 What You Can Get From 48 Hours: The Future of Design Leadership
Steve Visser, Cheryl Qian, and Victor Chen
Boston, MA
August 15
Published online:
http://www.idsa.org/what-you-can-get-48-hours-future-design-leadership
Page 22 of 30
Exhibit B
2011 A Collaborative Effort: Integrating Interaction Design Evaluation into Product Design Process
Cheryl Qian, and Steve Visser
Eastman IDSA National Education Conference
New Orleans, LA
September 14
Published online:
www.idsa.org/sites/default/files/ACollaborativeEffortIXDEvaluation.pdf
2011 Keynote lecture at the International Innovation Design & Education Forum
Integrating Interaction Design and Industrial Design
Nanjing, China
August 15
2011 Integrating User Experience Research into Industrial Design
Education: Interaction Design Program at Purdue
National Collegiate Inventors and Innovators Alliance Conference
Washington DC
March 25
Published online:
http://nciia.org/sites/default/files/u7/Qian.pdf
2010 Interaction Design at Purdue University
Portland, OR
August 5
2010 The Interactive Face of Design
Cheryl Qian, Petronio Bendito and Steve Visser
Faces of Design, IDSA Mideast Conference
Grand Rapids, MI
May 1
2009 Panelist: Industrial Design Education
Midwest District Conference IDSA
Minneapolis, MN
April 4
2007 Keynote lecture at the ICHEM Conference
How to Effectively Incorporate Corporate Sponsored Projects and Design Competition into
Design Curriculum
Wuxi, China
November 6
2007 Keynote lecture at International Nanjing Forum of Industrial Design Education
Design Curriculum
Nanjing, China
November 8
2006 Workshop co-leader with Jim OGrady from Calgary Canada
National Collegiate Inventors and Innovators Alliance conference
Portland, OR
March 23
2005 Panel Leader: Design Competitions and Tenure
Washington D.C.
August 22
23 of 30 Page
Exhibit B
2005 Entrepreneurship in Industrial Design: a Case Study

Kookmin University
Seoul, Korea
April 19
2005 Entrepreneurship in Industrial Design Lecture and Workshop
Seoul National University
Seoul, Korea
April 18
2004 Panelist: Industry Sponsored Student Research Models
Art Center
Pasadena, CA
October 24-26
2003 Strategies: Corporate vs. Entrepreneurial Design
Notre Dame University
Notre Dame, IN
November 4
2001 Entrepreneurship/Corporate Sponsorship: Purdues Two-Sided Gold Coin
International Convention of University Courses in Industrial Design:
Milan International Furniture Fair
Milan, Italy
April 7-8
Published in:
Designing Designers. Training Strategies for the Third Millennium
p. 69-74
2001 Seminar on Entrepreneurial Design
IDSA Midwest District Conference: Designing the Experience
Chicago, IL
March 23
2001 Entrepreneurship/Corporate Sponsorship: Purdue's Two-Sided Gold Coin
Published in:
IDSA Design Education Proceedings
p. 405-412
2000 Design in the USA
Rovaniemi, Finland
April 18
1999 Finding Opportunities
Seminar: Designing In the New Millennium
Politeknik Johor Bahru
Pasir Gudang, Malaysia
July 24
1999 Brainstorming Workshop
IDSA Midwest District Conference: The Creative Culture
Madison, WI
April 9
1998 Compliance: Utilizing Plastics Flexible and Rigid Characteristics.
In IDSA Design Education Proceedings: Why Design?
Long Beach, CA
September 22-24, CD ROM
Page 24 of 30
Exhibit B
1997 Entrepreneurial Design Center: Blurring the Boundaries between Design Education, Business
and Manufacturing
Co-Authored: Steve Visser and Tom Gatis
Published in:
Washington, D.C.
June 23-25, CD ROM
1997 Compliant Mechanism Workshop
Two-week workshop for 20 students at The University of Lapland
Rovaniemi, Finland
April 28-May 7
1997 American Design & Compliers Design Process
To 40 students at the University of Lapland
Rovaniemi, Finland
May 6
1997 East Meets West: The Design Cultures of Asia and America
Joint lecture with Professor Lee of Korea
Approximately 150 students and faculty attended
University of Art and Design
Helsinki, Finland
January 15
1996 Machine Age Design in America
To Industrial Design Freshmen
University of Art and Design Helsinki
Helsinki, Finland
December 12
1996 An Introduction to Industrial Design
To 40 students at the Tampere Polytechnic
Tampere, Finland
November 5
1996 Venturing In Industrial Design
American Voices conference
Turku, Finland
October 10
1996 Venturing Organizations, a Case Study
To 70 Industrial Design/Business Management students
Helsinki, Finland
September 12
1996 The Design Process for Compliers
Helsinki, Finland
December 5
1995 Entrepreneurs: A Natural Resource in Short Supply and Educating
Design Students in the Art of Venturing.
IDSA Design Education Conference
Santa Fe, NM
September 13-16
25 of 30 Page
Exhibit B
1994 Inventionalism: Designers Reject Expressionistic Pleasures of the 80s and Replace Them with
an Adoration for Innovation
Co-Authored; Steve Visser and John Peasley
Dearborn, MI
August 16-18
Published in:
IDSA Design Education Conference Proceedings: Design Futures
p. 133-139
1994 Compliant Mechanisms: Materials and Processes
Lecture and mini workshop
University of Michigan
Ann Arbor, MI
March 8
1993 Drawing Workshop
Taught a three-day workshop on design drawing techniques to twelve students from Helsingin
Taideteolloinen Korkeakoulu (University of Art and Design Helsinki)
Helsinki, Finland
April 20-22
1993 Plastic Design
Helsingin Taideteolloinen Korkeakoulu (University of Art and Design Helsinki)
Helsinki, Finland
April 22
1993 Parallel Design at Purdue: Mechanical Engineering and Industrial Design Team-Up.
Co-Authored; Steve Visser and Ashok Midha
Georgia Institute of Technology
Atlanta, GA
August 10-12
Published in:
IDSA Design Education Conference Proceedings
p. 245-249
1991 Industrial Design Process and Education
Rovaniemi Institute of Industrial Arts and Handicrafts
Rovaniemi, Finland
December 18
Helsinki, Finland
December 17
1991 What is Industrial Design?
Lecture including a three-screen multi-media presentation developed by students in A&D 355
Presentation Techniques
Purdue University
October 29
1991 Presentation Graphics in Industrial Design
National Computer Graphic Association Conference
Co-Presenters: Lind Babcock, David Sigman, and Steve Visser
Chicago, IL
April 24
1990 Art Education vs. Design Education
University of California
San Bernardino, CA
April 10
Page 26 of 30
Exhibit B
Major Professor Masters in Industrial Design

2016 Amie Barnes, Wilson Zhang and Hongmin Jin
2015 Angie Wang
2013 Zoey Feng and Robert Sibley
2011 Di Wu
2010 Xi Chen, Sara Rockwell and Larry Fenske
2009 Hao Hua
2008 Aaron Scott
2006 Milan Jovanovic, Kee Yoo, and Oho Son (co-chair),
2005 Adam Bancroft
2004 Kate Hoffman, Brooke Davis, Jon Bricker, Shivangi Narke and Andrea Granadas
2002 Kyungsook Song, Yurong Wang and Xijin Lai
2001 Braden Smith
2000 Yi Hong, Haolong Ma, Jason Tennenhouse and Sang-Gyeun Ahn
1999 Laura Johnson Drake
Grants/Corporate Sponsorship
2015-2016 Hasbro Inc.
Co-led student interdisciplinary design project working with major toy manufacturer to explore concepts focused on
solar powered toys.
Providence, RI
$30,000
2015 BraunAbility (3 Co-PIs)
Co-PI for the BraunAbility Queensland project. It was a project to re-design a wheelchair lift for the European Market.
The team of three professors and three RAs worked together for 12 months to improve the design of a wheelchair lift
by reducing the weight, reducing noise and improving the visual design of the lift.
Winamac, IN
$206,313
2015 Evonik
Organized a 48-hour intensive design project, the goal was to develop new ways to promote Evonik plastics to
Industrial Designers.
Lafayette, IN
$6,500
2014 Kimberly Clark Professional
Co-Organized student design project working with major safety manufacturer to explore concepts focused on the
clean-room gowns.
Atlanta, GA
$48,000
2014 Hasbro Inc.
Student design project working with major toy manufacturer to explore toy concepts focused on Play-Doh.
Providence, RI
$8,000
2013 GE Appliance
Organized graduate student design project working with major appliance manufacturer to explore concepts focused on
the laundry.
Louisville, KY
$8,000
2013 National Furniture
Arranged corporate sponsored project exploring office stool designs for the Junior Industrial Design Students. Worked
with Glen Fuller who taught the A&D 305 class.
Jasper, IN
$12,500 ($8000 cash and $4500 in prizes and one summer internship)
27 of 30 Page
Exhibit B
2013 HON Furniture

Arranged 48-2-Design workshop for 96 industrial design students. The project was to design furniture for the office
storage accessories.
Muscatine, IA
$22,716 (Gift in kind 34 Volt drafting stools and 16 Nucleus chairs)
2013 Hasbro Inc.
Student design project working with major toy manufacturer to explore toy concepts focused on preschool children
Providence, RI
$8,000
2012 Caterpillar
Arranged Corporate sponsored project for senior industrial design students. The project was to explore how
Caterpillar could expand its brand.
Peoria, IL
$12,000
2012 Weber Grill
Arranged 48-2-Design workshop for 50 industrial design students. The project was to design furniture for the future of
education.
Chicago, IL
$8,000 ($6000 cash and $2000 in prizes)
Arranged corporate sponsored project exploring occasional table designs for the Junior Industrial Design Students.
Worked with Victor Chen who taught the A&D 305 class. Three of the students where hired to bring their designs to
production. The production designs were introduced at Neocon 2012.
Jasper, IN
$14,000 ($8000 cash and $6000 in internships)
2010 GE Healthcare
Arranged multiple course project exploring home monitoring of patients with: multiple sclerosis, cerebral palsy, arthritis,
and Parkinson's.
Milwaukee, WI
$16,000
2010 The Hon Company
education.
Muscatine, IA
$15,000
2010 Hasbro Inc.
Student design project working with major toy manufacturer to explore toy concepts focused on the Stretch
Armstrong movie.
Providence, RI
$8,000
2009 DePuy Inc. a Johnson & Johnson Company
Arranged sponsored project with DePuy Inc. for the juniors. This project focused on designing for the Paralympics.
Warsaw, IN
$5,000
2009 MCS Frames
Arranged sponsored project focusing on future frame trends.
Chicago, IL
$5,000
2008 Whirlpool interaction Design
Grant to develop new interaction design area within industrial design at Purdue University.
Benton Harbor, MI
$200,000
Page 28 of 30
Exhibit B
2007 Rolodex (Newell Rubbermaid)

Students design project sponsored by office-supply manufacturer, researched millennias organizational needs and
helped identify new market opportunities for the company. Chicago, IL
$12,000
2007 Radio Flyer
Student design project sponsored by toy manufacture, students created future concept for ride on toys.
Chicago, IL
$5000
2005 College of Liberal Arts International Travel Award
$1400
2005 College of Liberal Arts Research Grant
$900
2004 Whirlpool Corp.
Student design project exploring new concepts for refrigeration storage, this innovative intensive project spanned two
weekends and included 32 students creating 256 concepts within 48 hours.
Benton Harbor, MI
$6000
2001 Hill-Rom
Packaderm project: design project sponsored by a major manufacturer of hospital beds and equipment. The project
was to design a safer and more efficient method of transporting equipment and patients in the hospital environment.
Batesville, IN
$16,000
2001 Campbell Hausfeld
Power paint equipment research and design project.
Student project to explore what women want in power paint equipment.
Nashville, TN
$5000
2000 International Programs Global Initiative
Initiated an exchange program with the University of Lapland and
Purdue University
$2500
1999 Doc. Martens Shoes
Corporate sponsored project for the junior level Industrial Design students. The project included a five-day trip to New
York provided by Doc. Martens for all participating students and faculty. The students also had a chance to work with
professional designers, marketers, and executives from Doc. Martens.
New York, NY
$8000
1999 Malaysian Polytechnic Curriculum Development Project Phase II
One of 16 professors that consulted for the Malaysian Ministry of Education, by assisting with the development and
implementation of a new curriculum at Politeknik Johor Bahru, Pasir Gudang, Malaysia. The grant included support for
one month in the USA and one month in Malaysia. Funding was provided through the World Bank.
$1,447,628
1999 Samsung Corporation
Campus liaison for the Prometheus Design Competition
Seoul, Korea
$2000
1995 Purdue Research Foundation
Summer Faculty Grant
Computer Design of Complex Compliant Mechanisms
$5000
1995 Alias Design Software
Varsity Program Grant
$90,000
29 of 30 Page
Exhibit B
1994 IBM RS/6000 workstation computer

Purdue Shared Research grant program from IBM
$35,000
Page 30 of 30
EXHIBIT 2
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY
C&A MARKETING, INC.,

Plaintiff and Counter Defendant,
v.
GOPRO, INC.,
Defendant and Counterclaimant
Case No. 1:15-7854-RMB-JS
REBUTTAL REPORT OF STEVEN VISSER

ON NON-INFRINGEMENT OF THE U.S. D730,423 PATENT
1. I have been retained as a technical consultant on behalf of GoPro, Inc.,
the defendant and counterclaimant in the present proceeding, and I am
being compensated at my usual and customary hourly rate of $350. I
have no financial interest in, or affiliation with, the defendant, or the
plaintiff, which I understand to be C&A Marketing, Inc. My
compensation is not dependent upon the outcome of, or my testimony in,
the present District of New Jersey case or any litigation proceedings.
1
2. On February 10, 2017, I submitted an expert report on the obviousness of
the D730,423 patent (Invalidity Report) in the above-captioned matter.
I hereby incorporate that report by reference.
A. Background
3. In preparing this report, I have reviewed the documents listed in Exhibit
A.
4. My curriculum vitae is attached as Exhibit B.
5. For additional background, please refer to my Invalidity Report,
paragraphs 39, which I hereby incorporate by reference.
B. Summary of Opinions
6. It is my opinion that GoPros HERO4 Session (now branded the HERO
Session) and HERO5 Session cameras do not infringe the D423 patent.
In my report, I will refer to these camera models jointly as the GoPro
Session. I will also refer to these two cameras as the Accused
Product(s). Like Mr. Ball said in paragraph 108 of his infringement
report, In short, the HERO5 Session is close to identical to the HERO4
Session (now branded the Hero Session) and identical in all respects
relevant to this report. Below I will explain how I came to this decision
and discuss my methodology in detail.
2
7. As I understand the law of patent infringement, the Gorham test is the
primary test to determine infringement. The Egyptian Goddess decision
clarified the Gorham test in that the ordinary observer would be aware of
all of the pertinent prior art. With this in mind, it is clear that there were
many cube-like cameras prior to when the D423 patent was filed.
8. When the patented and accused designs are compared in light of the prior
art, it is clear that the ordinary observer would not confuse the one
thinking it is the other. For example, when the cube-like form factor is
not given undue weight, given its presence in the prior art, the two
designs are substantially different. Moreover, each has specific design
style, ornamental appearance, with distinct design elements that
differentiate the two designs. In light of the closeness of the prior art,
and the distinctiveness of the design features, it is my opinion that the
GoPro Session does not infringe the D423 patent.
C. Applicable Law
1. Claim Construction
9. It is my understanding that while courts have a duty to conduct claim
construction in design patent cases, ordinarily, the preferable course is to
not attempt to construe a design patent claim by providing a detailed
3
verbal description of the claimed design because design patents are
typically claimed as shown in drawings.
10. It is also my understanding that it may, nevertheless, be helpful to point
out various features of the claimed design as they relate to the accused
design and the prior art. For example, I understand that the Federal
Circuit provided an example of pointing out that a design element
appeared on three sides of the patented design but on all sides of the
Accused Product and prior art.
11. I understand that, in this case, the Court has declined to conduct claim
construction of the D423 patent to date and that it agreed with C&A
Marketing that formal claim construction was not required.
2. Infringement
12. I understand that if, 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, the first one patented is
infringed by the other.
13. I also understand that when the claimed and accused designs are not
plainly dissimilar, resolution of the question whether the ordinary
observer would consider the two designs to be substantially the same will
4
benefit from a comparison of the claimed and accused designs with the
prior art. When the differences between the claimed and accused design
are viewed in light of the prior art, the attention of the hypothetical
ordinary observer will be drawn to those aspects of the claimed design
that differ from the prior art. And when the claimed design is close to the
prior art designs, small differences between the accused design and the
claimed design are likely to be important to the eye of the hypothetical
ordinary observer.
14. Where the claimed design includes several elements, the fact finder must
apply the ordinary observer test by comparing similarities in overall
designs, not similarities of ornamental features in isolation. Further, the
ordinary observer test may not be applied so broadly that differences in
the ornamental features present in the Accused Product from that of the
claimed design are ignored, as these differences are highly relevant to the
infringement inquiry.
15. The ordinary observer analysis is not limited to those features visible at
the point of sale, but instead must encompass all ornamental features
visible at any time during normal use of the product. However, a design
patent protects only the ornamental features of a design, not the overall
design concept.
5
16. Deception concerning the patented design is determined from the
viewpoint of the person who is the ordinary purchaser of the article
charged to be an infringement. I also understand that a purchaser may
pay more attention as the cost of the product increases, varying from
cheap impulse purchases to expensive deliberative purchases.
3. Commercial Embodiment
17. I understand that it is generally improper to compare an Accused Product
with a patentees purported commercial embodiment in determining
infringement but that the court is permittedbut not requiredto do so
if a patentee is able to show that there is no substantial difference
between the claimed design and the purported commercial embodiment.
However, the fact finder must disregard any additional features in the
commercial embodiment (e.g., color, size, and material).
D. The D423 Patent
18. The D423 patent includes 7 figures, one perspective view and six
orthographic views, one for each side of the cube. The patent does not
include any phantom lines (dashed), which can be used in design patents
to indicate portions of the design not claimed. Instead, all elements of
the D423 patent are shown as solid lines.
6
19. The internal components of the camera are not shown in the D423
patent, only the outside portions (housing) are shown.
20. I have had a computer model created based on the figures of the D423
Patent. It is shown far below in the same orthographic layout.
Figures of the D423 Patent
7
Computer Model of the Figures of the D423 Patent
21. The Polaroid Cube and Polaroid Cube+ as Commercial Embodiments
22. Mr. Ball on page 25 suggests that the Polaroid Cube and Cube+ cameras
have no significant differences between the claimed design and its
commercial embodiment. If this is the case, the rear surface on the
Polaroid Cube+ is of interest. It has a rectangular door with rounded
corners on the rear that is not present in the Polaroid Cube, which has a
round door. It appears that a round door and a square door with similar
size and location for Mr. Ball would be of no significant difference.
8
1. Cited Prior Art
23. In paragraph 75, Mr. Ball discussed the prior art cited by the examiner of
the D423 patent. He suggests that none of them look like or anticipate
the D423 design. However, he overlooks the proper role of prior art in
the infringement analysis to identify elements of the claimed design
that were known in the prior art. Both in the prior art cited by the
examiner and in other prior art, there are many examples of cameras with
cube-like form factors.
E. Comparison of the D423 Patent and Historical Cube-Like

Cameras
24. As shown in my Invalidity Report, including the section History of
Cube-Like Cameras, some of the earliest cameras invented were either
cubic in shape or had square front faces with depths similar to the faces
dimension to create a generally cube-like form factor. In paragraph 84 of
Mr. Balls report on infringement, Mr. Ball suggests that the D423
patents cube form makes it distinctive. In the following paragraph, he
hints that there are other non-cubic design alternatives that are viable.
This attempt to carve out all cube-like form factors for action cameras
is inconsistent with the history of cameras and the file history of the
D423 patent. This subtle attempt to suggest that C&A Marketing owns
9
the cubic form factor for action cameras is overstating the extent of the
patent protection provided by the D423 patent.
25. Cameras have had cubic or cube-like form factors for a long time. Below
are a couple of photographs of cameras from the 1800s with cube-like
form factors. Figure 1 from the D423 patent drawing is shown along
with the photographs of historical cameras. While the perspectives are
from different angles, one can see that all of these cameras have a similar,
generally cube-like form factor. The Daguerre camera from 1829, on the
far right appears to be a cube with the same dimensions in all views;
however, this is difficult to determine for certain from the perspective
view. It also has recessed panels on the surfaces of the cube; however, it
would still be described as having a cube-like form factor. In the center
right is figure 1 from the D423 patent. It also appears have the same
height, width and depth. From the orthographic views of the D423
patent, it can be determined that it is perfectly cubic (with rounded
corners) with identical overall dimensions in all six views. In the center
left is the Kombi camera from 1892. From the perspective view it can be
determined that it has a square face and appears to have a depth that is
slightly longer than the height. However, it would still be described as
having a cube-like form factor. On the far left is the Kodak Brownie No.
10
1 from the early 1900s. It also appears to have a square face and a depth
longer than its height but still has a cube-like form factor.
Kodak Brownie, 1892 Kombi, Fig. 1 of D423, 1829 Daguerre
26. Later on, in the 1900s, cameras continued to use a cubic or cube-like
form factors. Below, on the far right, is the Eho camera from the 1930s.
It appears to be a cube with a raised frame around a recessed circular lens
in the center of the front face. From the perspective view, it cannot be
determined if it is perfectly cubic. However, it is apparent that it has a
cube-like form factor. In the center right is figure 1 from the D423
patent. In the center left is the Suter Liliput camera from circa 1941. It
appears to be formed with large rounded edges on a cube-like form
factor. On the far left is the Majestic camera from 1950. It appears to
have a square face with a centered circular lens. It is an extruded square
shape with rounded corners and end caps on the front and rear surfaces.
It appears to be a little deeper than it is tall, but would still be described
as having a cube-like form factor. While the perspectives are from
11
different angles, one can see that all of these cameras have a similar
overall cube-like form factor.
1950 Majestic, Suter Liliput, Fig. 1 of D423, Eho
27. In the 2000s, cameras continued to use cube-like form factors. Below, on
the far right, is figure 1 from the D441,386 patent from 2001. It appears
to be cube-like with similar dimensions in height, width and depth. It
also has lightly bulged sides and curved side elements. In the center right
is figure 1 from the D423 patent, which was filed in 2014. In the center
left is figure 1 of the D616,480 patent, which issued in 2010. It has
similar dimensions in height, width and depth. It has two embodiments,
both have the same basic cubic shape with a clear lens cover that bulges
out from the front surface of the cube at different amounts of bulging. It
has a square front with sharp edges. The side and rear edges are rounded.
It has a cube-like form factor. On the far left is figure 8 from the
D647,935 patent, from 2011. It is a square face with rounded corners
extruded rearward. It is extruded slightly longer than it is tall; however,
12
it would be similar to a cube in overall proportions. All of these cameras
could be described as having a cube-like form factor.
D935, D480, Fig. 1 of D423, and D386
28. In my opinion, Mr. Balls infringement analysis is incorrect because it
ignores the fact that the cube-like form factor of the D423 was known in
the prior art, and thus the comparison to the Accused Products must be
made with this in mind.
F. Ordinary Observer Purchasing and Experiencing the GoPro

Session
1. Purchasing GoPro Cameras in Stores
29. It is my understanding that GoPro markets its products in separate
displays alongside only other GoPro products, and never on the same
shelf as competitors products. This was the case when I purchased the
GoPro Session. See the photo of the display I took at Best Buy when
purchasing the GoPro locally.
13
GoPro Display at Best Buy
30. The display case included a screen, which displayed GoPro products,
including Session. Below are two stills from an animation that was
showing the design of the GoPro Session.
14
2. Purchasing Online
31. I have explored the GoPro Session as it is presented online. I have
watched unboxing videos, promotional videos, reviews, and images from
shopping and neutral websites, as well as GoPros promotional
information. It is clear there are plenty of detailed images and video to
inform the ordinary purchaser looking at buying a GoPro Session online.
The price ranged from $170 to $410, depending upon accessories and
models. The GoPro Session is on the higher end of the action camera
market and would not likely be an impulse item, but would be a
considered purchase.
3. GoPro Session In Use
32. I have used the GoPro Session. It can be used in a mounting system or
hand held without any mount. The touchpoints are the small button on
the rear, the shutter button on top, and a display for navigating through
15
functions. It also has a door on the side with a latch that must be released
to charge the camera and remove the memory card.
G. Analysis of the GoPro Session vs. the D423 Patent in light of the
Prior Art
33. For an explanation of my analysis methodology, see paragraphs 3944 of
my Invalidity Report, incorporated herein by reference.
34. I have analyzed the Accused Products, the D423 patent, and the closest
prior art, of which the ordinary observer would be aware. I have
described my findings below in detail.
35. To do my analysis, I compared a GoPro HERO5 Session that I purchased
at a local Best Buy. I have also compared a GoPro HERO4 Session that
was provided to me. It is my understanding that the GoPro HERO4 and
HERO5 Session are basically identical in their housing design; however,
they have different graphics and a slight variation in color.
36. I also have purchased a Polaroid Cube HD Action Camera online. (It
was not available at the Best Buy.) It is my understanding that Polaroid
asserts that the Polaroid Cube practices the D423 patent. However, I did
not find the patent number marked on the product or in its packaging.
16
The Polaroid Cube beside the GoPro HERO5 Session I purchased
37. It appears that for its Cube+, C&A Marketing changed its packaging
from that which I purchased for the Cube to a package more like the
traditional GoPro packaging. The Wi-Fi Cube+ shown in Mr. Balls
report appears to be very similar to GoPros packaging design, despite
C&A Marketing having a different package design for the original Cube.
17
38. I searched GoPro unboxing videos, and it appears that GoPro has been
using the clear box on top of a printed box pedestal for its packaging
consistently since at least 2007. For example, on Dec. 18, 2007, the
following video was uploaded reviewing and showing this same style of
packaging: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9G7Rhu1J6e8.
39. Below on the left is the packaging that Mr. Ball included in his report for
the Polaroid Cube+. On the right is the prior art GoPro HERO3 that Mr.
Ball dates to 2012. I have watched an unboxing video, from April 6,
2013, for the GoPro HERO3, and the packaging appears to be the same
as the packaging shown on the right below.
18
Polaroid Cube+ Packaging (left) and GoPro HERO3 Packaging (right)
40. A September 26, 2014 unboxing video for the Polaroid Cube shows a
simple clear box package similar to the one I purchased:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dO0R_Fva9AU.
41. At least as early as Oct 23, 2012, the GoPro HERO3 was boxed with the
clear box top and a printed box pedestal:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0-ERBKxnqVk.
42. At least as early as September 1, 2010, the packaging for the GoPro HD
Helmet Hero had a clear box for the camera on top of a printed box
pedestal: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WPbOU0dAxw4.
19
43. Therefore, it is my opinion that any confusion caused by the packaging at
the point of sale should be ignored in the analysis of the D423 patent and
the accused GoPro Session, as it is C&A Marketing that has tried to copy
the style of packaging GoPro uses.
H. The D423 Patent Has a Consistently Rounded Cube While the

GoPro Session Does Not
44. As stated in my Invalidity Report, it is my opinion that none of the prior
art references cited by the examiner show a rounded cube with all of the
edges consistently rounded. As can be seen below, the D423 patent has
identical silhouettes for all of the six orthographic views. Below are the
silhouettes of the D423 patent. These drawings show the outer profile of
each of the views with solid black for the camera.
1. Perspective Silhouettes
45. Below are the silhouettes of the perspective views of four cube-like
cameras. The D423 patent is shown on the left. The D480 patents
second embodiment is shown in the left center. The Accused Product is
shown in the center right. The D935 patent, another prior art reference,
is on the far right. It should be noted that I have photographed the
Accused Product from the same angle as the D423 patent. Therefore,
the angles of their sides are more similar to each other than to the angles
of the prior art. This is because the patent drawings of the prior art are
20
from different angles than the D423 patent. Even so, it is clear that all
four silhouettes, from the perspective view, show irregular hexagon
shapes with rounded corners. However, only the Accused Product has
noticeable bumps/steps in the profile of the cube. Specifically, the small
bumps along the left front edge are caused by screw heads which
protrude slightly beyond the bezel. Also, even more noticeable is a notch
in the upper left corner and the lowest corner. These notches are caused
by a step around the bezel screwed onto the front of the Accused Product.
Because the prior art was drawn from different perspective angles, it is
difficult to accurately determine how similar the radii of the edges are or
how the cubes compare. This comparison of edge radii can best be done
from the orthographic views, which allows more accurate comparison.
Perspective View D423, D480 2nd Embodiment, GoPro Session, and D935
46. Below, on the left, is the D423 patent silhouette of the perspective view.
In the center is the second embodiment of the D480 patent, which is
shown at a higher perspective view showing more of the top than the
21
D423 patent. It is also rotated to show more of the right side than the
D423 patent. On the right is the first embodiment of the D480 patent,
which is drawn from a more similar angle to the D423 patent, but still at
a higher viewing angle showing more of the top than the D423 patent.
The angle of view affects the perspective silhouette. For example, even
though these two embodiments of the D480 patent have very similar
edge rounding, the change in angle of view makes the silhouette of the
first embodiment look more like the D423 patent than the second
embodiment does. Therefore, it is best to compare the orthographic
drawings in this case, because the orthographic views do not have this
variation in viewing angle.
Perspective View D423, D480 2nd embodiment, and D480 1st embodiment
2. Front Side Silhouettes
47. Below are the front view silhouettes of the four cameras shown in
perspective view previously. In these silhouettes, the profiles can be
22
accurately compared. The profiles of all four cameras appear to be
square faced with rounded corners. It should be noted that the D935
patent has a mount on the bottom surface that protrudes from the square
and creates a small step that attracts attention. From the orthographic
views, it is easier to compare the radii that round the cube than it is in the
perspective view. It is clear that the D423 patent on the far left and the
D480 patent on the left center are very similar in the rounding of the
cubes side edges. Alternatively, the Accused Product in the center right,
and the D935 patent on the far right, each have noticeably larger radii on
the side edges.
D423 Front, D480 2nd Embodiment Front, GoPro Front, and D935 Front
3. Rear Side Silhouettes
48. The silhouettes of the rear view of the patents are the same to those of the
front view.
23
D423 Rear, D480 2nd Embodiment Rear, GoPro Rear, and D935 Rear
4. Top Plan Silhouettes
49. Below are silhouettes of the top views of the cameras shown previously.
In these silhouettes the profiles can be accurately compared. It is clear
that only the D423 patent, on the far left, shows a perfect square with
evenly rounded edges. While the D480 patent, on the left center, has a
main body that is a perfect square, it has a domed portion protruding
from the front surface that makes it appear deeper than it is wide. The
main body of the Accused Product, in the center right, is considerably
less deep than it is wide; however, it has a framed glass cover that
protrudes from the front surface making it appear closer to a square, but
still slightly less deep than it is wide. The D935 patent, on the far right,
appears slightly deeper than it is wide.
50. The edges of the D423 patent, shown on the far left, are evenly rounded.
The rear edges of the D480 patent, shown on the center left, are very
similar to those of the D423 patent. The D480 patent has a sharp front
edge and a domed lens area that is protruding from the front face, not
24
recessed like the domed lens area of the D423 patent. Alternatively, the
Accused Product, in the center right, does not have either the front or the
rear edges rounded. Instead, they have front and rear edges with small
chamfers. Additionally, it has a protruding frame and glass cover bolted
to the front face. This frame is smaller than the main body and creates a
step in the front edge. The D935 patent, on the far right, has cut radii
joined with sharp corners on the rear edges, and sharp edges on the front.
The net effect is that each of the cameras has a distinctive profile from
the top views.
D423 Top, D480 2nd Embodiment Top, GoPro Top, and D935 Top
5. Bottom Plan Silhouettes
51. The bottom views, shown below, are mirror silhouette images of the top
view. Only the D423 patent does not have noticeable directionality; its
front and rear edges are the same, whereas all three others have different
front and rear edges. The net effect is that each of the cameras has a
distinctive profile from the bottom views.
25
D423 Bottom, D480 2nd Bottom, GoPro Bottom, and D935 Bottom
6. Right Side Silhouettes
52. Below are silhouettes of the right-side views of the cameras shown
above. In these silhouettes, the profiles can be accurately compared. It is
clear that only the D423 patent, on the far left, is a perfect square. While
the D480 patent, in the left center, has a main body that is a perfect
square, it has a domed portion protruding from the front surface that
makes it appear deeper than it is tall. The main body of the Accused
Product, in the center right, is considerably shallower than it is tall;
however, it has a framed glass cover that protrudes from the front surface
making it appear closer to a perfect square, but still slightly less deep
than it is tall. The D935 patent, on the far right, appears to be square but
has a rear step that makes it appear longer.
53. The edges of the D423 patent, shown on the far left, are evenly rounded.
The rear edges of the D480 patent, shown in the center left, are very
similar to those of the D423 patent. The D480 patent has a sharp front
edge and a domed lens area that is protruding from the front face, not
26
recessed like the domed lens area of the D423 patent. Alternatively, the
Accused Product, in the center right, does not have either the front or the
rear edges rounded. Instead, it has front and rear edges with a small
chamfer. Additionally, it has a protruding frame and glass cover bolted
to the front face. This frame is smaller than the main body and creates a
stepped front edge. The D935 patent, on the far right, has cut radii
joined with sharp corners on the rear edges, and sharp edges on the front.
The net effect is that each of the cameras has a distinctive profile from
the right-side views.
D423 Right, D480 2nd Embodiment Right, GoPro Right, and D935 Right
7. Left Side Silhouettes
54. The left side views, shown below, are mirror silhouette images of the
right-side views, shown above. Only the D423 patent does not have
noticeable directionality, its front and rear edges are the same, whereas
the other three designs have different front and rear edges. The net effect
is that each of the cameras has a distinctive profile from the left side
views.
27
D423 Left, D480 2nd Embodiment Left, GoPro Left, and D935 Left
8. Conclusion of Silhouette Analysis
55. In conclusion, after analyzing the D423 patent, it is clear that it has a
unique silhouette of a consistently rounded cube with no directionality,
with all of the orthographic profiles being identical. None of the prior art
references have this consistently rounded cube, nor does the Accused
Product. In fact, the D480 patent has a cube-like form that is more
consistently rounded like the D423 patent than the Accused Product is.
Additionally, the D935 patent shows a square faced camera that is
extruded rearward similarly to the Accused Product.
I. The Lines of the GoPro Session Differentiate it from the D423

Patent
56. Below are the detail views of four cube-like cameras. The D423 patent
is a simple rounded cube with consistent rounding as can be seen in the
tangency lines. It has a narrow horizontal band that wraps around its
centerline. It has four large circles that are arrayed on a vertical axis
around the cube, on the front, the top, the rear, and the bottom. The only
28
other detail lines are an outline concentric with the tangency line on the
front surface, but not concentric to the profile.
1. Perspective Detail Lines
57. The detail perspective view of the D423 patent, shown on the far left
below, shows tangency lines with a consistently rounded cube. A narrow
band wraps around the cubes rounded edges at its centerline. The
horizontal band stops at a square bezel on the front surface near the
tangency lines. The bezel has rounded corners, which are set flush into
the front surface, with a circular lens at the center of the bezel. The top
has a large circular element in the center. The D480 patents second
embodiment, shown in the center left, has tangency lines indicating a
cube with mostly rounded corners, other than the front surface edges,
which have a part line near the front, with hard lines for the corners of a
large bezel that surrounds a large circular lens in the center. The D480
patent also includes a first embodiment with a squarish button on the top
surface. This has been shown previously in my report. The GoPro
Session, shown in the center right, has many more lines visible from the
perspective view than the other cube-like cameras. It has tangency lines
that show the square face with large rounded corners that are extruded
backwards to make a cube-like camera. It has a stepped front bezel
29
screwed onto the front surface, with a clear glass lens cover. It has a
nearly square door on the right side with a latch section behind it.
Instead of minimizing and hiding details, the GoPro Session has
embraced them and made them a main part of its design. For example,
the hinge details, the screw heads, the chamfered endcaps, and precision
machined looking bezel, all help create a rugged professional appearance.
The D935 patent, on the far right, has a square face with large rounded
corners extruded rearward to make a cube-like camera. It is not as
complex as the GoPro Session. It has a large rounded square button on
the top, and a rounded square bezel recessed on the front face, with a
rectangular opening in the bezel for the lens area. This patent does not
show the lens.
Perspective View D423, D480 2nd Embodiment, GoPro, and D935
2. Front Detail Lines
58. Below, on the far left, the front surface of the D423 patent shows a flush
bezel near tangency lines that are evenly around all the edges. The bezel
30
is square with large corner radii that are not concentric with the front
profile. It has a centered circular lens and a horizontal band ending at the
bezels edges. The lens has a series of concentric circles leading to a
small aperture in the middle. The D480 patent, in the center left, shows
a large rounded square bezel around a large centered lens. The lens has a
couple of concentric circles inside of its perimeter. It also has three
smaller circles in three of the four corners. The front of the GoPro
Session, shown in the center right, is very detailed with many lines and
design elements. It has a hard line that runs around the chamfered
endcaps. It has a bezel that is screwed onto the front with eight small
screws. Inside this bezel is a glass lens cover. Behind the glass lens
cover, is a squarish gasket, and a large flat cylinder with a lens in the
center. The bezel has a small curved LED in the upper right corner,
along with a group of very small holes in the diagonally cut upper left
corner. It clearly has a circular lens, but almost every camera inherently
has a circular lens on the front. The GoPro Session does not have a flush
bezel like seen in the D423 patent. Instead, it has a complex screwed on
bezel that frames the glass cover over a circular lens. The front of the
D935 patent has a square with rounded corners and a lens area defined
by a rectangular opening.
31
D423 Front, D480 2nd Front, GoPro Front, and D935 Front
3. Rear Detail Lines
59. The rear surface of the D423 patent, shown below on the far left, has
tangency lines evenly around all the edges with a large centered circular
element, with the horizontal band ending at the circles edges. The circle
has an inset circle with a narrow horizontal rectangle at its center. The
D480 patent, shown in the center left, has tangency lines evenly around
all the edges with consistent rounding. It does not have any other details
on the rear surface. The rear of the GoPro Session, shown in the center
right, has a hard line that runs around the chamfered endcaps. Along the
bottom edge with the chamfer, is a small button, an LED, and a group of
very small holes. It clearly does not have the large centered circles or the
horizontal band on the back like the D423 patent. The back of the
D935 patent and the back of the GoPro Session are more alike than
either is to the D423 patents back.
32
4. Top Detail Lines
60. The top surface of the D423 patent, shown below on the far left, has
tangency lines evenly around all of the edges with a large centered
circular element as the only details. The D480 patent, shown in the
center left, has three of the four edges with consistent rounding, with a
part line vertically along the front edge. It also has a domed lens that
sticks out from the front surface. The top of the GoPro Session, shown in
the center right, has tangency lines that run between two chamfered
endcaps. It has a small centered button and larger rectangular display
grouped with the button. Additionally, it has a bezel, that is screwed on,
that steps out from the front surface. It clearly has many more detail
lines than simply the large centered circle on top of the rounded cube of
the D423 patent. The D935 has a large nearly centered button on the
top that has a reveal around it. It is a square shape with rounded corners,
but its size and location make it more similar visually to the D423 patent
than the Accused Products top view detail lines.
33
5. Bottom Detail Lines
61. The bottom surface of the D423 patent, shown below on the far left, has
tangency lines evenly around all the edges with a large centered circular
element as the only detail. The D480 patent, in the center left, shows
three of the four edges with consistent rounding, with a part line
vertically along the front edge. It also has a domed lens that sticks out
from the front surface. The bottom of the GoPro Session, shown in the
center right, has tangency lines that run between two chamfered endcaps.
Additionally, it has a screwed-on bezel that steps out from the front
surface. It does not have an element in the center of the bottom, and also
clearly has many more detail lines than simply the large centered circle
on the bottom of the rounded cube of the D423 patent. The bottom of
the D935 patent, shown on the far right, has tangency lines and a rear
end cap more similar to the GoPro Session. However, the D935 patent
has a circular detail more similar to the D423 patent.
34
D423 Bottom, D480 2nd Bottom, GoPro Bottom, and D935 Bottom
6. Right Detail Lines
62. The right side of the D423 patent, shown below on the far left, has
tangency lines evenly around all the edges with a narrow band that wraps
around these rounded edges. The D480 patent, shown in the center left,
has three of the four edges with consistent rounding, with a part line
vertically along the front edge. The GoPro Session, shown in the center
right, has reveal lines separating the textured areas of the top and bottom,
creating a rectangular panel in between. On the right side, this panel
houses a door area, made of hard material, that is near the tangency lines
on the top and bottom edges. The door area stops at the part lines of the
chamfered front and rear endcaps. Additionally, the GoPro Session has a
screwed-on bezel that steps out from the front surface. This design
clearly has many more detail lines than the simple narrow band on the
rounded cube of the D423 patent. The D935 patent has a side view that
shows a directionality due to a stepped back and very rounded edges on
35
the sides only. In this extruded form and directionality these two are
more alike than the non-directional D423 patents side view.
7. Left Detail Lines
63. The left side of the D423 patent, shown below on the far left, has
tangency lines evenly around all of the edges, with a narrow band that
wraps around these rounded edges. The D480 patent, shown in the
center left, has three of the four edges with consistent rounding, with a
part line vertically along the front edge. The GoPro Session, shown in
the center right, has reveal lines separating the textured areas on the top
and bottom, creating a rectangular panel in between. This area without
texture is a rectangular area that is near the tangency lines on the top and
bottom edges. The rectangular area stops at the part lines of the
chamfered front and rear endcaps. Additionally, it has a screwed-on
bezel that steps out from the front surface. The GoPro Session clearly
has many more detail lines than the simple narrow band on the rounded
cube of the D423 patent. The D935 patent has a side view that shows a
36
directionality to the with a stepped back and very rounded edges on the
sides only. In this extruded form and directionality these two are more
alike than the non-directional D423 patents side view.
J. The Surfaces of the GoPro Session Differentiate it from the D423

Patent
1. Perspective Surfaces
64. The surfaces of the D423 patent, shown below on the far left, show that
the bezel set into the front of the camera tapers gradually towards the lens
that domes outward. The other surfaces are simple flat cube shapes with
consistently rounded edges as seen in the hatching. The surfaces of the
D480 patent, shown in the center left, show a similar cube with flat sides
and rounded edges other than the front edge, which the hatching shows
are sharp. In the second embodiment of the D480 patent, the whole
front is a flat bezel that with a domed lens in the center. The GoPro
Sessions surfaces, shown in the center right, are textured rubber on the
top and bottom. The textured rubber continues to near the tangency lines
37
on the left and right sides. The radii are only on the four side edges. The
front surface has a bezel protruding outward with chamfers and a flat
glass panel. The GoPro Session does not have the tapered bezel surface
like the D423 patent. The D935 patent, shown on the far right, has radii
only on four edges like the GoPro Session. It has a recessed bezel with a
rectangular opening in the center and the surface of the bezel appears flat,
not tapered like the D423 patent.
Perspective View D423, D480 2nd Embodiment, GoPro, and D935
2. Front Surfaces
65. The front views reinforce that the surface of the bezel on the D423
patent tapers towards a domed lens. All of the other three cameras have
flat or stepped front surfaces.
D423 Front, D480 2nd Embodiment Front, GoPro Front, and D935 Front
38
3. Rear Surfaces
66. The rear surfaces of the D423 patent, shown below on the far left, are
flat with a sculpted center circle. The D480 patent, shown in the center
left, has a similar flat rear surface with similar rounded radii, but it does
not have the circle element in the center. The rear surface of the GoPro
Session, shown in the center right, is flat but does not have the radii.
Instead, it has a small sharp chamfer. The rear surface of the D935
patent, shown on the far right, has a cut fillet from a flat surface to a step
around the perimeter.
4. Top Surfaces
67. The top surface of the D423 patent, shown below on the far left, is flat
with evenly rounded edges. The D480 patent, shown in the center left,
has a top surface that is flat with three of the four edges rounded, and the
dome of the lens surface is visible. The GoPro Session, shown in the
center right, and the D935 patent, shown on the far right, both have flat
39
surfaces on the top with large radii only on two sides. The GoPro
Session has diagonal texture on the surface.
5. Bottom Surfaces
68. The bottom surface of the D423 patent, shown below on the far left, is
flat with evenly rounded edges. There is a circle in the middle that has
no hatching to indicate the surface. The D480 patents bottom surface,
shown in the center left, is flat with three of the four edges rounded, and
the dome of the lens surface is visible. The GoPro Session, shown in the
center right, and the D935 patent, shown on the far right, both have flat
surfaces on the bottom with large radii only on two sides. The GoPro
Session has diagonal textures on the bottom surface.
40
D423 Bottom, D480 2nd Embodiment Bottom, GoPro Bottom, D935 Bottom
6. Right Surfaces
69. The right surface of the D423 patent, shown below on the far left, is flat
with evenly rounded edges. The narrow horizontal band in the middle
has alternate hatching direction to indicate a separate surface. The D480
patents right surface, shown below in the center left, is flat with three of
the four edges rounded, and the dome of the lens surface is visible. The
GoPro Session, shown in the center right, and the D935 patent, shown
on the far right, both have flat surfaces on the right with large radii only
on two sides. The GoPro Session has a diagonal texture on the rubber
surfaces above and below the door area.
41
7. Left Surfaces
70. The left surface of the D423 patent, shown below on the far right, is flat
with evenly rounded edges. The narrow horizontal band in the middle
has alternate hatching direction to indicate a separate surface. The D480
patents left surface, shown in the center left, is flat with three of the four
edges rounded, and the dome of the lens surface is visible. The GoPro
Session, shown in the center right, and the D935 patent, shown on the
far right, both have flat surfaces on the left with large radii only on two
sides. The GoPro Session has a diagonal texture on the rubber surfaces
above and below the non-texture rubber portion.
K. The GoPro Session in Orthographic Layout
Below are all seven views of the GoPro Session in the same scale and
arrangement in standard orthographic layout. The last set of orthographic
drawings are a computer model that has been created to match the GoPro
Session production camera.
42
1. Silhouette
43
2. Detail Lines
44
3. Surfaces
45
4. Computer Model
5. The GoPro Session Has a Clear Directionality
71. The GoPro Session, shown below in the center, has vertical directionality
with a surface that wraps vertically around the face of the camera. It is
more similar to the D935 patent, shown below on the left, in this respect
than it is to the D423 patent, shown below on the right. The surfaces of
the D423 patent do not have this vertical directionality; instead they are
evenly rounded on all edges. Additionally, the D423 patent has a
46
narrow band wrapping around its horizontal midpoint, so it would appear
to have horizontal directionality if anything.
L. The GoPro Session Has Three Touch Points
72. Note that under Mr. Balls analysis, touchpoints or controls are
considered so-called primary design characteristics. The GoPro
Session has three touch points; the small button on the top, the button on
the rear, and the door latch on the right side. The small control on the
rear looks nothing like the round cover on the rear of the D423 patent.
1. Latch
73. The latch on the right side of the GoPro Session, shown below on the left,
is not present in the D423 patent, shown on the right. Instead, it has a
very simple and clean side view with only one detail, a narrow horizontal
band. Even if one forgets that the latch door and hinge are a major
touchpoint for the camera, the ordinary observer would not confuse these
side views.
47
2. Top Button and Display
74. The top of the GoPro Session, shown in the top center, has a small button
in the center and a larger rectangular display near it. To operate the
camera, the user must use these two, together with the button on the rear,
to operate the camera. These are touchpoints that would get the users
attention. The button on the D423 patent, shown on the top right, is
visually more similar to the button on top of the D935 patent, shown on
the top left, in size and location than the button and display as seen on the
GoPro Session. See the three top buttons with controls highlighted in
blue below. The GoPro Session, shown in the bottom center, does not
have a touch point on the bottom but the D935 patent, shown on the
bottom left, and the D423 patent, shown on the bottom right, have some
form of mounting element on their bottom surfaces.
48
3. Rear Button and Display
75. The GoPro Session, shown below in the center right, has a small button
on the rear of the camera along the bottom edge. This is a touch point
used in combination with the display and button on the top. The button
on the rear surface of the GoPro Session looks nothing like the element
found in the D423 patent, shown on the far left, which has a large
circular element in the center. This touch point would draw attention to
the rear surface of the D423 patent and would not be confused for the
49
rear of the GoPro Session. The D480 patent, shown in the center left,
does not have any touch points on its rear surface.
M. Overview of Mr. Balls Primary, Secondary, and Tertiary

Analysis
76. While we generally agree that an analysis methodology for evaluating a
design is important, I take issue with how the standards Mr. Ball sets up
and how they are inconsistently applied during his analysis.
1. Primary Design Characteristics According to Mr. Ball
77. In paragraph 93 of his report, Mr. Ball suggests that the primary design
characteristics of the D423 patent are the overall rounded cube shape
with a rounded square bezel on the front with a centered circular lens.
2. Secondary Design Characteristics According to Mr. Ball
78. In paragraph 94, Mr. Ball suggests that the secondary design
characteristics of the D423 patent are the following: the large round
button on top, the horizontal band, the round cover on the back side, and
the round part inset on the bottom.
50
3. Tertiary Design Characteristics According to Mr. Ball
79. In paragraph 95, Mr. Ball suggests that the tertiary design
characteristics of the D423 patent are the following: the reveal around
the round top button, the coin slot sculpting on the round back cover, the
inset lofted lens bezel and stepped ring lens detail, and the sculpting and
reveal on the inset circular part on the bottom.
N. Detailed Rebuttal of Mr. Balls Primary, Secondary, and Tertiary

Methodology
80. I do not agree with Mr. Balls opinions on these design characteristics
and note that he is inconsistent with his own description of primary,
secondary and tertiary design characteristics as he defines them in
paragraphs 4751. He arbitrarily decides that the square with rounded
corners is a primary design characteristic even though it is not seen in
the silhouette, nor is it a touch point or control. The fact that he
considers it a major design feature, even though it is only seen in two
views, and yet the horizontal band which is seen in five views is not
considered a major design feature, seems arbitrary and inconsistent.
1. Touch Points as Primary Design Characteristics
81. In paragraph 48, of his infringement report, Mr. Ball defines what he
considers primary design characteristics. He suggests that touch
points or controls would be primary design characteristics. Yet in
51
paragraph 94, he has defined the large round button on top and the round
cover on the back, which are touch points or controls, as a secondary
design characteristic. This is inconsistent.
2. Mr. Ball Is Inconsistent with his Description of Primary

and Secondary Design Characteristics
82. It is unclear why Mr. Ball arbitrarily emphasizes certain elements, while
downplaying others without consistent logic. Why are the bezel and the
centered circular lens primary design characteristics, yet the large
circular element on the top and the rear and the narrow band are
secondary design characteristics? These all should be primary design
characteristics according to the methodology he describes in paragraph
48.
83. Why are edge details listed as a secondary design characteristic in
paragraph 48, and then listed as a primary design characteristic of the
Cubes overall rounded cube shape? It is not clear if Mr. Ball is only
considering edge details that are not visible in the silhouettes, or if only
small edge details should be secondary design characteristics, while
large roundings would be primary design characteristics. This
ambiguity makes it difficult for one to reproduce results using his
methods.
52
3. Mr. Balls Description of Edge Shaping as a Secondary

Design Characteristic
84. While I agree with Mr. Ball, that the D423 patent shows an overall
rounded cube shape, this is apparent in the silhouettes of all of the views.
However, there seems to be a little confusion because he also suggests
that edge shaping is a secondary design characteristic. The rounding
on the cube of the D423 patent is a type of edge shaping.
4. Mr. Ball Imports Information from the Production Version

into his Drawings
85. I also have issue with Mr. Ball importing information from the
production version of the Polaroid Cube into his drawings. This is most
apparent in paragraph 95, with the suggestion that tertiary design
characteristics include a concave center of the flush round part on the
bottom. There is nothing in the D423 patent to teach that the center is
concave; it may be but need not be so limited. Likewise, there is nothing
in the D423 patent to teach that the circular feature on the top is a
button; it may be another feature as well.
5. Mr. Ball Ignores Applying his Methodology to the GoPro

Session
86. I also have issues with Mr. Ball only evaluating the design characteristics
present in the D423 patent. An ordinary observer would potentially
notice design characteristics present in the Accused Products that are not
53
present in the D423 patent. I do not recall Mr. Ball doing any analysis
of these elements in his report.
O. Mr. Balls Terminology
87. In paragraphs 4751, Mr. Ball generally describes his primary, secondary
and tertiary design characteristics. I disagree with his use of the term
overall appearance to describe his primary design characteristics
because of the potential confusion with the legal standard overall
ornamental design. Further, I note that the test for infringement requires
the ordinary observer to have knowledge of and take into account the
prior art, and Mr. Balls emphasis on the overall form factor and design
features does not do this.
1. Mr. Balls Use of the Word Band to Describe the GoPro

Session Door
88. In paragraph 117, Mr. Ball describes the door on one side of the GoPro
Session as horizontal band-shaped. I disagree with his terminology of the
word band. First, it does not wrap around the surfaces, as a band
typically would, and second, it is not narrow, nor would be considered a
stripe. Third, it is on only one side of the product. The door of the
GoPro Session does not look like the band of the D423 patent. The door
of the GoPro Session does not meet any of the meanings of band in the
usual and normal meanings of band. See Websters New Universal
54
Unabridged Dictionary (2d ed. 1996): A thin flat strip of material for
binding, confining, trimming, protecting, a stripe, as of color or
decorative work, or a strip of paper or other material serving as a label:
a cigar band. The band in the D423 patent wraps around the cube and
can be seen from all the elevational views. If Mr. Ball were to ignore this
fact, and simply indicate that seeing the GoPro door is enough to
consider them similar, then even under this description, the ordinary
observer would not consider it a band because it is not narrow. Strip is
defined as a narrow piece, comparatively long and usually of uniform
width: a strip of cloth, metal, land. etc. The door is not long or narrow
like the D423 patent is.
89. If I do as Mr. Ball appears to suggest, and only look at the side views for
the band, then the stripe on the D423 patent is five times longer than it is
tall. Whereas the door area on the GoPro Session is only 1.5 times longer
than it is tall. While one would call this a rectangle, it would not be a
band.
2. Mr. Ball Puts Excessive Emphasis on the Canonical View
90. Mr. Ball extensively uses of the term canonical view in an effort to rely
primarily on Figure 1 of the D423 patent in his analysis. First, this is
improper, as I understand the law requires a comparison of all figures of
55
a design patent and does not elevate one figure or view as more important
than others. Second, this is an unusual term to me and may be
misleading. In over 30 years of experience in the industrial design
profession, I have never heard this word to describe perspective
drawings. Further, I have checked the glossary of the textbook we use to
teach drawing, and the word does not appear in it. I have checked the
definition in the dictionary, and it mentions nothing about canonical
drawing. The first definition is pertaining to or conforming to a canon.
I am left wondering, why he has used this term and what he is suggesting
with the use of this term. The only definition in my dictionary that
suggests something to do with the design world is the following, the
body of rules, principles, or standards accepted as axiomatic and
universally binding in the field of study or art.
91. I also googled the term Canonical Perspective. While I did not find
any design references, I did find that Psychologists use the term to
describe a preferred vantage point of a product. Whereas, Mr. Ball seems
to use perspective and Canonical as synonyms. Alternatively, the
perspective view is not always the Canonical view. For example, for
pipes such as the one the surrealist painter Magritte paints the side view
is the canonic view.
56
92. All of this to say that Mr. Balls suggestion that we should weight the
perspective view stronger, and his inference that other views should be
ignored or somehow discounted is contrary to logic. It is also contrary to
the law requiring comparison of all figures of a design patent to an
Accused Product. If the patentee wanted to show only perspective views
they could have. C&A Marketing chose to show only one perspective
view and show six orthographic views. They are claiming all of the
drawings, not only three sides seen in the perspective view. All must be
considered in determining whether infringement exists.
P. Rebuttal of Mr. Balls Prior Art Analysis
1. Mr. Ball Considers Irrelevant Web Blogs and Reviews
93. Mr. Ball in his online section introduces extensive online discussion and
reviews. I am not sure how this discussion relates to his analysis of the
ordinary observer, or of his analysis of the Accused Product. I take issue
with a number of points especially his attempt to equate form factor
similarity with design patent infringement. Especially, the fact he
ignores the prior art in this sections analysis.
94. I also do not believe that any of the online commentators, on which Mr.
Ball relies, are ordinary observers. Specifically, from a review of these
documents, none seem to have had access to anything more than a single
57
view of the Accused Product, which had yet to be released. Moreover,
none appears to have knowledge of the prior art, as the test requires.
95. I further critique these documents in my Invalidity Report in paragraphs
15057, which I incorporate by reference.
2. Mr. Ball Limits his Scope of Prior Art to Action Cameras
96. Mr. Ball suggests in paragraph 116 that the ordinary observer would be
aware of other action cameras on the market (emphasis added). It is
my understanding that the ordinary observer would be aware of all
analogous art. First, Mr. Ball incorrectly limits his scope of prior art to
action cameras on the market. It is my understanding that prior art is not
limited to products currently on the market. It would include prior art no
longer on the market, as well as, patents and publications even if they
were never produced as a commercial item. Second, Mr. Ball limits his
analysis to only action cameras. This narrowing of the prior art to
action cameras is inconsistent with the patent examiners prior art
citations, which included many cameras and camera related devices. It
also would seem inconsistent with Mr. Balls own qualifications of
relevant design experience in which he states, I have designed many
products that are cameras or include cameras or other imaging or optical
technology in their design. He includes binoculars, an imaging
58
endoscope, and a handheld imaging camera for inspecting and
measuring, but does not appear to include any action cameras. It appears
that Mr. Ball is suggesting a dual standard for the scope of his
qualifications and that of a designer of ordinary skill in the art and the
scope of prior art that is analogous that the ordinary observer would be
aware of and apply in the infringement analysis.
3. The D423 Patent Was Not the First Cube-Like Camera
97. The D423 patent was not the first cube-like camera, and the D423
patent does not claim a specific size camera.
98. The examiner of the D441,386 patent was Adir Aronovich. The D386
patent issued in 2001, and it had a cube-like form factor.
99. The examiner of the D504,904 patent was Adir Aronovich. The D904
patent was titled Surveillance Camera, issued in 2005, had a half-cube
form factor, and had a horizontal band about its midpoint.
100. The examiner of the D480 patent was Adir Aronovich. The D480
101. The examiner for the D614,223 patent was Adir Aronovich. The D223
patent issued in 2010.
102. The examiner for the D713,868 patent was Adir Aronovich. The D868
59
103. The D423 patent examiner cited prior art that was also similar in form
factor. Yet in the end the patent examiner allowed the D423 patent to
issue in 2015 because he concluded that its ornamental design was
distinct from the designs of the other cube-like form factor cameras he
considered. Nothing in the examiners statements or anywhere in the
prosecution history suggests that he believed that the D423 patent was
the first cube camera, nor that he allowed it to issue because it was an
action camera as opposed to some other type.
104. The patent examiner (Adir Aronovich) reviewing the GoPro Session
design patent application that led to the USD745,589 (the D589) patent
was aware of the D423 patent and the many other cameras with a cube-
like form factor and yet permitted the design patent to issue in 2015.
Thus, it is clear that the patent office is focused on specific design
elements, not on the overall cube-like form factor, in determining if an
ornamental design is entitled to patent protection.
105. It is clear that the D423 patent should not and does not encompass all
cameras with a cube-like form factor. As my prior report said, if it did, it
would be invalid. But a cube-like form factor was known in the prior art,
and thus a deeper analysis is required of the specific design elements in
the D423.
60
106. Therefore, it is my conclusion that the D423 patent was not the first
camera with a cube-like form factor. The ordinary observer would be
aware of other cube-like cameras that were prior art to the D423 patent.
They would not be confused by the fact that the GoPro Session cameras
also have a cube-like form factor, nor deceived into believing that one
was the other.
4. Mr. Ball Does Not Consider the Prior Art in his Analysis
107. In paragraph 164 of Mr. Balls report, it appears that Mr. Ball has
confused a test for infringement in light of Egyptian Goddess. It appears
that Mr. Ball does not consider the prior art in his analysis of the claimed
and accused design. Instead, he states Because the accused design
would be found to be substantially similar to the asserted design in the
eyes of an ordinary observer, I do not believe any further analysis is
necessary to establish infringement of the D423 patent. It is only when
the designs are plainly dissimilar that the prior art would not enter into
the mind of the ordinary observer; in all other cases, it does. Therefore,
Mr. Balls analysis, in not accounting for the prior art, is flawed.
Q. The Primary Ornamental Features Identified by Mr. Ball Were

Known in the Prior Art
108. In paragraph 165 of Mr. Balls report, when he compares the Accused
Product to the D423 patent in light of the prior art, he suggests the
61
photographs can be converted into line drawings so they can be
reasonably compared to the prior art patent drawings. He then
provides a line drawing of only the perspective view. Below I have
shown photographs of all 7 views of the Accused Product in standard
orthographic layout. Along with these photographs of the Accused
Product, I have included line drawings of the Accused Products created
in Adobe Photoshop. Unlike Mr. Ball, who only shows the perspective
view in a line drawing, I have shown all 7 views as line drawings. The
perspective view I have prepared of the Accused Product are shown from
a similar angle to that of the D423 patents perspective drawing.
62
109. Below are the D423 patent drawings in the same orthographic layout.
63
110. Below is the second embodiment of the D480 patent drawings in the
same layout. It should be noted that the perspective view is shown from
a different angle than what is shown in the D423 patents drawing.
111. Below are the D935 patent drawings in the same layout. It should be
noted that the perspective view is shown from a different angle than what
is shown in the D423 patents drawing.
64
1. Overall Rounded Cube Shape
112. The first ornamental feature Mr. Ball identifies is The overall rounded
cube shape. The D423 patent is the only camera I am aware of that
shows a perfectly rounded cube. It has no steps, chamfers, protrusions,
or edges that vary in rounding or are not rounded at all. In fact, all of the
edges have the same rounding, creating the same profile in all 6
orthographic views. Alternatively, the GoPro Session has a square face
with rounded corners, that is extruded rearward slightly less than the
height of the square face. As Mr. Ball admits in paragraph 122, he states
the GoPro Session has the same width and height of 38 mm, but does not
65
have the same depth. He also admits it is not exactly cubic.
Additionally, the front and rear edges are not rounded, instead they have
a small chamfer. Additionally, the front has a frame that creates a step in
the profile of the front edge. These front and rear edges are clearly
distinctive from the rounded edges of the D423 patent. Thus, the GoPro
Session does not have this perfectly rounded cube.
113. As can be seen in the photographs and line drawings above, the GoPro
Session has only four rounded edges, and those edges are rounded at
about twice the radii as that of the radii of the D423 patents twelve
rounded edges. The Accused Product simply does not have the
consistently rounded cube form of the D423 patent. This can also be
seen in the generated models below, which show the cube-like form in
ghost-form and the corners rendered.
Model of Polaroid Cube (left) and GoPro Session (right)
66
As can be seen in the D423, all of the corners and edges are identical,
whereas in the GoPro Session, the side edges have a generous radius, and
the front and back edges are sharp, chamfered, and stepped. This creates
a directionality to the design, emphasizing the front and back surfaces.
114. However, if Mr. Ball is suggesting that since four of the GoPro Sessions
edges are rounded and the square face is extruded roughly as deep as it is
tall and wide, that it has the overall rounded cube shape, then this
design characteristic would be found in the prior art references, because
the D480 patent and the D935 patent each have at least four rounded
edges and are roughly as deep as they are tall and wide.
115. To accurately compare the rounding of the edges, see the front views of
all four patents below. The D423 patent is shown on the left, the D480
patents second embodiment is shown in the center left, the Accused
Product line drawing is shown on the center right, and the D935 patent is
shown on the far right. From these drawings, it is clear that the rounded
edges of the D480 patent are closer to the D423 patent than the
Accused Product is. Additionally, the Accused Product and the D935
each have much larger radii which are more similar to each other in
having the large radii extruded rearward rather than a consistently
rounded cube of the D423 patent.
67
Front View D423, D480, GoPro, and D935
116. From the side views one can tell that the Accused Products front and
rear edges are not rounded, but rather are stepped and/or chamfered
edges. Similarly, the D480 patent in the center left below, has both rear
edges and side edges rounded very similar to the D423 patent. In at
least this respect it is closer to the D423 patent than the Accused Product
is. While the D480 patent has eight edges rounded, only the D423
patent has all the edges rounded as seen in the all the views.
Side View D423, D480, GoPro, and D935
68
Top View D423, D480, GoPro, and D935
117. In conclusion, the GoPro Session does not have an overall rounded cube
shape. The Accused Product only has four of its twelve edges rounded.
However, if Mr. Ball interprets having some edges rounded of a cube-
like shape as having an overall rounded cube shape then at least the
D480 patent and the D935 patent would also have this purported
primary design characteristic.
2. A Rounded Square Bezel with Centered Circular Lens
118. C&A Marketing in its contentions describes this design element as a
front surface that includes an inset square with rounded corners, the
center of which contains a recessed round lens. In Mr. Balls report, he
describes this primary design characteristic as a bezel. However, he
removes several ideas from C&As contentions. When he describes his
primary design characteristic he removes the idea that it is the front
surface that includes a square and contains a lens. Secondly, he drops
69
the idea that the square is inset. Thirdly, he drops the idea that the lens is
recessed.
119. The GoPro Session bezel follows GoPros design tradition of rugged
looking bezels on the front of its waterproof cameras. The bezel on the
GoPro Session looks a lot like the GoPro HERO3. Mr. Balls timeline
places the HERO3 in 2012.
https://www.amazon.com/GoPro-HERO3-White-Waterproof-
Housing/dp/B009TCCTSQ
120. This image is from the Amazon website. I have watched an unboxing
video (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NgWD4UXO8jk) for the
GoPro HERO3 that has this same case design posted in 2013. Both Mr.
Balls date and the unboxing video would place the waterproof case for
the HERO3 as prior art to the D423 patent.
121. To support this, Mr. Ball creates a new drawing of the D423 patent
modified to show what he considers the primary design characteristics.
70
Below is his modified drawing shown on the left, and on the right is the
original D423 patent drawing, simplified to show his primary design
features. His drawing is modified to shows a flat bezel, which I have
highlighted in blue. This flattening action moves the perimeter of the
lens forward, flush with the profile. In this position, the inherent
curvature of the lens would be seen in the profile views, similar to the
second embodiment of the D480 patent. Alternatively, to suggest that
the D423 patent discloses a flat lens cover like the Accused Product
would be inconsistent with the original patent drawings. The patent
simply does not teach such a flat lens cover.
122. Mr. Balls list of tertiary design characteristics adds the characteristic of
the bezel being inset with its surface lofted to the lens. He also considers
the domed lens and concentric rings around the aperture to be tertiary
design characteristics. Compared to the original contentions, Mr. Ball
71
suggests the inset feature is tertiary, that is the ordinary observer is
unlikely to notice it.
123. The front of the Accused Product does not have a bezel like that shown in
the D423 patent. On the far left below, I have shown the perspective
view of the D423 patent with the bezel highlighted in blue. On the far
right, I have shown the Accused Product with the bezel highlighted in
blue. Unlike the bezel shown in the D423 patent, the GoPro Sessions
bezel is a protruding narrow frame screwed onto the camera. The bezel
frames a flat piece of glass (shown without highlighting).
124. In the center left, I have shown the D480 patents second embodiment,
with the bezel around the domed lens highlighted in blue. In the center, I
have shown the first embodiment of the D480 patent, with the bezel
highlighted in blue. On the center right, I have shown the D935 patent
with the bezel highlighted in blue. It should be noted that the lens area is
72
drawn in dashed line in the D935 patent and therefore is not claimed.
Additionally, figures 8 and 9 of the D935 patent indicate that the lens
area is centered and recessed. The lens is not shown but an ordinary
observer aware of the prior art would understand that lenses are
inherently round and domed.
125. From these images, it is clear that each of these five designs has a
different bezel design. I have highlighted these drawings according to
the usual and ordinary definition of bezel.
Perspective D423, D480 2nd, D480 1st, D935, and GoPro
Front Views D423, D480, GoPro, and D935
73
Front Views D423, D480, GoPro, and D935
126. In paragraph 179, Mr. Ball suggests that the D480 patent is very
different from the D423 patent. At least in part because the design is
not a simple cube, it is a cube with a protruding sphere. The entire front
side is a clear lens with a crisp edge unlike the rounded square bezel
shape seen in the asserted and accused designs. I must disagree with
Mr. Ball. Firstly, the way that Mr. Ball has defined the primary design
characteristic rounded bezel with a circular centered lens in his report is
very broad and would include the second embodiment of the D480
patent. Secondly, Mr. Ball incorrectly lumps the two embodiments
together as both having the entire front surface clear.
127. Specifically, Mr. Ball clearly broadened his primary design
characteristics compared with previous C&A Marketing contentions.
He removed the idea of the rounded square being inset, the bezel being
lofted, and the lens being recessed. Under his broadened definition, he
creates a new drawing for the patent, the first sketch on page 24. This
74
sketch shows a perspective view with the bezel flattened and the
perimeter of the lens flush and centered with the front surface. Mr. Ball
does not sketch how his new version would look from the orthographic
views. In paragraph 95, he suggests that the front bezel is lofted to the
lens or domed lens. Therefore, the proposed sketch with a flat bezel
could be domed or not. There is no 112 support for suggesting a flat
lens be claimed in this location, or in the recessed location in D423
patent, because the only lens shown in the D423 patent is a domed lens.
If, however, we accept the fact that the lens could be either flat or domed,
then if it is domed, it would blister out similar to the D480 patents
second embodiment.
128. As can be seen in the front and perspective views, the bezel of the second
embodiment of the D480 patent meets Mr. Balls primary design
characteristic in having a rounded square bezel w/ centered circular
lens. Additionally, Mr. Balls states that the D480 patents second
embodiment is not a simple cube, but rather it is a cube merged with a
sphere. However, the Accused Product is not a simple cube either. It is
shorter than a cube, which by definition has the same dimension on all
sides. Additionally, the GoPro Session has irregular edge treatments. It
is a square faced camera that has large rounded corners that are extruded
75
backwards. The rear edges have a small chamfer and the front edges
have a stepped chamfer, created by a bezel screwed onto the front.
129. Secondly, contrary to Mr. Balls testimony, the D480 patents second
embodiment does not show an entire front surface that is clear. The
hatching on the flat portion, highlighted in blue above, has vertical
hatching indicating an opaque surface, as opposed the first embodiment
which has diagonal hatching on the flat portion, as well as the domed
portion, indicating a clear material. The diagonal hatching (reflective
line shading) of the front surface of the first embodiment can be seen
below on the left. Below in the center, the second embodiment is shown
with vertical hatching indicating an opaque material. Only the domed
portion has reflective line shading. This is confirmed in section view of
the JPD050 patent, which is the sister patent to the second embodiment
of the D480 patent, shown on the far right. The bezel is drawn with
straight line hatching and is separate from the clear domed portion of the
lens.
130. In paragraph 176, Mr. Ball considers the entire front surface of the first
embodiment of the D480 patent a lens when he states, The entire front
side is a clear lens with a crisp edge unlike the rounded square bezel
shape seen in the asserted and accused designs (emphasis added). Mr.
76
Ball is not consistent in his evaluation of both the prior art and the
Accused Product. Therefore, if he considers the entire clear front surface
of the D480 patent to be a clear lens, then he must consider the entire
clear portion of the front surface of the Accused Product to be a clear
lens. Mr. Ball does not show any images defining what he considers the
bezel of the Accused Product or the lens of the Accused Product. This
has made analyzing what he is opining very difficult. From his analysis
of the D480 patents lens in this paragraph, we can understand at least in
part, what he considers to be the lens on other designs, which also have
flat clear front surfaces. His statements in paragraph 176 would confirm
the edge of the bezel to be the beginning of the flat clear glass portion of
the GoPro Session, as I have indicated above with blue highlighting.
Below are the two embodiments showing the opaque bezels and clear
portions, as well as a section view of the JPD050 patent, which is the
sister patent to the second embodiment of the D480 patent. The
JPD050 patent confirms that the clear domed lens is separate from the
opaque bezel. (Note: that Mr. Ball accidentally cited the JPD050 patent
when he showed the JPD049 and described it as the same design as the
first embodiment of the D480 patent)
77
D480 first embodiment, D480 second embodiment, and JPD050 fig2
131. In conclusion, the Accused Product does not have a rounded bezel with
centered circular lens. If the D423 patent is read so broadly as to
include the bezel of the Accused Product, then the D480 patent has this
design characteristic as well. This conclusion is supported with both the
usual and customary definition of bezel, as well as with the with the
slightly unusual definition of a lens, as used by Mr. Ball in analyzing the
prior art.
R. The Secondary Ornamental Features Identified by Mr. Ball

Were Known in the Prior Art
132. In paragraph 94, Mr. Ball suggests that the secondary design
characteristics are: the large round button on top, the horizontal band,
the round cover on the back side, and the round part inset on bottom.
1. A large round button on top
133. Specifically, Mr. Ball states that the presence of a button on the top
would be noticed by an ordinary observer examining the design with
78
care, at close quarters. While I disagree that the D423 patent necessarily
teaches that the round object on the top must be a button, in light of the
prior art, a button on the top is not a unique design characteristic. GoPro
has been using round buttons on the top of its cameras for years. For
example, according to Mr. Balls timeline of action cameras, the GoPro
Hero model from 2008 shows a round button on top. The other views he
shows for later models do not show the top of the camera. Below I have
shown higher views of the models he puts on the time line. The HERO2
that Mr. Ball says is from 2011 had a round button on top.
http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-
wZNuZe3vvGc/TqVzJ3cDtCI/AAAAAAAAEsM/VyIOxRwEdM4/s1600/GoPr
o+Hero+2.PNG
134. According to Mr. Ball the GoPro HERO3 is from 2012. It had a round
button on top as can be seen below. Additionally, the round button had a
red circle in its center similar to the GoPro Session button.
79
https://i.ytimg.com/vi/Y51wJ7tbFNs/maxresdefault.jpg
135. According to Mr. Balls timeline, the GoPro HERO3+ was from 2013.
That makes it prior art to the D423 patent. The GoPro HERO3+ shows
a round button on top. It also has the red ring in the buttons center.
http://www.faststuff.com/reviews/gopro-hero-3-review/2425
136. The D480 patent has two embodiments, the first embodiment with a
button on the top and the second without a button on the top. It would be
obvious to add the button on the top to the second embodiment of the
D480 patent, if one of ordinary skill where to want to add a button
80
function to the camera in the second embodiment. The D935 patent has
a button on the top as well as a small capsule shape. The Accused
Product has a button as well as a display on the top. I have highlighted
the design characteristics on the tops of each of the drawings below. The
drawings and photograph are shown first without highlighting, and then
they are shown all as line drawings for ease of comparing. The design
characteristics on the top of each camera are highlighted in blue.
Perspective D423, D480 2nd, D480 1st, D935, and GoPro
137. Below are highlighted top views of the: D423 patent, D480 first
embodiment in light blue, overlaid on the second embodiment in black,
GoPro Session (line drawing), and the D935 patent. As can be seen,
both of the prior art shown have a button/element on top or obvious to be
placed on top. The D480 patent shows a smaller squarish button that is
slightly off-center. The Accused Product has a grouping of two
81
elements, a small round button and a rectangular display that resembles
the lower 2/3rds of a symbol. The D935 patent has a large squarish
button with a small element in the lower right. The top view of the
D935 patent is visually more similar to the D423 patent than the top
view of the Accused Product. An ordinary observer aware of the prior
art would find all of these top elements visually distinct. When a design
feature is present in the prior art, the ordinary observer aware of the prior
art would be drawn to the minor differences between them. GoPro had
used a round button with the red ring for a number of years prior to the
D423 patent.
Top Views D423, D480 2nd, GoPro, and D935
Top Views D423, D480 1st and 2nd, GoPro, and D935
82
138. My conclusion is that the Accused Product has controls on the top
surface, as does the prior art shown above. The ordinary observer would
not confuse the Accused Product controls with the large centered button
of the D423 patent, given the closeness of the prior art.
2. The Horizontal Band
139. Specifically, in paragraph 94, Mr. Ball finds that the D423 patent has a
secondary design characteristic of a band or lines running around the
center of the cube. He calls this the horizontal band.
140. In paragraph 167, Mr. Ball references the prior art listed on the face of
the D423 patent. He states, None of the prior art references have
square bezels on the front, round buttons on top, or horizontal shapes on
the side like the asserted and accused designs (emphasis added).
Below are two prior art references that Mr. Ball states do not have
horizontal shapes on the side like the asserted product or the Accused
Product. On the far left is the D423 patent. In the second row the
centered horizontal band is highlighted. Shown below on the left center
is the USD504,904 patent (the D904 patent), which is cited as prior art
on the face of the D423 patent. In the second row the centered
horizontal band is highlighted in blue. This band can be seen from three
sides, the right, the front and the left sides. The GoPro Session is shown
83
in the center right as a line drawing. In paragraph 165, Mr. Ball suggests
that the line drawing can be reasonably compared to the prior art and the
design patent drawings. In the second row, I have highlighted the door
area identified by Mr. Ball as a horizontal band, though as noted above, I
disagree. Shown below on the far right is the USD713,868 (the D868
patent) which is cited as prior art on the face of the D423 patent. It is a
camera with a cube-like shape gridded like a Rubiks cube. It has two
horizontal lines running around the center of the camera. In the second
row, I have highlighted the area between these two horizontal lines.
Perspectives views of D423, D904, GoPro, and D868
Perspective views of D423, D904, GoPro, D868
84
Perspective views of Kombi Photo, D904, GoPro, and D423
141. In paragraph 167, Mr. Ball asserts that none of the cited prior art have
horizontal shapes on the side like the asserted D423 patent. If this is the
case, then it would be clear that the door and panel shapes on the sides of
the GoPro Session look less like the horizontal shapes of the D904
patent. It is unfair for Mr. Ball to suggest one level of analysis of design
characteristics in the prior art and another in his analysis for the Accused
Product to find a design characteristic.
142. Additionally, when analyzing areas of a cube, how does one know
whether to highlight the vertical lines/areas or the horizontal lines/areas?
In the case of the GoPro Session, the product has both horizontal and
vertical lines separating materials and/or defining areas. Below I have
highlighted both the vertical areas as well as the horizontal areas as on all
four sides of the GoPro. For Mr. Ball to suggest that one should only pay
attention to the horizontal areas and ignore the vertical areas is unfair and
inconsistent. An ordinary observer would not confuse the areas defined
by lines on the side of the GoPro with the band on the side of the D423
85
patent. Rather the lines on the side of the GoPro would help differentiate
the two designs.
GoPro Rear, GoPro Left, GoPro Front, and GoPro Right
143. Below I have shown all four sides of the D423 patent with the
horizontal band highlighted in blue, and then also highlighted the
portions of the GoPro Session that Mr. Ball claims to be bands.
D423 Rear, D423 Left, D423 Front, and D423 Right
GoPro Rear, GoPro Left, GoPro Front, and GoPro Right
86
144. In conclusion, if for the sake of Mr. Balls argument, we were to
highlight only the door and panel on the sides of the GoPro Session as
shown above (and I do not believe those stand out in the GoPro Session
as the bands do in the D423 patent), then an ordinary observer aware of
this prior art shown below would not confuse the horizontal band of the
D423 patent, shown further above, with the door and panel of the
GoPro.
3. Round Cover on the Back Side
145. Specifically, in paragraph 94, Mr. Ball finds that the D423 patent has a
secondary design characteristic of the presence of a flush round shape
on the back side. He calls this a round cover on the back side. The
GoPro Session does not have a flush round shape on the back side.
Rather, it has a mostly blank back side, with a narrow, chamfered edge
around the perimeter, and a small button, holes, and an LED all grouped
together near the bottom edge. As can be seen below in the center right,
the rear view of the GoPro is visually closer to the D935 patent, shown
on the far right, than it is to the D423 patent, shown on the far left, as
both have hard lines near the edge of a rounded profile, which define a
frame around the perimeter of the rear surface. Further, the D423 patent
has a rear face with a large round cover in the center of the back side.
87
Below it is clear that only the D423 patent has this secondary design
characteristic. Additionally, if just the rear surface, without the cover or
band, is analyzed it is clear the D480 patent has a surface without hard
lines around the perimeter and simply has a flat rear surface closer to the
D423 patent than the GoPro Sessions rear surface.
D423 Back, D480 Back, GoPro Back, and D935 Back
146. In conclusion, the GoPro Session does not have a round cover on the
back side. The back side of the D935 patent and the GoPro Session are
visually closer to each other than either is to the D423 patent. Also, the
back side of the D480 patent is closer to the D423 patent than the
GoPro Sessions back side.
4. Round Part Inset on Bottom
147. In paragraph 94, Mr. Ball describes the secondary design characteristics
of the D423 patent as including a flush round inset shape on the bottom
of the design. He calls it a round part inset on bottom. The GoPro
Session does not have a round part inset on bottom. The D935 patent
88
has a round part on the bottom. It also has a second line inset within the
round outer circle.
D423 Bottom, D480 Bottom, GoPro Bottom, and D935 Bottom
S. Mr. Ball Ignored Design Characteristics in the Accused Products
148. Mr. Ball ignores that the D423 patent does not have end caps. By
focusing on only features in the D423 patent, Mr. Ball has ignored
components of the Accused Product and prior art that make them
distinctive, and conversely by their absence make the D423 distinctive.
The GoPro Session has a rear end-cap, and a front end-cap. According to
Mr. Balls standards, this feature would most likely be of the same
importance as the bezel, a primary design characteristic. Alternatively,
it could be argued it is the same importance as the horizontal band, which
he states is a secondary design characteristic. Either way, the fact that
Mr. Ball simply ignores it is troubling for his methodology.
89
D423 Top, D480 Top, GoPro Top, and D935 Top
149. As can be seen above the end caps of the GoPro Session are distinctive
from the D423 patent which does not have any end caps. Instead it has a
very simple rounded cube that is lacking in part-lines to define sections
of the design. The endcaps of the GoPro Session are visible in all views.
T. Conclusion
150. It is my conclusion that the GoPro Session does not infringe the D423
patent. The GoPro Session has an ornamental design that is different
than any of the prior art and the D423 patent. The directional design is
more similar to the D935 patent than it is to the evenly, non-directional
design of the D423 patent. The D480 patent has a more similarly
rounded cube-like compared to the D423 patent than the GoPro Session
has. The playful softened design aesthetic of the D423 patent simply is
90
not present in the GoPro design. Instead, the GoPro has a technical
rugged appearance than is distinctive from any of the prior art designs. It
is my conclusion that the ordinary observer wanting to purchase the
design claimed in the D423 patent would not be deceived into
purchasing the GoPro Session thinking it is the design claimed in the
D423 patent because the two are not substantially the same in light of
the prior art.
151. I hereby declare that all statements made herein of my own knowledge
are true and that all statements made on information and belief are
believed to be true; and further that these statements were made with the
knowledge that willful false statements and the like so made are
punishable by fine or imprisonment, or both, under 1001 of Title 18 of
the United States Code.
Dated: March 31, 2017 Respectfully submitted,
By________________________
Steven Visser
91
Exhibit A
CA0000001-004 GOPRO_00000243-259
CA0000005-011 GOPRO_00000260-276
CA0000012-014 GOPRO_00000277-278
CA0000015-017 GOPRO_00000279-283
CA0000018-025 GOPRO_00000284-291
CA0000026-032 GOPRO_00000292-296
CA0000033-035 GOPRO_00000297-305
CA0000036-038 GOPRO_00000306-309
CA0000039-041 GOPRO_00000310-313
CA0000042 GOPRO_00000314-315
CA0000043-047 GOPRO_00000316-321
CA0000048-059 GOPRO_00000322-327
CA0000060-061 GOPRO_00000328-332
CA0000125-132 GOPRO_00000333-347
CA0000133-189 GOPRO_00000348-384
CA0000596 GOPRO_00000385-393
CA0000597-598 GOPRO_00000394-403
CA0000599-601 GOPRO_00000404-411
CA0000602-604 GOPRO_00000412-417
CA0000605-607 GOPRO_00000418-420
CA0000608-609 GOPRO_00000421-429
CA0000610-614 GOPRO_00000430-438
CA0000615-616 GOPRO_00000439-441
CA0000617-619 GOPRO_00000442-454
CA0000620 GOPRO_00000455-467
CA0000621-623 GOPRO_00000468-475
CA0000624 GOPRO_00000476
CA0015887 GOPRO_00000477-502
CA0015888 GOPRO_00000503
CA0015889 GOPRO_00000504-505
CA0015890 GOPRO_00000506
GOPRO_00000021-027 GOPRO_00000507-532
GOPRO_00000028-034 GOPRO_00000533-558
GOPRO_00000035-041 GOPRO_00000559-572
GOPRO_00000042-052 GOPRO_00000573-580
GOPRO_00000053-058 GOPRO_00000581-606
GOPRO_00000059-067 GOPRO_00000607-619
GOPRO_00000068-074 GOPRO_00000620-635
GOPRO_00000075-081 GOPRO_00000636-659
GOPRO_00000082-096 GOPRO_00000660-682
GOPRO_00000097-124 GOPRO_00000683-686
GOPRO_00000125-148 GOPRO_00000687-696
GOPRO_00000149-172 GOPRO_00000697-747
GOPRO_00000173-176 GOPRO_00000748-766
GOPRO_00000177-191 GOPRO_00000767-779
GOPRO_00000192-203 GOPRO_00000780-793
GOPRO_00000204-228 GOPRO_00000794-825
GOPRO_00000229-242 GOPRO_00000826-834
GOPRO_00000835-849 GOPRO_00001100
GOPRO_00000850-851 GOPRO_00001101-103
GOPRO_00000852-856 GOPRO_00001104-106
GOPRO_00000857-861 GOPRO_00001107-108
GOPRO_00000862-868 GOPRO_00001109-110
GOPRO_00000869-876 GOPRO_00001111-113
GOPRO_00000877-891 GOPRO_00001114-115
GOPRO_00000892-897 GOPRO_00001116
GOPRO_00000898-905 GOPRO_00001117-119
GOPRO_00000906-911 GOPRO_00001120-121
GOPRO_00000912-918 GOPRO_00001122-124
GOPRO_00000919-922 GOPRO_00001125-129
GOPRO_00000923-924 GOPRO_00001130-132
GOPRO_00000925-929 GOPRO_00001133-137
GOPRO_00000930-934 GOPRO_00001138-140
GOPRO_00000935-943 GOPRO_00001141-143
GOPRO_00000944-958 GOPRO_00001144-146
GOPRO_00000959-964 GOPRO_00001147-150
GOPRO_00000965-973 GOPRO_00001151-153
GOPRO_00000974-981 GOPRO_00001154-159
GOPRO_00000982-992 GOPRO_00001160-170
GOPRO_00000993-994 GOPRO_00001171-176
GOPRO_00000995-997 GOPRO_00001177-179
GOPRO_00000998-999 GOPRO_00001180-182
GOPRO_00001000 GOPRO_00001183-185
GOPRO_00001001-003 GOPRO_00001186-188
GOPRO_00001004-005 GOPRO_00001189-194
GOPRO_00001006-008 GOPRO_00001195-197
GOPRO_00001009-013 GOPRO_00001198-202
GOPRO_00001014-016 GOPRO_00001203-206
GOPRO_00001017-021 GOPRO_00001207-210
GOPRO_00001022-024 GOPRO_00001211-218
GOPRO_00001025-027 GOPRO_00001219
GOPRO_00001028-031 GOPRO_00001220-222
GOPRO_00001032-034 GOPRO_00001223-224
GOPRO_00001035-040 GOPRO_00001225-227
GOPRO_00001041-051 GOPRO_00001228-231
GOPRO_00001052-057 GOPRO_00001232-236
GOPRO_00001058-060 GOPRO_00001237-239
GOPRO_00001061-063 GOPRO_00001240-242
GOPRO_00001064-066 GOPRO_00001243-244
GOPRO_00001067-069 GOPRO_00001245-247
GOPRO_00001070-075 GOPRO_00001248-249
GOPRO_00001076-078 GOPRO_00001250-254
GOPRO_00001079-083 GOPRO_00001255
GOPRO_00001084-087 GOPRO_00001256-258
GOPRO_00001088-091 GOPRO_00001259-262
GOPRO_00001092-099 GOPRO_00001263-264
GOPRO_00001265-270 GOPRO_00074324-345
GOPRO_00001271-274 GOPRO_00074346-360
GOPRO_00001275-279 GOPRO_00074361-371
GOPRO_00047179-184 GOPRO_00074372
GOPRO_00052358-361 GOPRO_00074373-378
GOPRO_00052509 GOPRO_00074379
GOPRO_00073195-218 GOPRO_00074380
GOPRO_00074044 GOPRO_00074381-484
GOPRO_00074045-046 GOPRO_00074485-510
GOPRO_00074047-052 GOPRO_00074511-517
GOPRO_00074053-063 GOPRO_00074518
GOPRO_00074064 GOPRO_00074519
GOPRO_00074065 GOPRO_00074520
GOPRO_00074066 GOPRO_00074521
GOPRO_00074067 GOPRO_00074522
GOPRO_00074068 GOPRO_00074523
GOPRO_00074069 GOPRO_00074524-530
GOPRO_00074070 GOPRO_00074531-534
GOPRO_00074071 GOPRO_00074535-554
GOPRO_00074072-080 GOPRO_00074555-556
GOPRO_00074081-091 GOPRO_00074557
GOPRO_00074092-094 GOPRO_00074558
GOPRO_00074095-098 GOPRO_00074559
GOPRO_00074099-100 GOPRO_00074560-565
GOPRO_00074101-107 GOPRO_00074566-567
GOPRO_00074108-109 GOPRO_00074568-747
GOPRO_00074110 GOPRO_00074748-749
GOPRO_00074111 GOPRO_00074750-753
GOPRO_00074112 GOPRO_00074754-757
GOPRO_00074113 GOPRO_00074758-761
GOPRO_00074114 GOPRO_00074762-764
GOPRO_00074115-120 GOPRO_00074765-5008
GOPRO_00074121-122 GOPRO_00075009-016
GOPRO_00074123 GOPRO_00075017-018
GOPRO_00074124 GOPRO_00075019-021
GOPRO_00074125-134 GOPRO_00075022
GOPRO_00074135-137 GOPRO_00075023-026
GOPRO_00074138-140 GOPRO_00075027-031
GOPRO_00074141 GOPRO_00075032
GOPRO_00074142-143 GOPRO_00075046-049
GOPRO_00074144-147 GOPRO_00075274
GOPRO_00074148-150 GOPRO_00075275
GOPRO_00074151-157 GOPRO_00075276
GOPRO_00074158-160 GOPRO_00075277
GOPRO_00074161-223 GOPRO_00075278
GOPRO_00074224-320 GOPRO_00075279
GOPRO_00074321-322 GOPRO_00075280
GOPRO_00074323 GOPRO_00075281
GOPRO_00075282 GOPRO_00075318
GOPRO_00075283 GOPRO_00075319
GOPRO_00075284 GOPRO_00075320
GOPRO_00075285 GOPRO_00075321
GOPRO_00075286 GOPRO_00075322
GOPRO_00075287 GOPRO_00075323
GOPRO_00075292-309 MS_SUB_CA_GOPRO_000103-104
GOPRO_00075311 PAN000001-076
GOPRO_00075312 PAN000077-080
GOPRO_00075313 PAN000081-156
GOPRO_00075314 PAN000157-158
GOPRO_00075315 PAN000159-165
GOPRO_00075316 PAN000166
GOPRO_00075317
Complaint for Patent Infringement (Dkt. 1), dated 11/03/15

C&As Infringement Contentions, Exhibit A, dated 01/26/16
GoPros Rule 12(c) Motion for Partial Judgment on the Pleadings (Dkt. 27-1), dated 02/11/16
C&As Opposition to Rule 12(c) Motion for Partial Judgment on the Pleadings (Dkt. 35), dated 03/07/16
GoPros Reply to Rule 12(c) Motion for Partial Judgment on the Pleadings (Dkt. 37), dated 03/14/16
GoPros Invalidity Contentions, Exhibits A-G, dated 03/15/16
GoPros Non-Infringement Contentions, Exhibit A, dated 03/15/16
C&As Response to Invalidity Contentions, dated 03/29/16
Opinion on GoPros Rule 12(c) Motion for Partial Judgment on the Pleadings(Dkt. 42), dated 04/25/16
Joint Letter re Claim Construction (Dkt. 44), dated 04/29/16
Letter Order re Claim Construction (Dkt. 49), dated 05/11/16
C&As Response to 2nd Set of Interrogatories (No. 15), dated 09/06/16
C&As Amended Infringement Contentions, dated 10/03/16
GoPros Amended Non-Infringement Contentions, dated 10/12/16
C&As Responses to Interrogatory No. 15, dated 10/14/16
Declaration of Robert S. DiMaggio Regarding Production of Panasonic Documents, dated 10/18/16
GoPros Amended Invalidity Contentions (with Exhibit H), dated 10/21/16
Declaration of Patrick Gogerty Regarding Production of Microsoft Documents, dated 11/01/16
Robert Brunner [Ammunition] deposition transcript and exhibits, dated 10/06/16

Josh Davies deposition transcript and exhibits, dated 10/04/16
Rich Gioscia deposition transcripts and exhibits, dated 08/25/16 & 10/07/16
Rudy Samuels deposition transcript and exhibits, dated 10/07/16
Bill Tolbert deposition transcript and exhibits, dated 08/16/16
Gregoire Vandenbussche [Ammunition] deposition transcript and exhibits, dated 06/29/16
U.S. Patent No. 488,331


A Guide to Filing a Design Patent Application, USPTO, 2009
Websters New Universal Unabridged Dictionary, Random House, 1996
http://www.honda67.vn/forum/showthread.php?24676-L%E1%BB%8Bch-s%E1%BB%AD-m%C3%A1y-
%E1%BA%A3nh
https://www.google.com/search?q=Kodak+brownie&espv=2&biw=2151&bih=1051&tbm=isch&tbo=u&s
ource=univ&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwi6ptCO29PRAhVi7IMKHZ_mCmIQsAQIbA#imgrc=SAfW4dea0GSYGM%3
A
http://kurtmunger.com/kodak_brownie_hawkeyeid149.html
http://collectiblend.com/Cameras/images/Suter-Swiss-Box.jpg
http://picclick.ca/EHO-ALTISSA-EHO-BOX-3X4-WITH-DECENT-ORIGINAL-381879475157.html
http://d2ydh70d4b5xgv.cloudfront.net/images/2/a/vintage-eho-baby-box-camera-made-in-germany-
9676e2983c522244f16f5e0600e07a5a.jpg
http://www.rockycameras.com/ekmps/shops/rockcameras/images/gnome-pixie-box-vintage-camera-
9.99-19259-p.jpg
https://darlscamerashelf.files.wordpress.com/2013/07/gnome_pixie_montage.jpg
https://s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/564x/1d/d4/48/1dd448319ef408147f7b3481b413482a.jpg
http://www.pacificrimcamera.com/pp/kemper/kombi.jpg
https://s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/736x/87/cd/1d/87cd1d18809f54a5fb9dfd4e983b36ce.jpg
https://s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/736x/38/fb/db/38fbdbbb6fdc5ceeae048ceb2e66a044.jpg
http://historiccamera.com/cgi-
bin/librarium2/pm.cgi?action=app_display&app=datasheet&app_id=238&
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/3/3e/Kombi_Camera_001.jpg
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/3/3e/Kombi_Camera_001.jpg/599px-
http://www.earlyphotography.co.uk/Images/C8.JPG
http://www.historicacamera.com/cgi-bin/librarium/pm.cgi?action=display&login=kombi
https://www.keh.com/shop/hasselblad-500cm-chrome-500c-medium-format-camera-body-
267275.html
http://absolutephoto.com/index.php/news/cameras/hassleblad/339-space-hasselblad-rockets-to-281-
250
https://www.keh.com/media/catalog/product/cache/1/image/1800x/040ec09b1e35df139433887a97da
a66f/i/m/image_2570.jpg
http://www.clubsnap.com/forums/showthread.php?t=1439505
http://www.brownie-camera.com/51.shtml
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4Hud2sYF8v8
https://www.google.com/search?q=BL-
c230+panasonic&espv=2&biw=1940&bih=1240&tbm=isch&source=lnms&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwj56Y37gb
nRAhUH6oMKHVyHCycQ_AUICCgD#imgrc=a54VZxXxxv6s9M%3A
http://thumbs2.picclick.com/d/l400/pict/322112822253_/Panasonic-BL-C230-Wireless-Pan-tilt-
Camera.jpg
https://images-na.ssl-images-amazon.com/images/I/31KvUiII2PL.jpg
http://ss-support.eww.panasonic.com/pss/security/products/bbbl/lineup/bl-c210/spec.html
http://www.virginmegastore.com.sa/ContentPhotos/Photos/AMARYLLO%20ICAM%20HD%20360%20W
%20REMOTE%20PAN%20and%20TILT%20RED%20WHITE_125636.jpg
https://www.prlog.org/12256320-amaryllo-unveils-ibabi-hd-worlds-first-hd-skype-baby-monitor-with-
wireless-motion-control-at-ces.html
https://www.amazon.com/GoPro-HERO3-White-Waterproof-Housing/dp/B009TCCTSQ
http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-
wZNuZe3vvGc/TqVzJ3cDtCI/AAAAAAAAEsM/VyIOxRwEdM4/s1600/GoPro+Hero+2.PNG
http://www.faststuff.com/reviews/gopro-hero-3-review/2425
https://i.ytimg.com/vi/Y51wJ7tbFNs/maxresdefault.jpg
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NgWD4UXO8jk
Exhibit B
Exhibit B
Curriculum Vitae
Steve Visser
2472 Gala Court
West Lafayette, IN 47907
svisser@purdue.edu
765-494-2295 office
765-491-9633 cell
Education
1988 University of Illinois at Champaign-Urbana
MFA in Industrial Design
1982 Northwestern College
BA in Fine Arts, Sculpture
Academic Appointments
2006-Present Professor
Industrial Design
Purdue University
1996-2006 Associate Professor
Industrial Design
Purdue University
1990-1996 Assistant Professor
Industrial Design
Department of Visual and Performing Arts
Purdue University
1989-1990 Visiting Assistant Professor
Industrial Design
Department of Creative Arts
Purdue University
1986-1988 Teaching Assistant
University of Illinois at Champaign-Urbana
Professional Positions
1990-Present Steve Visser Design
Industrial Design Consultant
West Lafayette, IN
2005-2014 DesigNapkin
Co-Founder
West Lafayette, IN
1988-1989 Hari and Associates
Industrial Designer
Skokie, IL
Exhibit B
Awards and Honors

Domus Academy in Milan (see Fellowships and Residencies)
American Academy in Rome (see Fellowships and Residencies)
2007 Honorary Professor
Nanjing University of Science and Technology, Nanjing China
2005 Regional Competition: Indiana Venture Idol
Winner: Coolest Idea (see Design Competitions and Exhibitions)
2004 National Design Competition: ID Magazine
Honorable Mention (see Design Competitions and Exhibitions)
2003 Taiwan International Design Competition
Award of Excellence (see Design Competitions and Exhibitions)
2003 International Eyewear Design Competition: Opus Design Award
Award Winner (see Design Competitions and Exhibitions) Japan
1999 Malaysian Polytechnic Curriculum Development Project
Malaysia (see Grants)
1997 Fulbright Scholar
Finland (see Fellowships and Residencies)
1995 National Design Competition: Idea95 Industrial Designers Excellence Award
Silver Winner (see Design Competitions and Exhibitions)
1993 Neste Forma Finlandia 3 International Plastic Design Competition
2nd Place (see Design Competitions and Exhibitions) Finland
Membership
1992-Present Industrial Designers Society of America (IDSA)
Design Competitions and Exhibitions

2016 Juror
1st Greater China Smart Home Appliances Design Competition
Hong Kong Nov. 4
Jury:
Ms Jiang Feng President of China Household Electrical Appliance Association
Mr Liu Chun Peng President of Taipei Electrical Commercial Association
Dr Roy Chung Founding President of Hong Kong Electrical Appliance Industries Association Jury:
2016 Juror
Troy, MI
Jury:
John C. Davis VP Marketing & Products, Unified Brands
Page 2 of 30
Exhibit B
2016 Juror
International Housewares Association Student Design Competition
Chicago, IL
Jury:
Sarah OBrien, lead designer for Kohler Co., Kohler WI, Kaitlyn Benoit, Industrial Designer Whirlpool Corporation,
Benton Harbor, MI, John Caruso, professor of industrial design, Milwaukee Institute of Art & Design; Gil Cavada, design
director, Product Development Technologies, Lake Zurich, Ill.; Joe Fiore, III, senior QA and technical designer, product
integrity-quality, J.C. Penney, Plano, Texas; Marianne Grisdale, vice president, creative director, TEAMS Design, Chicago;
Rachel Sandoval, industrial designer, Ignite USA/Newell, Chicago; Dogan Sekercioglu, industrial designer, IDEO, Chicago;
Greg Thune, chair of industrial design and director of the FabLab, Columbus (Ohio) College of Art and Design; Steve
Visser, professor and area representative, industrial design, Purdue University, West Lafayette, Ind.; Christopher White,
senior brand consultant, Dallas, Texas; Michael Werner, IDSA Chicago Student Liaison and industrial designer, Wilton,
Woodbridge, Ill.; and Christina Whitehouse, industrial designer, Newell Rubbermaid, Kalamazoo, Mich.
Purdue University
West Lafayette, IN
August 31-September 4
Inspirations from Rome and Nepal
Domus Academy/NABA
Milan, Italy
July 21-August 4
Inspirations from Ancient Rome
2014 3-Person Invitational Design Exhibition
Designer in Residence Exhibition
Kathmandu, Nepal
October 21
Balance Stool and Table
Egg Bowls
Umbrella Birdfeeder
Glass Rain Chain
Three-Horned Trivet
4th International Innovation Design and Education Forum Exhibition
Nanjing, China
September 18-19
Published in
Cross-Disciplinary and Integration: Portfolio of Nanjing Innovation International Universities Design Exhibition. Pages 20-24
YODEX
Taipei, Taiwan
May 17-20
2013 Juror
Troy, MI
Jury:
3 of 30 Page
Exhibit B
2012 Invitational Regional Exhibition

Chatham Home Interiors
Indianapolis, IN
September 7, 2012
Apple2 Table Line
2012 Invitational International Exhibition
Groovy Stuff Booth
International Casual Furniture and Accessories Market
The Merchandise Mart
Chicago, IL
September 20-23, 2012
Apple2 Pedestal Table
2012 Juror
Troy, MI
June
2012 Juror
Nanjing Innovation Design Competition
Nanjing China
August 13-14
2011 Poster Session
Mudd Design W orkshop
Claremont CA
May 28-30
Design for Relieving: Home-based Healthcare Products
Cheryl Qian Primary Author
Steve Visser Poster Layout and Co-Author
Nanjing China
October 25-26
StoneStalk Bench
2009 Juried National Exhibition
BECA Gallery "Next" exhibition
New Orleans, LA
February 5-28
Woodstalk Bench
Nanjing China
November 7-8
Astro Lounge Chair
Austin TX
September 17-20
Astro Lounge Chair
2005 Indiana Venture Idol Competition
Venture Club of Indiana
Indianapolis IN
September 27
Winner: Coolest Idea $1000 (30 Finalists, 4 Winners)
DesigNapkin Presentation
Scott Shim and Steve Visser
Page 4 of 30
Exhibit B

Washington, D.C.
August 21-23
Flip: Invertible Organizer
2005 PASASA International Safe Stove Competition
Selected for prototyping (85 entries/ 35 prototyped)
Paraffin Safety Association South Africa
Johannesburg, South Africa
June 1
Design Director: Steve Visser
Design Team: Jim McGlothlin, Human Factors
Scott Shim, Industrial Design
Jeff Youngblood, Materials Engineer
Dan Leard, Engineering
Rick Paul, Sculpture
Jeff Bazarko, Engineering Student
Zach Mundy, Industrial Design Student
Ehwa Art Center
Ehwa Women University
Seoul, Korea
April 15-19
2005 International Travel Souvenir Design Competition
Selected Design (about 630 entries from 39 countries, 142 selected)
Ministries of: Culture & Tourism, Commerce, Industry & Energy,
Korean Association of Industrial Design, ICSID
Kintex Exposition Center
Gyeonggi, Korea
April 14-17
Published in
International Travel Souvenir Design Competition 2005 Korea
(Seoul Korea: Gyeonggi Tourism Organization), 41
2005 Satelite Sallone International Invitational Design Exhibition
(Only two schools from the USA were in invited to exhibit in the Satelite Sallone, Purdue
University and Pratt Institute)
Milan Furniture Fair
Milan, Italy
April 13-18
2004 50th Annual International Design Competition: I.D. Magazine
Honorable Mention (over 2000 entries/ 159 selected)
New York, NY
July
Published in
I.D. Magazine 50th Annual Design Review
Volume 52, number 5, (July 2004): 184
5 of 30 Page
Exhibit B
2004 International Aluminum Extrusion Competition

Selected for Exhibition (109 entries from 9 countries/ 36 selected)
ET Foundation
International Aluminum Extrusion Seminar and Exposition
Orlando, FL
May 18-21
Design Team: Scott Shim and Steve Visser
Birdie Aluminum Extrusion Concept
Award Winner (1771 entries from 62 counties/ 313 winners)
Eyetec Co., Ltd.
Tokyo, Japan
December 1
Shades Eyewear
2003 Taiwan International Design Competition: Creating a Digital Culture Design
Award of Excellence (356 entries from 25 countries/ 20 selected)
Taiwan Design Center
Taiwan Industrial Development Bureau
Taipei, Taiwan
November 8-30
Published in
Taiwan Design Center, 2003 Taiwan Creative Design Expo (Taipei, Taiwan: Taiwan Industrial Development Bureau),
115.
Pratt Institute
New York, NY
August 11-12
Box Recycled Container
Compliers Fishing Pliers
Forest Eyewear
Civil Table
Buffalo Mask
Quantum Armchair
Ateria Reliquary
Stone Fruit Bowl
Published in
Eastman National IDSA Education Conference Proceedings New York 2003 (Dulles, VA: Industrial Designers Society of
America), 259
2002 Invitational Exhibition at the Biennale Internationale Design 2002
Saint-tienn, France
November 16-24
Civil Interactive Play Table
2002 Humanscale/WWF National Mask Design Competition
Honorable Mention (51 designs entered)
Humanscale, Inc.
New York, NY
September 26
Buffalo Mask
Page 6 of 30
Exhibit B
2001-2002 29th Annual National Juried Toys Designed by Artists Exhibition

Decorative Arts Museum
Arkansas Art Center
Little Rock, AR
November 22, 2001-January 6, 2002
Herman the Dino
2001-2002 National Furniture Design Competition: The Chair Show 4
Selected Design (234 entries, 45 selected)
Southern Highland Craft Guild
Asheville, NC
Quantum Armchair
Traveling Exhibition: The Chair Show 4
Folk Art Center, Asheville, NC, September 30, 2001-January 13, 2002
L. Y. W. Art Museum Wausaw, WI, February 2-April 7
Wellington Gray Gallery Greenville, NC, June 6-September 21
Published in
David McFadden, The Chair Show 4 (Asheville, NC: Southern Highland), 44.
Rovaniemi, Finland
August-November
Ateria Reliquary
Yalpsid Fruit Bowl
Award Winner (1639 entries from 30 countries/ 138 award winners)
(The only winner from the USA)
Eyetec Co., Ltd.
Tokyo, Japan
September 13-14
Egypt Eyewear
2001 Jan Ken Pon: Gifu World Design Competition
The World Design Foundation
Gifu Prefecture
Gifu City, Japan
May 9-June 12
Stone Fruit Bowl
2001 Herman Miller Office-Supply Creation National Competition
Honorable Mention
Herman Miller
www.Hermanmillerred.com
Zeeland, MI
Herman the Dino
2000 Biennale Internationale Design 2000 Invitational Exhibition
Saint tienn, France
October 7-15
Egypt Eyewear
Demi Fruit Bowl
7 of 30 Page
Exhibit B
2000 2000 Objects for the New Millennium Juried Exhibition

Gallery 91
New York, NY
July-September
Forest Eyewear
2000 Mid-States Crafts Regional Juried Exhibition
Evansville, IN
January-March
Forest Eyewear
1998-1999 Unlimited by Design National Invitational Exhibition
Cooper Hewitt National Design Museum (Smithsonian)
New York, NY
November 17, 1998-March 21, 1999
Groninger Museum
Groninger, Netherlands
September 13-December 7
Veletrzni Palc
Prague, Czech Republic
May 15-August 17
1996-1997 Innovations for Living/Industrial Design Excellence Awards 1989-1995
National Invitational Exhibition
Brook Stevens Gallery at Milwaukee Institute of Design
Milwaukee, WI
October 18, 1996-August 23, 1997
Kudo Crafters Clamp
1995-1996 National Design Competition: Good Design Award Exhibition
Selected Design (500 entries/ 120 selected)
Chicago, IL
Design Team: Don Herring: Dan Julian and Don Woods
ExerTron Video Game Controller
1995-1996 National Design Competition: Good Design Award
Good Design Award (Nearly 500 entries/ 80 selected)
Chicago, IL
Page 8 of 30
Exhibit B

Silver Winner for New Product Concepts (766 entries/ 56 selected)
Santa Fe, NM
September 13-16
Kudo Crafters Clamp
Published in
Innovation: Journal of the Industrial Designers Society of America, 14, no. 4, (Fall 1995): 207.
Cited in
Museum of Modern Art
New York, NY
May 24-August 22
Published in
Paola Antonelli, Mutant Materials in Contemporary Design Exhibition Bulletin (New York: Museum of Modern Art), 6.
Chicago, IL
1994 94 Nagaoka International Design Competition
Selected Design (615 entries from 40 nations/ 57 selected)
Shinanogawa Technopolis
Nagaoka City, Japan
October 21-23
Design Team: Bennett Kyle and Visser Steve
Kudo Crafters Clamp
Published in
Interior Exterior International Design Competition 9 (Nagaoka, Japan: Shinanogawa Technopolis), 59
Museum Die Neue Sammlung (Invitational)
Industrial Design Collection
Munich, Germany
1993-1994 The Fine Line Between Art and Design Invitational Exhibition
Tepasky Art Gallery
Northwestern College
Orange City, IA
January 31, 1993-February 28, 1994
Two-Person Exhibition
1993 Crafts Regional Juried Exhibition
John A. Logan Museum and Art Gallery
Carterville, IL
November 19-December 31
Rossetti Kitchen Utensil
9 of 30 Page
Exhibit B

Silver Winner, for New Product Concepts (678 entries/ 26 selected)
Atlanta, GA
August 11-14
Designers: Miro Tasic and Brian McGreevy
Published in
Innovation: Journal of the Industrial Designers Society of America 12, no. 4 (Fall 1993): 125.
Cited in
1993 Neste Forma Finlandia: International Plastics Design Competition 3
Second Prize $18,000 (576 entries from 36 countries/ 2nd)
Neste Corporation
Espoo, Finland
Traveling Exhibition: Neste Forma Finlandia 3

Finland Tapiola, Espoo April 19-25
Sweden Svenska Mssan in Gothenburg May 10-15
France Parc de la Villette, Paris June 7-13
Germany Rhein Ruhr Center, Mulheim-Ruhr June 21-27
Belgium Zuiderdokken, Antwerp September 20-26
Italy Milan October 4-10
Portugal Espinho, near Oporto October 20-26
UK National Exhibition Center, Birmingham November 7-11
Published in
David Vickery, Neste Forma Finlandia International Plastic Design Competition 3 (Helsinki: Abbeygate), 12
1992 Architectonics: Regional Juried Exhibition
Performing Arts Center
Fort Wayne, IN
October 22-November 20
Nurkka Corner Floor Lamp
1984 Solo Exhibition of Recent Sculptures
Concordia College
Seward, NE
Patents
2016 Soft Tissue Therapy Tool
Filing Date July 26
2016 Closed Vehicle Lift Arm
Filing Date May 27
2016 Vehicle Lift Platform
Filing Date May 27
Page 10 of 30
Exhibit B
2016 Vertical Channel Vehicle Lift Arm

Filing Date May 27
2016 Vertical Lift Platform Hand Switch
Filing Date May 27
2002 Support Structure for a Chair
Issued October 8
2001 Rotary Assembly Table
Issued April 24
Inventors: Steve Visser, Sang-Gyeun Ahn, Laura Drake, Haolong Ma, and Seung-Jo Park
1997 Resilient Clamp
Issued May 6
Inventors: Steve Visser and Kyle Bennett
Issued August 19
1996 Compliant Pliers
Issued June 4
Inventors: Ashok Midha and Steve Visser
Issued November 12
Issued October 29
Inventors: Bruce Munson and Steve Visser
Designs Reproduced in Publications

2013 Steve Visser, Exclamation Chair
Published in
Cross-Disciplinary and Integration: Portfolio of Nanjing Innovation International Universities
Design Exhibition
July 25, 2013 (Nanjing, China) 20-21
2009 Steve Visser, StoneStalk pedestal
Published in
Portfolio of 09 International Universities Design
09
2009910 (Nanjing, China) 8-9
2008 Steve Visser and Scott Shim, Timex Season and profile of Designapkin design firm
Published in
Charlotte and Peter Fiell, Design Now
(London: Taschen Publishing) 118-123
11 of 30 Page
Exhibit B
2004 Steve Visser and Scott Shim BLU Network: Borrow Lend Unite
Published in
Design (Taipei, Taiwan)
Vol.114 (December/January): 71
2002 Steve Visser, Quantum Armchair
Published in
American Style Magazine
(Winter 2001-2002): 16
2001 Steve Visser, Ateria Reliquary
Published in
Luisa Collina and Giuliano Simonelli, Eds.
Designing Designers: Training Strategies for the Third Millennium
(Milan, Italy: Politecnico di Milano), 73
Published in
George Covington and Bruce Hannah, Access by Design
(New York: Van Nostrand Reinhold), 201
Published in
Universal Design Excellence Project
(Takoma Park, MD: Universal Designers and Consultants, Inc. in cooperation with The National Endowment for the
Arts and the National Building Museum) slides.
Published in
Design Report (Hamburg, Germany)
(January/February 1996)
Published in
Plastics
(May 1995): 7
Published in
Taka Sihvola, Mikko, Design in Finland 1994
(Helsinki: The Finnish Foreign Trade Association), 60
Published in
Innovation: Award-Winning Industrial Design
(Glen Cove, NY: PBC International, Inc.), 82
Published in
Paola Antonelli, Mutant Materials in Contemporary Design
(New York: Museum of Modern Art and Rizzoli Press), 35
Page 12 of 30
Exhibit B
Published in
Design (London) 534 (June 1993): 8
Form Function Finlandia (Helsinki) no. 2 (June 1993): 91
K Plastic & Kautscherl Zeikey (Germany) (May 1993): 10
Plastverarbeiter (Heidelberg, Germany) 44 no. 5 (1993): 73
Form (Zurich, Germany) no. 143 (1993): 129
Design in Kunststoff (Germany) no. 44 (1993): 72-74
Domus (Milan, Italy) no. 752 (September 1993): 80-81
Kunstof Magazine (Doetinchem, Netherlands) no. 5 (May 1993): 32
Machine Design (July 9, 1993): 12
Industrial Design Activities

2016 Fuzion Mini, (product Graphics)
FASTR Inc.
Indianapolis, IN
2015-2016 Herculaneum Coffee Table, (furniture design)
Steve Visser Design
West Lafayette, IN
2015 River Desk and Silver Apple2 Pedestal, (furniture design and development)
Steve Visser Design
West Lafayette, IN
2015 Hand Pendant (product design)
Braun-Ability
Winamac, IN
2015 QLD Wheelchair Lift (product design)
Braun-Ability
Winamac, IN
2014 Balance Stool, Egg Bowls, Umbrella Birdfeeder, and Button Clock (product design)
Kathmandu, Nepal
2014 3 Horned Trivet, Copper Candle Holder (product design)
Design Team: Sari Visser and Steve Visser
Kathmandu, Nepal
2011-2014 Mini Massage Tool, (product design)
Indianapolis, IN
2013 Circle Chair, (furniture design and development)
DesigNapkin
West Lafayette, IN
2012 Exclamation Chair, (concept development)
DesigNapkin
West Lafayette, IN
2011-12 Apple2 table line, (furniture design and development)
DesigNapkin
West Lafayette, IN
13 of 30 Page
Exhibit B
2009-2010 Fuzion ST3, (product design and development)

Indianapolis, IN
2007 Pendant Lighting Design, Origins 212 Collection (product design)
Omega Lighting
Tupelo, MS
2006-2007 Track Lighting Design (product design)
Omega Lighting
Tupelo, MS
Design Team: Milan Jovanovic,
2006-2007 Bike Seat Design (product design)
David Porter
Kansas City, MO
2006 Cell Phone Design (product design)
Samsung Electronics
Sacramento, CA
2006 MXR programmable light (product design)
Apollo Design Technology Inc.
Ft. Wayne, IN
2005-2006 Portable Electronics (product design)
Klipsch Audio Corp.
Indianapolis, IN
Design Team: Nick Poteracki, Milan Jovanovic, Faraz Shah and Scott Collins
2005-2006 Wardrobe Valet (product design)
Proman Products LLC.
Loves Park, IL
2005 Identity Mouth Guard (product design)
Reliance Inc.
Taipei, Taiwan
Principal Designers: Scott Shim and Steve Visser
Design Team: Nick Poteracki, Colt Stander, Bria Helgerson, Jason Boyer, and Brian Beaver
2005 USB Drive (concept design)
Filadex Inc.
West Lafayette, IN
2004-2005 Contact Lens Travel Case (product design)
Reliance, Inc.
Taipei, Taiwan
2004 Sanitary Toilet Care System (product design)
Dr. Seok-Jin Kim
Indianapolis, IN
Design Team: Milan Jovanovic and Alex Cantoni
Page 14 of 30
Exhibit B
2001 Civil Interactive Play Table (furniture design)

Imagination Station
West Lafayette, IN
2001 Knock-Down Stool (concept development)
Matt Striebel
Bloomington, IN
Design Team: Laura Drake and Kyungsook Song
2001 Interactive Trolley Exhibit (exhibit design)
Imagination Station/City bus
West Lafayette, IN
Design Team: Nathaniel Grady, Michael Lah and Kiley Reed
2001 Quantum Armchair (furniture design)
Patent assigned to Purdue Research Foundation
West Lafayette, IN
1999-2000 Fiber Optic Cross (design/ build commission)
St. Thomas Aquinas Church
West Lafayette, IN
1999 Wooden Decorative Products (product design)
Reliance, Inc.
Taipei, Taiwan
Design Team: Braden Smith and Haolong Ma
1999 Self-Watering Flowerpots (concept design)
Reliance, Inc.
Taipei, Taiwan
1998 Faucet Design (product design)
Delta Faucet
Indianapolis, IN
Principal Designer: Judd Lord
Design Team: Steve Visser and Loren Hill
1995-1996 Portable Bassinet (product design)
Redmon, Inc.
Peru, IN
Design Team: Don Herring, Don Woods and Dan Julian
1993-1995 Compliers Flexural Fishing Pliers (product design)
Compliers, Inc.
West Lafayette, IN
1994 Stenfors Temperature Control System (product design)
Stenfors OY
Oulu, Finland
Design Team: Kyle Bennett and Don Woods
15 of 30 Page
Exhibit B
1994 Computer Interface Device (product graphics)

Inter-serve, Inc.
Rockfort, IL
1994-1995 ExerTron Video Game Controller (product design)
ExerTron, Inc.
Muncie, IN
Design Team: Don Herring and Scott Jost
1994 Tele-Talker (product design)
Amuze Technologies
Indianapolis, IN
1994 Kudo Crafters Clamp (product design)
Fiskars, Inc.
Madison, WI
1993 Mini Printer (concept design)
Quixale America, Inc.
NPC Limited
Taipei, Taiwan
Principal Designer: Chao-Hsi Wu
Design Team: Steve Visser and Brian McGreevy
1993 ZARD printer sharing system (concept design)
Power Print Systems
Rossville, IN
Design Team: David Winn and Brian McGreevy
1992 Trim Line Vending Machine (concept design)
Standard Changemakers, Inc.
Indianapolis, IN
1992 Display Case (furniture design commission)
Elastic Mechanism Lab
Mechanical Engineering Building
Purdue University
1992 River Valley Evangelical Free Church (logo design)
West Lafayette, IN
1991 Tricorder Radio Frequency Meter (product design)
Trilithic, Inc.
Indianapolis, IN
1991 Water Soluble Packaging System (concept development)
Great Lakes Chemical
West Lafayette, IN
Design Assistant: Richard Johnson
Page 16 of 30
Exhibit B
1991 ECG Analyzer (product graphics)

Vetronics, Inc.
Lafayette, IN
1990 KG Software (logo design)
Micro Data Base Systems, Inc.
Lafayette, IN
1989 Ansco Vision AL 35mm camera (product design)
Haking, Inc.
Hong Kong
1989 Whistler 750 radar detector (product design)
Whistler, Inc.
Westford, MA
1989 Shure Beta 58 wireless microphone (design detailing)
Shure Brothers, Inc.
Chicago, IL
1989 Whistler 2se radar detector (product graphics)
Whistler, Inc.
Westford, MA
1989 Point of purchase poster (graphic design)
Ansco, Inc.
Glen View, IL
1989 Coulter blood analyzer (product design)
Coulter, Inc.
Miami, FL
Principal Designer: Robert Coons
1989 Ansco Vision Gift Pack (package design)
Ansco, Inc.
Glen View, IL
Design Team: Peter Langmar and Steve Visser
1988 Top Flight Video Game Clam Pack (package design)
Konomi, Inc.
Chicago, IL
Expert Witnessing
2016 Gamon vs. Campbell Soup (expert witness, design patent)
Cozen OConnor
New York, NY
Prepared declaration on invalidity, October 14, 2016
17 of 30 Page
Exhibit B
2016 IGT vs. Aristocrat Technologies (expert witness, design patent)

Covington and Burling LLP
Washington, DC
Prepared declaration on invalidity, March 15, 2016
Lee Sullivan Shea & Smith LLP
Chicago IL
Prepare declaration on validity, October 26, 2016
Prepare declaration on claim construction, September 9, 2016
KPPB LLP
Anaheim, CA
Prepare supplemental declaration on validity, September 29, 2016
Prepared declaration on validity, March 30, 2016
Completed informal interview with USPTO, Alexandria VA, February 13, 2016
2015 CATR vs. Kingston Electronics (expert witness, utility patent)
Renaissance IP Law Group LLP
Portland, OR
Completed deposition as expert, Lafayette IN, September 21, 2015
Prepared declaration on validity, July 16, 2015
2015 Luv N Care vs. Sauvinex (expert witness, contract dispute)
Banner & Witcoff LTD.
Washington DC
Completed deposition as expert, Lafayette, IN, September 4, 2015
Prepared expert report on copying, June 18, 2015
2014-2015 Cablz vs. Chums (expert witness, utility patent)
Stoel Rives LLP
Salt Lake, UT
Prepare declaration on invalidity, January 22, 2015
Completed deposition as expert, Dallas, TX, August 15, 2014
Prepared declaration on invalidity, August 1, 2014
Prepared rebuttal report on invalidity, August 1, 2014
Prepared report on invalidity, May 26, 2014
2013-2014 PNY vs. Phison Electronics (expert witness, utility patent)
Fish and Richardson PC
Dallas, TX
Completed deposition as expert, Dallas, TX, July 23, 2014
Prepare declaration on validity, July 8, 2014
2013-2014 M-Edge vs. Amazon (expert witness, utility patent)
Alston and Bird LLP
Washington, DC
Completed deposition as expert, Chicago, IL, April 10, 2014
Prepared report on non-infringement, March 7, 2014
Prepared report on invalidity, January 30, 2014
2012-2013 MSA vs. Nifty Home Products (expert witness, design patent)
Gibson & Dernier LLP
Woodbridge, NJ
Completed deposition as expert, Woodbridge, NJ, May 8, 2013
Page 18 of 30
Exhibit B
2012-2013 Frito-Lay vs. Medallion Foods, Inc. (expert witness, trademark)

Baker Botts LLP
Dallas, TX
Testified at trial, Sherman TX, February 15, 2013
Completed deposition as expert, Dallas, TX, November 20, 2012
Prepared report on trademark, October 8, 2012
2012-2013 Nordock Inc. vs. Systems Inc. (expert witness, design patent)
Sokol Law Office
Milwaukee, WI
Testified at jury trial, Milwaukee, WI, March 19 & 25, 2013
Testified in claim construction hearing, Milwaukee, WI, January 30, 2013
Gave declaration in summary judgment motion, November 5, 2012
Prepared rebuttal report, July 20, 2012
Prepared report on infringement/validity, June 20, 2012
2012 Sofpool LLC vs. Kmart and Big Lots (expert witness, design patent)
Irvine, CA
Gave declaration in summary judgment motion, October 29, 2012
Gave declaration in claim construction hearing, June 18, 2012
Prepared report on validity, February 10, 2012
2010-2011 Spellbound vs. Pacific Handy Cutter/Stanley Black & Decker (expert witness, utility patents)
Miller Canfield
Chicago, IL
Prepared rebuttal second supplemental report, September-October, 2011
Gave declaration on statement of facts, September 26, 2011
Gave declaration in support of summary judgment, August 5, 2011
Prepared second supplemental report, July-August, 2011
Gave declaration in support of summary judgment, February 7, 2011
Prepared rebuttal expert report, January-February, 2011
Prepared expert report, October-December, 2010
Gave declaration on infringement and validity, December 17, 2010
Prepared supplemental expert report, December, 2010
2010-2011 Microsoft vs. Datel Inc. (expert witness, design patents)
Howard, Rice, Nemerovski, Canady, Falk & Rabkin PC
San Francisco, CA
Completed deposition as expert, June 8, 2011
Prepared rebuttal report, May, 2011
Prepared expert report, March-April, 2011
Worked on ITC expert report, June-August 2010
2010 Magnadyne vs. Best Buy/EverWin (expert witness, design patent)
Irvine, CA
Prepared expert report and declaration, March-April, 2010
Prepared supplemental expert report, May, 2010
Completed deposition as expert, Detroit MI, June 3, 2010
2009 Plastipak (expert witness, design patent)
Dykema Gossett LLP
Chicago, IL
Provided opinion on patent infringement, September, 2009
2008 Trover Group, Inc. vs. Diebold (expert witness, design patent)
Thompson & Knight, LLP
Dallas, TX
Prepared preliminary reports on invalidity and non-infringement, SeptemberNovember, 2008
19 of 30 Page
Exhibit B
2008 Hanamint Corp. vs. Home Casual (expert witness, design patent)
Fabyanske, Westra, Hart & Thomson, P.A.
Minneapolis, MN
Completed deposition on expert report, July 10, 2008
Prepared expert report on invalidity, January-April, 2008
2007-2008 Sofpool LLC vs. Intex Recreational Corp. (expert witness, design patents)
Baker & Daniels LLP
Indianapolis, IN
Testified in jury trial as a design expert, Marshall Texas, April 15, 2008
Prepared expert report on non-infringement February-March, 2008
Gave declaration for markman hearing February 19, 2008
Prepared expert report on invalidity July-February, 2008
2006-2007 Calphalon vs. Meyer (expert witness, design patent)
Dykema Gossett LLP
Chicago, IL
Testified in jury trial as a design expert, June 12, 2007
Completed deposition on expert report, Chicago IL, May 9, 2006
Prepared expert report for Meyer Inc. in a design patent dispute, April, 2006
2006 Zuna Corporation vs. Atico, Walgreen & Target (expert witness, utility patent)
Wiley Rein & Fielding LLP
Washington D.C.
Reviewed patents, claim construction and manufactured products in view of a utility patent owned by Zuna
Corporation, February-March
2005-2006 Fisher-Price vs. Evenflo (expert witness, utility patent)
Washington D.C.
Testified in preliminary injunction hearing as an design expert, May 24, 2006
Completed deposition on the expert report, Buffalo, NY, December 22, 2005
Prepared expert report on two product that Evenflo produces and a patent that Fisher-Price owns, August-
November 2005
2005 Fabio Perini S.p.A. vs. Chan Li Machinery Co. Ltd. (expert witness, utility patent)
Baker & McKenzie LLP
Washington, D.C.
Worked as non-testifying expert in an International Trade Regulation & Customs case involving an Italian
manufacturer and a Taiwanese Manufacturer. October-December
Created visual images to help explain the issues involved in the case.
Created claim charts for US patents 5,979,818 and Re 35,729
2003-2004 Fisher-Price vs. Graco (expert witness, utility patent)
Washington D.C.
Assisted in preparation for Markman hearing, Philadelphia, PA, March, 2004
Testified in Preliminary Injunction hearing, Philadelphia, PA, November, 2003
Prepared a preliminary report for a lawsuit between Fisher-Price and Graco, Inc. concerning a product that
Graco, Inc. produces and patent 6,520,862 that Fisher-Price owns, July-September, 2003
Page 20 of 30
Exhibit B
2001-2003 Fisher-Price vs. Safety 1st (expert witness, utility and design patents)
Washington D.C.
Testified in a trial concerning seven products and on four patents in dispute, Wilmington, DE, January 14-
15, 2003
Assisted with patent reply brief for Summary Judgment
Prepared PowerPoint presentations for trial, November-December, 2002
Prepared exhibits for trial, May, 2002
Reviewed courts claim construction, April, 2002
Gave declaration for court on claim construction, Wilmington, DE, March, 2002
Prepared expert report on five products that Safety 1st produces and five patents that Fisher-Price owns,
January, 2002
Reviewed prior art and claim construction, October, 2001
2001 Stein Industries vs. Display Specialties (expert witness, design patent)
Minneapolis, MN
Reviewed patent history and depositions in the case, July-August, 2001
2001 The Kong Company vs. Mann Design (expert witness, utility patent)
Minneapolis, MN
Gave opinions on definition of claim language in patent 6,129,053 and visual comparisons with design patent
388,559, March, 2001
2000 3-M vs. Cabot (expert witness, utility and design patents)
Minneapolis, MN
Prepared expert report, February-March, 2000
Prepared declaration, April, 2000
Completed deposition, Indianapolis, IN, September, 2000
International Fellowships and Residencies

Selected for four-week residency at Domus Academy in Milan. The project was focused on industrial design inspiration
from Etruscan objects.
Milan, Italy
July 19-August 14
2014 Designer in Residence
Served as a designer in residency at the Association of Craft Producers in Nepal. The project was focused on designing
crafts for fair trade industry
Kathmandu, Nepal
September 1-October 22
Selected for four-week residency at the American Academy in Rome. The project was focused on industrial design
inspiration from 1st Century Rome.
Rome, Italy
April 28-May 24
2013 International Workshop
Organized and team-taught 48 students during an intensive 48-hour design challenge with student in China.
Nanjing, China
September 20-22
2002 Study Abroad Program
Taught British Style course at Oxford University.
Oxford, UK
June 30-August 4
21 of 30 Page
Exhibit B
2000 International Faculty Exchange

Taught at the University of Lapland for six weeks; included a Product Design course for international students from
several countries within Europe, and an Advanced Research and Design course with group of Finnish students,
designing a robot for domestic yard work.
Rovaniemi, Finland
April 1-May15
1996-1997 Fulbright Scholar
Won a scholarship to teach and research at the University of Art and Design Helsinki. Teaching included courses in
Industrial Design, Materials and Processes and Compliant Mechanisms. Research focused on creative endeavors with
computer aided industrial design.
Helsinki, Finland
August 1996-August 1997
Lectures
2016 Panelist: Industrial Design Education Symposium
National Conference IDSA
Detroit, MI
August 17
2015 Domus Academy (see International Fellowships)
Perception: How We Identify Great Design
Milan, Italy
July 28
2013 Keynote Lecture at the 4th International Innovation Design Education Forum
Perceiving Design: Design Perceived
Nanjing, China
September 19
2013 Breaking the Rules of Visual Perception
Steve Visser and Cheryl Qian
Chicago, IL
August 21
Published online:
www.idsa.org/sites/default/files/Visser Paper_Breaking_the_rules_of_Visual_Perception.pdf
2013 Beyond the Computer Screen: Applying Information Visualization in Product Design
Chicago, IL
August 21
Published online:
www.idsa.org/sites/default/files/Qian-Paper_BeyondTheComputerScreen.pdf
2012 What You Can Get From 48 Hours: The Future of Design Leadership
Steve Visser, Cheryl Qian, and Victor Chen
Boston, MA
August 15
Published online:
http://www.idsa.org/what-you-can-get-48-hours-future-design-leadership
Page 22 of 30
Exhibit B
2011 A Collaborative Effort: Integrating Interaction Design Evaluation into Product Design Process
New Orleans, LA
September 14
Published online:
www.idsa.org/sites/default/files/ACollaborativeEffortIXDEvaluation.pdf
2011 Keynote lecture at the International Innovation Design & Education Forum
Integrating Interaction Design and Industrial Design
Nanjing, China
August 15
2011 Integrating User Experience Research into Industrial Design
Education: Interaction Design Program at Purdue
National Collegiate Inventors and Innovators Alliance Conference
Washington DC
March 25
Published online:
http://nciia.org/sites/default/files/u7/Qian.pdf
2010 Interaction Design at Purdue University
Portland, OR
August 5
2010 The Interactive Face of Design
Cheryl Qian, Petronio Bendito and Steve Visser
Faces of Design, IDSA Mideast Conference
Grand Rapids, MI
May 1
2009 Panelist: Industrial Design Education
Midwest District Conference IDSA
Minneapolis, MN
April 4
2007 Keynote lecture at the ICHEM Conference
Design Curriculum
Wuxi, China
November 6
2007 Keynote lecture at International Nanjing Forum of Industrial Design Education
Design Curriculum
Nanjing, China
November 8
2006 Workshop co-leader with Jim OGrady from Calgary Canada
National Collegiate Inventors and Innovators Alliance conference
Portland, OR
March 23
2005 Panel Leader: Design Competitions and Tenure
Washington D.C.
August 22
23 of 30 Page
Exhibit B
2005 Entrepreneurship in Industrial Design: a Case Study

Kookmin University
Seoul, Korea
April 19
2005 Entrepreneurship in Industrial Design Lecture and Workshop
Seoul National University
Seoul, Korea
April 18
2004 Panelist: Industry Sponsored Student Research Models
Art Center
Pasadena, CA
October 24-26
2003 Strategies: Corporate vs. Entrepreneurial Design
Notre Dame University
Notre Dame, IN
November 4
2001 Entrepreneurship/Corporate Sponsorship: Purdues Two-Sided Gold Coin
International Convention of University Courses in Industrial Design:
Milan International Furniture Fair
Milan, Italy
April 7-8
Published in:
Designing Designers. Training Strategies for the Third Millennium
p. 69-74
2001 Seminar on Entrepreneurial Design
IDSA Midwest District Conference: Designing the Experience
Chicago, IL
March 23
2001 Entrepreneurship/Corporate Sponsorship: Purdue's Two-Sided Gold Coin
Published in:
p. 405-412
2000 Design in the USA
Rovaniemi, Finland
April 18
1999 Finding Opportunities
Seminar: Designing In the New Millennium
Politeknik Johor Bahru
Pasir Gudang, Malaysia
July 24
1999 Brainstorming Workshop
IDSA Midwest District Conference: The Creative Culture
Madison, WI
April 9
1998 Compliance: Utilizing Plastics Flexible and Rigid Characteristics.
In IDSA Design Education Proceedings: Why Design?
Long Beach, CA
September 22-24, CD ROM
Page 24 of 30
Exhibit B
1997 Entrepreneurial Design Center: Blurring the Boundaries between Design Education, Business
and Manufacturing
Co-Authored: Steve Visser and Tom Gatis
Published in:
Washington, D.C.
June 23-25, CD ROM
1997 Compliant Mechanism Workshop
Two-week workshop for 20 students at The University of Lapland
Rovaniemi, Finland
April 28-May 7
1997 American Design & Compliers Design Process
To 40 students at the University of Lapland
Rovaniemi, Finland
May 6
1997 East Meets West: The Design Cultures of Asia and America
Joint lecture with Professor Lee of Korea
Approximately 150 students and faculty attended
University of Art and Design
Helsinki, Finland
January 15
1996 Machine Age Design in America
Helsinki, Finland
December 12
1996 An Introduction to Industrial Design
To 40 students at the Tampere Polytechnic
Tampere, Finland
November 5
1996 Venturing In Industrial Design
American Voices conference
Turku, Finland
October 10
1996 Venturing Organizations, a Case Study
To 70 Industrial Design/Business Management students
Helsinki, Finland
September 12
1996 The Design Process for Compliers
Helsinki, Finland
December 5
1995 Entrepreneurs: A Natural Resource in Short Supply and Educating
Design Students in the Art of Venturing.
IDSA Design Education Conference
Santa Fe, NM
September 13-16
25 of 30 Page
Exhibit B
1994 Inventionalism: Designers Reject Expressionistic Pleasures of the 80s and Replace Them with
an Adoration for Innovation
Co-Authored; Steve Visser and John Peasley
Dearborn, MI
August 16-18
Published in:
IDSA Design Education Conference Proceedings: Design Futures
p. 133-139
1994 Compliant Mechanisms: Materials and Processes
Lecture and mini workshop
University of Michigan
Ann Arbor, MI
March 8
1993 Drawing Workshop
Taught a three-day workshop on design drawing techniques to twelve students from Helsingin
Taideteolloinen Korkeakoulu (University of Art and Design Helsinki)
Helsinki, Finland
April 20-22
1993 Plastic Design
Helsinki, Finland
April 22
1993 Parallel Design at Purdue: Mechanical Engineering and Industrial Design Team-Up.
Co-Authored; Steve Visser and Ashok Midha
Georgia Institute of Technology
Atlanta, GA
August 10-12
Published in:
IDSA Design Education Conference Proceedings
p. 245-249
Rovaniemi Institute of Industrial Arts and Handicrafts
Rovaniemi, Finland
December 18
Helsinki, Finland
December 17
1991 What is Industrial Design?
Lecture including a three-screen multi-media presentation developed by students in A&D 355
Presentation Techniques
Purdue University
October 29
1991 Presentation Graphics in Industrial Design
National Computer Graphic Association Conference
Co-Presenters: Lind Babcock, David Sigman, and Steve Visser
Chicago, IL
April 24
1990 Art Education vs. Design Education
University of California
San Bernardino, CA
April 10
Page 26 of 30
Exhibit B
Major Professor Masters in Industrial Design

2016 Amie Barnes, Wilson Zhang and Hongmin Jin
2015 Angie Wang
2013 Zoey Feng and Robert Sibley
2011 Di Wu
2010 Xi Chen, Sara Rockwell and Larry Fenske
2009 Hao Hua
2008 Aaron Scott
2006 Milan Jovanovic, Kee Yoo, and Oho Son (co-chair),
2005 Adam Bancroft
2004 Kate Hoffman, Brooke Davis, Jon Bricker, Shivangi Narke and Andrea Granadas
2002 Kyungsook Song, Yurong Wang and Xijin Lai
2001 Braden Smith
2000 Yi Hong, Haolong Ma, Jason Tennenhouse and Sang-Gyeun Ahn
1999 Laura Johnson Drake
Grants/Corporate Sponsorship
2015-2016 Hasbro Inc.
Co-led student interdisciplinary design project working with major toy manufacturer to explore concepts focused on
solar powered toys.
Providence, RI
$30,000
2015 BraunAbility (3 Co-PIs)
Co-PI for the BraunAbility Queensland project. It was a project to re-design a wheelchair lift for the European Market.
The team of three professors and three RAs worked together for 12 months to improve the design of a wheelchair lift
by reducing the weight, reducing noise and improving the visual design of the lift.
Winamac, IN
$206,313
2015 Evonik
Organized a 48-hour intensive design project, the goal was to develop new ways to promote Evonik plastics to
Industrial Designers.
Lafayette, IN
$6,500
2014 Kimberly Clark Professional
Co-Organized student design project working with major safety manufacturer to explore concepts focused on the
clean-room gowns.
Atlanta, GA
$48,000
2014 Hasbro Inc.
Student design project working with major toy manufacturer to explore toy concepts focused on Play-Doh.
Providence, RI
$8,000
2013 GE Appliance
Organized graduate student design project working with major appliance manufacturer to explore concepts focused on
the laundry.
Louisville, KY
$8,000
Arranged corporate sponsored project exploring office stool designs for the Junior Industrial Design Students. Worked
with Glen Fuller who taught the A&D 305 class.
Jasper, IN
$12,500 ($8000 cash and $4500 in prizes and one summer internship)
27 of 30 Page
Exhibit B
2013 HON Furniture

Arranged 48-2-Design workshop for 96 industrial design students. The project was to design furniture for the office
storage accessories.
Muscatine, IA
$22,716 (Gift in kind 34 Volt drafting stools and 16 Nucleus chairs)
2013 Hasbro Inc.
Student design project working with major toy manufacturer to explore toy concepts focused on preschool children
Providence, RI
$8,000
2012 Caterpillar
Arranged Corporate sponsored project for senior industrial design students. The project was to explore how
Caterpillar could expand its brand.
Peoria, IL
$12,000
2012 Weber Grill
education.
Chicago, IL
$8,000 ($6000 cash and $2000 in prizes)
Arranged corporate sponsored project exploring occasional table designs for the Junior Industrial Design Students.
Worked with Victor Chen who taught the A&D 305 class. Three of the students where hired to bring their designs to
production. The production designs were introduced at Neocon 2012.
Jasper, IN
$14,000 ($8000 cash and $6000 in internships)
2010 GE Healthcare
Arranged multiple course project exploring home monitoring of patients with: multiple sclerosis, cerebral palsy, arthritis,
and Parkinson's.
Milwaukee, WI
$16,000
2010 The Hon Company
education.
Muscatine, IA
$15,000
2010 Hasbro Inc.
Student design project working with major toy manufacturer to explore toy concepts focused on the Stretch
Armstrong movie.
Providence, RI
$8,000
2009 DePuy Inc. a Johnson & Johnson Company
Arranged sponsored project with DePuy Inc. for the juniors. This project focused on designing for the Paralympics.
Warsaw, IN
$5,000
2009 MCS Frames
Arranged sponsored project focusing on future frame trends.
Chicago, IL
$5,000
2008 Whirlpool interaction Design
Grant to develop new interaction design area within industrial design at Purdue University.
Benton Harbor, MI
$200,000
Page 28 of 30
Exhibit B
2007 Rolodex (Newell Rubbermaid)

Students design project sponsored by office-supply manufacturer, researched millennias organizational needs and
helped identify new market opportunities for the company. Chicago, IL
$12,000
2007 Radio Flyer
Student design project sponsored by toy manufacture, students created future concept for ride on toys.
Chicago, IL
$5000
2005 College of Liberal Arts International Travel Award
$1400
2005 College of Liberal Arts Research Grant
$900
2004 Whirlpool Corp.
Student design project exploring new concepts for refrigeration storage, this innovative intensive project spanned two
weekends and included 32 students creating 256 concepts within 48 hours.
Benton Harbor, MI
$6000
2001 Hill-Rom
Packaderm project: design project sponsored by a major manufacturer of hospital beds and equipment. The project
was to design a safer and more efficient method of transporting equipment and patients in the hospital environment.
Batesville, IN
$16,000
2001 Campbell Hausfeld
Power paint equipment research and design project.
Student project to explore what women want in power paint equipment.
Nashville, TN
$5000
2000 International Programs Global Initiative
Initiated an exchange program with the University of Lapland and
Purdue University
$2500
1999 Doc. Martens Shoes
Corporate sponsored project for the junior level Industrial Design students. The project included a five-day trip to New
York provided by Doc. Martens for all participating students and faculty. The students also had a chance to work with
professional designers, marketers, and executives from Doc. Martens.
New York, NY
$8000
1999 Malaysian Polytechnic Curriculum Development Project Phase II
One of 16 professors that consulted for the Malaysian Ministry of Education, by assisting with the development and
implementation of a new curriculum at Politeknik Johor Bahru, Pasir Gudang, Malaysia. The grant included support for
one month in the USA and one month in Malaysia. Funding was provided through the World Bank.
$1,447,628
1999 Samsung Corporation
Campus liaison for the Prometheus Design Competition
Seoul, Korea
$2000
1995 Purdue Research Foundation
Summer Faculty Grant
Computer Design of Complex Compliant Mechanisms
$5000
1995 Alias Design Software
Varsity Program Grant
$90,000
29 of 30 Page
Exhibit B
1994 IBM RS/6000 workstation computer

Purdue Shared Research grant program from IBM
$35,000
Page 30 of 30
EXHIBIT 3
EXHIBIT 4
EXHIBIT 5
EXHIBIT 6
EXHIBIT 7




GOPRO, INC.,



DECLARATION OF RICHARD GIOSCIA


New York, NY 10036
Telephone: (212) 775-8700
Facsimile: (212) 775-8800

Telephone: (415) 576-0200
Facsimile: (415) 576-0300

GoPro, Inc.
I, Richard Gioscia, hereby declare and state:
1. I am currently a consultant for Defendant and Counterclaimant GoPro, Inc.
(GoPro) and GoPros former Senior Director of Design. I make this declaration based on my
personal knowledge. If asked to testify as to the matters stated in this declaration, I could and
would competently testify thereto.
Non-Infringement.
3. I joined GoPro in October 2012. I was intimately involved in the development of
both the HERO4 Session (later renamed HERO Session) and HERO5 Session cameras,
particularly with respect to overseeing the development of their industrial design (that is, the
external appearance and overall form factor).
4. When I joined GoPro in October 2012, the product that would eventually launch
as the HERO4 Session was codenamed Sessions and was already under development. Based
on conversations with my former colleague at GoPro, Rudy Samuels, as well as documents I
have seen, I understand the camera had been in development since 2011.
5. Attached as Exhibit A is a true and correct copy of a Marketing Requirements
Document (MRD) entitled Sessions MRD, dated February 7, 2012. At the time GoPro
internally produced this MRD, the Sessions camera was conceptualized with the goal of
creating a 35 x 35 x 30 mm camera with a square form factor (referring to the fact that it was
a 35 x 35 square when viewed from the front or the back). See Exhibit A at p. 1
(GoPro_00073688) and p. 15 (GoPro_00073702). GoPro desired this form factor for the
Sessions camera because it provided versatile mounting optionsspecifically, it allows the
2
camera to be mounted in any of four 90-degree orientations, frontwards or backwards, and
either on top of or to the side of objects (for example, a motorcycle helmet). See id.
6. GoPro sought the smallest possible camera design with this square form factor.
However, the dimensions of the product changed during the course of development in an
attempt to balance GoPros desire to provide the smallest possible camera in this square form
factor while also providing robust battery life, durability, and the same industry-leading photo
and video quality for which GoPro is known. By late summer of 2013, we were focused on the
design for the camera shown in Exhibit B. Exhibit B is a true and correct copy of an August
29, 2013 presentation entitled Northshore ID Concept Unibody Concept. As can be seen
from the images in Exhibit B, the design of the camera was very close to what we ended up
with as the design for the Session. By Fall 2013, GoPro had largely finalized the industrial
design of the camera and the final decision to go with that design was formally announced at an
internal meeting in early October, 2013. The cameras final dimensions (38 x 38 x 36.4 mm)
were also established by this time.
7. I and others at GoPro subsequently learned about the Polaroid Cube in January
2014, when C&A Marketing announced the product just ahead of the 2014 Consumer
Electronics Show (CES). Before then, we were unaware of the Polaroid Cube product or
any design efforts C&A Marketing had commissioned on that product.
8. HERO4 Session launched in July 2015, and was later rebranded as simply the
HERO Session. The HERO4 Session and HERO Session cameras are identical in every
respect (both in design and specification) except they have different logos.
9. I was also involved in overseeing industrial design changes for the HERO5
Session. The HERO5 Session shares the same industrial design as the HERO4 Session and
3
EXHIBIT A
SOUGHT TO BE FILED UNDER SEAL
PURSUANT TO CONFIDENTIAL ORDER

EXHIBIT B

EXHIBIT C






Defendant and Counterclaimant.


DECLARATION OF WILLIAM E. MOSLEY


New York, NY 10036
Telephone: (212) 775-8700
Facsimile: (212) 775-8800

Telephone: (415) 576-0200
Facsimile: (415) 576-0300

GoPro, Inc.
I, William E. Mosley, hereby declare and state:
1. I am an associate at the law firm Kilpatrick Townsend & Stockton LLP, counsel
of record for Defendant and Counterclaimant GoPro, Inc. (GoPro) and a member in good
standing of the State Bar of California. This Court granted my application to appear pro hac
vice on May 4, 2016 (Dkt. No. 46). I make this declaration on my own personal knowledge,
unless otherwise indicated. If called upon to testify regarding the accuracy of the information
provided in my declaration, I could and would testify competently thereto.
Non-Infringement.
3. Attached as Exhibit 1 is a true and correct copy of excerpts from the Expert
Report of Alan Ball Regarding Infringement of U.S. Patent No. D730,423, dated February 10,
2017.
4. Attached as Exhibit 2 is a true and correct copy of excerpts from the deposition
of Alan D. Ball, dated April 25, 2017.
5. C&A Marketing asserts its Polaroid Cube and Polaroid Cube+ products
embody the design of the D423 Patent. See Exhibit 1 at 6. Below are true and correct copies
of images of a Polaroid Cube camera:
2
6. Attached as Exhibit 3 is a true and correct copy of excerpts and exhibits 409 &
414 from the deposition of Rudy Samuels, dated October 7, 2016.
of Gregoire Vandenbussche, dated June 29, 2016.
of Bill Tolbert, dated August 16, 2016
of Richard Gioscia, dated August 25, 2016.
of Richard Gioscia, dated November 28, 2016.
11. Attached as Exhibit 8 is a true and correct copy of the Notice of Allowance for
U.S. Patent No. D745,589 (the D589 Patent) with Bates numbers GOPRO_00071730
GOPRO_00071732. This Notice was mailed to GoPro on October 28, 2015.
12. Attached as Exhibit 9 is a true and correct copy of U.S. Patent No. D745,589
(D589 Patent).
13. Attached as Exhibit 10 is a true and correct copy of the U.S. Patent No. D730,423
(D423 Patent).
14. The same U.S. Patent and Trademark Office Examiner (Adir Aronovich), who
allowed the application which led to C&A Marketings D423 Patent, subsequently examined
and allowed the GoPro D589 patent to issue over the D423 Patent.
3
15. Attached as Exhibits 11 and 12 respectively are a HERO Session and a HERO5
Session camera which are being lodged with the Court separately as they are physical
specimens.
16. Attached as Exhibits 13 and 14 respectively are a Polaroid Cube and a Polaroid
Cube + camera which are being lodged with the Court separately as they are physical
specimens.
17. Attached as Exhibit 15 is a true and correct copy of Wallace v. Ideavillage
Products Corp., No. 06-CV-5673-JAD, Dkt. No. 61-7.
18. Attached as Exhibit 16 is a true and correct copy of C&A Marketing, Inc.s
Response to Interrogatory No. 3 excerpted from C&A Marketing, Inc.s Objections and
Responses to GoPro, Inc.s First Set of Interrogatories.
19. Attached as Exhibit 17 is a true and correct copy of an email string between
Moshe Isaacson and Eric Bertrand, dated July 6, 2015 and Bates numbered CA0012290
CA0012291.
Moshe Isaacson, Richard Burdi, and Avi Ash, dated August 12, 2015 and Bates numbered
CA0012340 CA0012341.
Paula Nyfield, Moshe Isaacson, and Susan Hill, dated July 10, 2015 and Bates numbered
CA0008988 CA0008990.
22. The USPTO does not recognize an action camera prior art category. Class
Numbers and Titles, USPTO,
https://www.uspto.gov/web/patents/classification/selectnumwithtitle.htm; Class D16
4
Photography and Optical Equipment, USPTO,
https://www.uspto.gov/web/patents/classification/uspcd16/schedd16.htm. The USPTO
classifies the D423 Patent in the same art category as the references depicted above: Class D16
Photography and Optical Equipment. Ex. 10. C&A Marketings foreign patents on the
same design are likewise classified as camera products. Attached as Exhibits 20 and 21 are
Registered Designs (Canada and Great Britain).
I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the United States of America that the
foregoing facts are true and correct based on my own personal knowledge.
Executed this 22nd day of May 2017 in the City of Menlo Park, California.
___________________________
William E. Mosley
5
system.

69360199V.1
6
EXHIBIT 1

EXHIBIT 2

EXHIBIT 3

EXHIBIT 4

EXHIBIT 5
CONFIDENTIAL - ATTORNEYS' EYES ONLY
1 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

2 FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY
3
4
5 C&A MARKETING, INC., )

)
6 Plaintiff, )
vs . ) Civil Action No.
7 ) 1;15-CV-07854 (RMB)
GOPRO, INC., )
8 )
Defendant. )
9
10
11
12
13 CONFIDENTIAL ATTORNEYS' EYES ONLY
14 VIDEOTAPED DEPOSITION OF BILL TOLBERT
15 San Francisco, California
16 Tuesday, August 16, 2016
17 Volume I
18
19
20
21 Reported by;
CHRIS TE SELLE
22 CSR No. 10836
23 Job No. 2364116
24
25 PAGES 1-248
Page 1
Veritext Legal Solutions

866 299-5127
1 THE WITNESS: I would ask our IT department if 02:55:07
2 there was any way to determine that information.
3 MR. SABRI: Let's move off of that, and just
4 one more document, and then we'll / we can take a
5 break. 02 : 55 : 21
6 We've already hit that in another e-mail chain.
7 Now is a fine time for a break.
8 THE VIDEOGRAPHER: This marks the end of volume
9 1, media 2, of the deposition of Bill Tolbert. The
10 time is 2:55. We're off the record. 02 : 55 :42
11 (Recess: 2:55 p.m. to 3:14 p.m.)
12 THE VIDEOGRAPHER: We are back on the record at
13 3:14 p.m. This marks the beginning of volume 1,
14 media number 3, of the deposition of Bill Tolbert.
15 BY MR. SABRI: 03:14: 18
16 Q. Mr. Tolbert, I'm going to move to a
17 different topic. It's GoPro's awareness of the
18 Polaroid Cube.
19 When did GoPro first become aware of the
20 Polaroid Cube? 03:14:29
21 A. On January 6, 2014.
22 Q. How did GoPro become aware of the Polaroid
23 Cube at that time?
24 A. Via a article on the website Engadget.
25 Q. Who first, who at GoPro first saw this 03:14:57
Page 177

866 299-5127
1 MR. SABRI: Nothing more from me. 05:13:58
2 THE VIDEOGRAPHER: This concludes today's
3 deposition of Bill Tolbert. The number of media
4 used was three and will be retained by Veritext
5 Legal Solutions. The time is 5:14 p.m. We're off 05:14:06
6 the record.
7 (Time noted: 5:14 p.m.)
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
Page 247

866 299-5127
EXHIBIT 6

3
4
)
)
6 Plaintiff,
7 vs . ) Civil Action No.

) 1:15-CV-07854 (RMB)
8 GOPRO, INC., )
)
9 Defendant. )
10
11
12
13 CONFIDENTIAL ATTORNEYS' EYES ONLY
14 VIDEOTAPED DEPOSITION OF RICHARD GIOSCIA
15 Menlo Park, California
16 Thursday, August 25, 2016
17 Volume I
18
19
20
21 Reported by:
CHRIS TE SELLE
22 CSR No. 10836
23 Job No. 2364118
24
25 PAGES 1 150
Page 1

866 299-5127
1 A. No . 11:27:09
2 Q. When did you first become aware of a
3 competitor action camera with a square or cubic form
4 factor?
5 A. I'm not sure I considered it a action 11 :27:26
6 camera but I did become aware of the Cube product
7 in, that's right prior to CES in 2014, when Polaroid
8 announced their product.
9 (Exhibit 107 was marked for identification
10 by the court reporter and is attached hereto.) 11:02: 13
11 BY MR. SABRI:
12 Q. I'm going to mark as Exhibit 107 GoPro
13 number 4 7 622 . Please, take your time looking at it.
14 but let me know if you recognize this document.
15 Do you recognize the document. 11:29:58
16 Mr. Gioscia?
17 A. Yes, I do.
18 Q. What is this document?
19 A. It's an e-mail.
20 Q. Is it an e-mail you sent? 11:30:05
21 A. Yes .
22 Q. To Mr. Fabrice Barbier?
23 A. Correct.
24 Q. What was Mr. Barbier's role at GoPro in
25 October 2015? 11:30:17
Page 54

866 299-5127
1 Apple adapter as a reference to a square-shaped form 02:05: 12
2 factor that, you know, it's more about the
3 orientation was free to move up and down without the
4 form factor defining a direction.
5 Q. I think that's all for this document. You 02 : 05 :33
6 can put it to the side.
7 When did GoPro first become aware of the
8 Polaroid Cube?
9 A. I think I mentioned this. that I think we
10 learned about it prior to CES in 2014. 02:05: 51
11 Q. How did GoPro become aware of the Cube?
12 A. I believe through some website reporting
13 of events at CES.
14 Q. When did you personally become aware of
15 it? 02 : 06 :11
16 A. Through a link, a link that was sent to me
17 about the CES show.
18 Q. What was your first reaction when you
19 learned of the Polaroid Cube.
20 A. Someone made a small form factor camera. 02:06:29
21 and, fortunately, it wasn't in line with the
22 features and performance we were offering in our
23 camera lineup.
24 Q. Were you concerned when you learned of the
25 Polaroid Cube? 02 : 06 :46
Page 108

866 299-5127
EXHIBIT 7
HIGHLY CONFIDENTIAL - ATTORNEYS' EYES ONLY
6 Plaintiff, )
7 vs . ) Civil Action No.
8 GOPRO, INC., ) 1:15-CV-07854 (RMB)
9 Defendant. )
10 )
11
12 HIGHLY CONFIDENTIAL - ATTORNEYS' EYES ONLY
13
14 CONTINUED VIDEOTAPED DEPOSITION OF RICHARD GIOSCIA
15 Menlo Park, California
16 Monday, November 28, 2016
17 Volume II
18
19
20 Reported by:
21 CHRIS TE SELLE
22 CSR No. 10836
23 Job No. 2487763
24
25 PAGES 151 - 254
Page 151

866 299-5127
HIGHLY CONFIDENTIAL - ATTORNEYS EYES ONLY
1 Gioscia? 02:09:11
2 A. Yes, I do.
3 Q. Do you see on the third page of the
4 document, it's 75660 at the bottom, there is a page
5 Stating, feature versus schedule? 02:09:36
6 A. Uh-huh.
7 Q. And various features are listed on the
8 lef t, and various months are listed on the top.
9 Do you see that?
10 A. Uh-huh. 02 : 09 :46
11 Q. What is this page conveying?
12 A. Availability of features versus the time
13 to market.
14 Q. So, the second to last row states, new I/O
15 door; do you see that? 02:10:02
16 A. Correct.
17 Q. Does the HERO, did the HER05 Session
18 ultimately have a different I/O door, as compared to
19 the HER04 Session?
20 A. Yeah. As I mentioned earlier, it was the 02:10: 12
21 same door, but just removable.
22 Q. And then the top row states, LCD, right?
23 A. Correct.
24 Q. Do you understand that to be referring to
25 the potential LCD on the back of the camera that 02 : 10:25
Page 216

866 299-5127
1 A. Hard to say if they did or didn't. 02:15:24
2 Putting A9SE in the AR1335, for some, they
3 considered major, in terms of the amount of
4 architecture changes needed, but they were all
5 internal to the design. 02:15 :45
6 Q. All internal, as in not visible from the
7 exterior?
8 A. Correct.
9 Q. Does the HER05 Session have the exact same
10 exterior design as the HER04 Session? 02:16: 00
11 A. Pretty much, except for the size of the
12 back button.
13 Q. Which you said was a very small change.
14 right?
15 A. Yeah. 02:16:11
16 Q. And then, of course, it says HER05 I
17 instead of HER04.
18 A. Correct. And the material, the color of
19 the materials are slightly different.
20 Q. Why are the color of materials slightly 02:16:26
21 different?
22 A. Just to give it some distinction from the
23 HER04 Session. It added value from the current
24 product.
25 Q. What do you mean by, it added value? 02 : 16 : 35
Page 220

866 299-5127
1 MS. BOROUMAND SMITH: Take a five-minute break. 03:06:39
2 THE VIDEOGRAPHER: Going off record at
3 3:06 p.m.
4 (Recess: 3:06 p.m. to 3:10 p.m.)
5 THE VIDEOGRAPHER: We're back on record at 03:10:30
6 3:10 p.m.
7 MS. BOROUMAND SMITH: I've got no further
8 questions, counsel.
9 THE VIDEOGRAPHER: We are off the record at
10 3:10 p.m., and this concludes today's testimony 03 : 10 : 39
11 given by Richard Gioscia. Media will be retained by
12 Veritext Legal Solutions. Thank you.
13 (Time noted: 3:10 p.m.)
14
15
16
17
18
19
20 RICHARD GIOSCIA
21 VOLUME II
22
23
24
25
Page 253

866 299-5127
EXHIBIT 8
United States Patent and Trademark Office

UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
Address: COMMISSIONER FOR Py-VTENTS
P.O. Box 1450
Alexandria, Virginia 22313-1450
www.iispio.gov
NOTICE OF ALLOWANCE AND FEE(S) DUE

EXAMINER
758 7590 10/28/2015
FENWICK & WEST LLP ARONOVICH, ADIR
SILICON VALLEY CEN7ER
ART UNIT PAPm NUMBER
801 CALIFORNIA STREET
MOUNTAIN VIEW, CA 94041 2917
DATE MAILED: 10/28/2015
.APPLICATION NO. ITi:.INO DA'I'E FIRST Ny\MED INVENTOR ATTORNEY DOCKET NO. CONFIRMATION NO.
29/500,164 08/21/2014 Seungheon Lee 23769-26786/US 5.585
TITLE OF INVENTION; Camera
APPLN. TYPE ENTITY S'lArUS ISSUE FEE DUE PUBLICATION FEE DUE PREV. PAID ISSUE FEE TOTAL FEB(S) DUE DATE DUB
nonprovisionai UNDISCOUNTED $560 $0 $0 $560 01/28/2016
THE APPLICATION IDENTIFIED ABOVE HAS BEEN EXAMINED AND IS ALLOWED FOR ISSUANCE AS A PATENT.
PROSECUTION ON THE MERITS IS CLOSED. THIS NOTICE OF ALLOWANCE IS NOT A GRANT OF PATENT RIGHTS.
THIS APPLICATION IS SUBJECT TO WITHDRAWAL FROM ISSUE AT THE INITIATIVE OF THE OFFICE OR UPON
PETITION BY THE APPLICANT. SEE 37 CFR 1.313 AND MPEP 1308.
THE ISSUE FEE AND PUBLICATION FEE (IF REQUIRED) MUST BE PAID WITHIN THREE MONTHS FROM THE
MAILING DATE OF THIS NOTICE OR THIS APPLICATION SHALL BE REGARDED AS ABANDONED. THIS
STATUTORY PERIOD CANNOT BE EXTENDED. SEE 35 U.S.C. 151. THE ISSUE FEE DUE INDICATED ABOVE DOES
NOT REFLECT A CREDIT FOR ANY PREVIOUSLY PAID ISSUE FEE IN THIS APPLICATION. IF AN ISSUE FEE HAS
PREVIOUSLY BEEN PAID IN THIS APPLICATION (AS SHOWN ABOVE), THE RETURN OF PART B OF THIS FORIVI
WILL BE CONSIDERED A REQUEST TO REAPPLY THE PREVIOUSLY PAID ISSUE FEE TOWARD THE ISSUE FEE NOW
DUE.
HOW TO REPLY TO THIS NOTICEr
I. Review the ENTITY STATUS shown above. If the ENTITY STATUS is shown as SMALL or MICRO, verify whether entitlement to that
entity status still applies.
If the ENTITY STATUS is the same as shown above, pay the TOTAL FEE(S) DUE shown above.
If the ENTITY STATUS is changed from that shown above, on PART B - FEE(S) TRANSMITTAL, complete section number 5 titled
"Change in Entity Status (tVom status indicated above)".
For purposes of this notice, small entity fees ai'e 1/2 the amount of undiscoiinted fees, and micro entity lees are 1/2 the amount of small entity
fees.
II. PART B - FEE(S) TRANSMITTAL, or its equivalent, must be completed and returned to the United States Patent and Trademark Offic C
(USPTO) with your ISSUE FEE and PUBLICATION FEE (if required). If you are charging the fee(s) to your deposit account, section "4b
of Part B - Fee(s) Transmittal should be completed and an extra copy of the form should be submitted. If an equivalent of Part B is filed, a
request to reapply a previously paid issue fee must be clearly made, and delays in processing may occur due to the difficulty in recognizing
the paper as an equivalent of Part B.
III. All communications regarding this application must give the application number. Please direct all communications prior to issuance to
Mail Stop ISSUE ETIE unless advised to the contrary.
IMPORTANT REMINDER: Utility patents issuing on applications filed on or after Dec. 12, 1980 may require payment of
maintenance fees. It is patentee's responsibility to ensure timely payment of maintenance fees when due.
Page 1 of 3
PTOL-8.5 (Rev. 02/11)
GOPRO 00071730
PART B - FEE(S) TRANSMITTAL
Complete and send this form, together with applicable fee(s), to: Mail Mail Stop ISSUE EHIE
Commissioner for Patents
P.O. Box 1450
Alexandria, Virginia 22313-1450
or Fax (571)-273-2885
INSTRUCriONS; This form should be used for transmitting the ISSUE FEE and PUBLICATION FEE (if required). Blocks 1 through 5 should be completed where
appropriate. All furtlier correspondence including the Patent, advance orders and notification of maintenance fees will be mailed to the current correspondence address as
indicated unless corrected below or directed otherwise in Block 1, by (a) specifying a new correspondence address; and/or (b) indicating a separate "FEE ADDRESS" for
maintenance fee notifications. _______________________________________________________________________
Note; A certificate of mailing can only be used for domestic mailings of the
Fee(s) Transmittal. This certificate cannot be used for any other accompanying
CURRENT CORRESPONDENCE ADDRESS (Note: Use Block 1 for any change of address) papers. Each additional paper, such as an assignment or formal drawing, must
nave its own certificate of mailing or transmission.
Certificate of Mailing or Transmis.sion

758 7590 10/28/201.5 I hereby certify that this Fee(s) Transmittal is being deposited with the United
FENWICK & WEST I.LP States Postal Service with sufficient postage for first class mail in an envelope
addressed to the Mail Stop ISSUE FEE address above, or being facsimile
SILICON VALLEY CENTER transmitted to the USPTO (571) 273-2885, on the date indicated below.
801 CALIFORNIA STREET (Depositor's uaiiie)
MOUNTAIN VIEW, CA 94041
(Signature)
(Dale)
APPLICATION NO.
29/500,164
I FILING DATE
08/21/2014
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
Seungheon I.,ee
ATTORNEY DOCKET NO.
23769-26786/T.IS
CONFIRMATION NO.
5585
TITLE OF INVENTION: Camera
APPLN. TYPE ENTITY STATUS ISSUE FEE DUE PUBLICATION FEE DUE PREV. PAID ISSUE FEE TOTAL FEE(S) DUE DATE DUE
nonprovisional UNDISCOUNTED .$560 SO $0 $560 01/28/2016
[ EXAMINER ART UNIT CLASS-SUBCI,ASS
ARONOVICH, ADIR 2917 D16-218000
1. Change of correspondence address or indication of "Fee Address" (37 2. For printing on the patent front page, list
CFR 1.363). (1) The names of up to 3 registered patent attorneys
Ql Change of correspondence address (or Change of Correspondence or agents OR, alternatively,
Address form PTO/SB/122) attached. (2) The name of a single firm (having as a member a 2.
PTO/SB/47;
"Fee Address" indication (or "Fee Address" Indication form
Rev 03-02 or more recent) attached. U.sc of a Customer
registered attorney or agent) and the names of up to
2 registered patent attorneys or agents. If no name is 3
Number is required. listed, no name w'ill be printed.
3. ASSIGNEE NAME AND RESIDENCE DATA TO BE PRINTED ON THE PATENT (print or type)
PLEASE NOTE; Unless an assignee is identified below, no assignee data will appear on the patent. If an assignee is identified below, the document has been filed for
recordation as set forth in 37 CFR 3.11. Completion of this form is NOT a substitute for filing an assignment.
(A) NAME OF ASSIGNEE (B) RFkSIDENCE: (CITY and STATE OR COUNTRY)
Please check the appropriate a.ssignee category or categories (will not be printed on the patent): D Individual Corporation or other private group entity Government
4a. The following fee(s) arc submitted: 4b. Payment of Fec(s); (Please first reapply any previously paid issue fee shown above)
Q Issue Fee O A check is enclosed.
Publication Fee (No small entity discount permitted) O Payment by credit card. Form PTO-2038 is attached.
Advance Order - # of Copies ................... ....... . QlThc director is hereby authorized to charge the required fee(s), any deficiency, or credits any
... .........
overpayment, to Deposit Account Number (enclose an extra copy of this form).
5. Change in Entity Status (from status indicated above)

Q Applicant certifying micro entity status. See 37 CFR 1.29 NOTE: Absent a valid certification of Micro Entity Status (see forms PTO/SB/15A and 15B), issue
fee payment in the micro entity amount will not be accepted at the risk of application abandonment.
Ql Applicant asserting small entity status. See 37 CFR 1.27 NOTE: If the application was previously under micro entity status, checking this box will be taken
to be a notification ofloss of entitlement to micro entity status.
Q Applicant changing to regular- undiscounted fee status. NOTE: Checking this box will be taken to be a notification of loss of entitlement to small or micro
entity status, as applicable.
NOTE: This form must be signed in aarordance with 37 CFR 1.31 and 1.33. See 37 CFR 1.4 for signature requirements and certifications.
Authorized Signature Date
Typed or printed name Registration No.
Page 2 of 3
PTOL-85 Pint B (10-13) Approved for use through 10/31/2013. OMB 0651-0033 U.S. Patent and Trademark Office; U.S. DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
GOPRO 00071731

UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
United States Patent and Trademark ORice
Address: COMMISSIONER FOR PATENTS
P.O. Box 1450
Alexai)dria> Virginia 223 B-1450
www.iispto.gov
applk:ation no. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENl'OR A'l^'rORNEY ]D0C:KET' no. CONFIRMATION NO.
29/500,164 08/21/2014 Seungheon I^ee 23769-26786/US 5585
EXAMINER
758 7590 10/28/2015
ARONOVICH, AD!R
FENWICK & WEST LLP
SILICON VALL.EY CENlER
ART LINIT PAPER NUMBER
801 CALIFORNIA STREET
MOUNTAIN VIEW, CA 94041 2917
DATE MAILED; 10/28/2015
Determination of Patent Term Extension or Adjustment under 35 U.S.C. 154 (b)
Design patents have a term measured from the issue date of the patent and the term remains the same length
regardless of the time that the application for the design patent was pending. Since the above-identified application is
an application for a design patent, the patent is not eligible for Patent Tenn Extension or Adjustment under 35 U.S.C.
154(b).
Any questions regarding the Patent Term Extension or Adjustment determination should be dkected to the Office of
Patent Legal Administration at (571)-272-7702. Questions relating to issue and publication fee payments should be
directed to the Customer Service Center of the Office of Patent Publication at l-(888)-786-0101 or (571)-272-4200.
Page 3 of 3
PTOL.-85 (Rev. 02/11)
GOPRO 00071732
EXHIBIT 9
US00D745589S
(12) United States Design Patent (lo) Patent No.: US D745,589 S

Lee et al. (45) Date of Patent: ** Dec. 15, 2015
(54) CAMERA 0504,904 S * 5/2005 Nagai ..... ...... D16/203

0515,121 S 2/2006 Bleaiietal, ..... D16/202
0616,480 S * 5/2010 Ookawa ... ...... D16/218
(71) Applicant: GoPro, Inc., San Mateo, C.A (US) 8,467,675 B2< 6/2013 Chen ....... . G03B 17/02
396/535
(72) Inventors: Seungheon Lee, Cupertino, CA (US); 0713,868 S * 9/2014 Yangetal....... ...... D16/202
Richard Gioscia, Santa Clara, CA (US); 0727,387 S * 4/2015 Hascgawa ...... ...... D16/203
0730,423 S 5/2015 Vandenbiissche ...... D16/218
Joshua P. Davies, Fremont, CA (US);
Evan L. Coons, San Mateo, CA (US) cited by examiner
(73) Assignee: GoPro, Inc., San Mateo, CA (LIS) Primary Examiner Adir .Aronovich
(74) Attorney, Agent, or Firm Fenwick & West LLP
(**) Term: 14 Years
(57) CLAIM
(21) Appl.No.: 29/500,164 The omamental design for a camera, as shown and described.
(22) Filed: Aug. 21, 2014 DESCRIPTION

(51) LOC(10)C1.............................. 16-01
FIG. 1 is a front, top and right side perspective view of a
(52) U.S.Cl.
D16/218 camera showing our new design;
USPC ........................................
FIG. 2 is a front, bottom, and left side perspective view
(58) Field of Classification Search
thereof;
USPC ........ 016/200,202,203,204,208,218,219;
FIG. 3 is a rear, top, and left side perspective view thereof;
348/373-376; 396/535-541
FIG. 4 is a rear, bottom, and right side perspective view
CPC , G03B 17/02; FI04N 5/225; H04N 5/2251;
thereof;
H04N 5/2252; H04N 5/2253; H04N 5/2254
ITG, 5 is a front elevational view thereof;
See application file for complete search history.
FIG. 6 is a rear elevational view thereof;
References Cited FIG. 7 is a right side elevational view thereof;
(56)
FIG: 8 is a left side elevational view thereof;
U.S. PATENT DOCUMENTS FIG. 9 is a lop plan view thereof; and,
FIG. 10 is a bottom plan view thereof,
0118,296 S 12/1939 Tuomey ...... .... D16/205 The broken lines in the drawings showing portions of the
4,646,141 A 2/1987 Timmeraians HO 1,1 29/867 camera are included for the purpose of illustrating environ
348/373
5,808,663 A * 9/1998 Okaya H04N 7/142 mental structure and fomi no part of the claimed design.
348/373
0441,386 S 5/2001 Yamazaki .... D16./203 1 Claim, 10 Drawing Sheets
GOPRO 00000982
U.S. Patent Dec. 15, 2015 Sheet 1 of 10 US D745,589 S
GOPRO 00000983
iJl
GOPRO 00000984
I
T1
i %s;
1
f;
FIG. 3
GOPRO 00000985
U.S. Patent Dec. 15, 2015 Sheet 4 of 10 us D745,589 S
!
rm
I
I
I
I
FIG. 4
GOPRO 00000986
US. Patent Dec. 15, 2015 Sheet 5 of 10 US D745,589 S
FIG. 5
GOPRO 00000987
ooo I I
ooo
ooo
FIG. 6
GOPRO 00000988
FIG. 7
GOPRO 00000989
i
\
FiG. 8
GOPRO 00000990
T
Li T
i
FiG. 9
GOPRO 00000991
7^
tr TTW I
i
liU i
1 7Z^
FIG. 10
GOPRO 00000992
EXHIBIT 10
US00D730423S
(12) United States Design Patent (lo) Patent no.: US D730,423 S

Vandenbussclie (45) Date of Patent: ** May 26, 2015
(54) CUBIC ACTION CAMER.A 0504,904 S * 5/2005 Nagaictal..... D16./203

0.504,502 S 3/2008 Honmaetal. . D10/218
0585,925 S " 2/2009 Kuo ............. D16,'202
(71) Applicant: C & A Marketing, Ridgefield, N.1 (US) 0616,480 S * S/2010 Ookawaetal. D16/218
0713,868 S 9/2014 Yangetal...... D16/202
(72) Inventor: Gregoire Vandenbussclie, San 2013/0242181 A1 9/2013 Phoonetal. ... . 348.074
Francisco, CA (US)
* cited by examiner
(73) Assignee: C & A Marketing, Ridgefield, NJ (US)
Primary Examiner Adir Ai'onovich
(*) Term: 14 Years (74) Attorney, Agent, or Finn LaMorte& Associates, P.C.
(21) Appl.No.: 29/478,443 (57) CLAIM

The ornamental design for a cubic action camera, as shown
(22) Filed: .Ian. 5, 2014 and described.
(51) LOC(10)C1. 16-01
(52) U.S. Cl. DESCRIPTION
USPC .......... D16/218
(58) Field of Classification Search FIG. lisa top, front and right side perspective view of a cubic
USPC D16/200-205, 208, 218; 348/373-376; action camera showing my new design;
396/5,35-541 FIG. 2 is a front elevational view thereof;
See application file for complete search liistory. FIG. 3 is a rear elevational view thereof;
FIG, 4 is a left side elevational view thereof;
(56) References Cited FIG. 5 is a right side elevational view thereof;
FIG. 6 is a top plan view thereof; and,
U.S. PAIENT' DOCUMENTS
FIG. 7 is a bottom plan view thereof.
DI18,296 S > 12/1939 Tuomey . . D16/205
D441,386 S S/2001 YaniazaJd . D16/203 1 Claim, 7 Drawing Sheets
CA0000125
U.S. Patent May 26,2015 Sheet 1 of 7 US D730,423 S
" '\
\
/
J'-u--
/.
K
FIG. 1
CA0000126
U.S. Patent May 26,2015 Sheet 2 of 7 US D730,423 S
r. 1
1 t
f
!
\. /
FIG. 2
CA0000127
U.S. Patent May 26,2015 Sheet 3 of 7 us D730,423 S
FIG. 3
CA0000128
U.S. Patent May 26, 2015 Sheet 4 of 7 US D730,423 S
f
\
!f I
i
i
\
1 !
1
\
7
/./
FIG. 4
CA0000129
U.S. Patent May 26, 2015 Sheet 5 of 7 us D730,423 S
0 V\
/
/
\ .x'
FIG. 5
CA0000130
U.S. Patent May 26, 2015 Sheet 6 of 7 US D730,423 S
/ V\ \
\ \
'! \\
I
\
\\ /
, \, '-v 'V. .yy /.
FIG. 6
CA0000131
U.S. Patent May 26,2015 Sheet 7 of 7 us D730,423 S
\
'7
\\ j
\\
\
FIG. 7
CA0000132
EXHIBIT II
HERO SESSION CAMERA

(PHYSICAL SPECIMEN TO BE LODGED)
EXHIBIT 12
HER05 SESSION CAMERA

EXHIBIT 13
POLAROID CUBE CAMERA

EXHIBIT 14
POLAROID CUBE+ CAMERA

EXHIBIT 15
Case 2:06-cv-05673-JAD Document 61-7 Filed 12/11/13 Page 1 of 12 PagelD: 298
Exhibit 4
BBOMBERa&tWEWMAN P.C.
ATTORNEYS AT tAW MORRISTOWN NJ NEW YORK CITY PRINCETON NJ
JOSEPH M. MANAK
MEMBER, NY BAR
DIRttCT DIAL NO.: 646-348-6745
E-MAIL ADDRESS; JMMANAK@PBNLAW.COM
March 5, 2012
VIA E-MAIL AND FEDERAL EXPRESS
Patrick D. Tobia, Esq.

Morgan Meluish Aburton
651 W. Mount Pleasant Ave.
Livingston, NJ 07039
Re: Wallace v. Idea Village,

Civil Action No. 2:06-cv-05672(DMC)-MF
Dear Mr. Tobia,
You have asked our firm, on behalf of the Plaintiff in this matter, to provide our views in
response to the tetter dated November 23, 2011 submitted on behalf of Defendant by the Law
Office of Delarosa & Associates concerning the issue of infringement of D 550,914 by
Defendants Spin Spa product. (Defendants Report). For the reasons expressed below, we
are of the view that based upon the evidence provided to us, as outlined below, a Court would
likely find, based upon the testimony of an qualified witness, familiar with the products at issue
and the prior art, and testifying as to the overall similarities of the Patent and Defendants
product through the lens of the ordinary purchaser, that infiingement exists because there is a
substantial similarity between the Plaintiffs Patent claims and the Defendants product, and that
the Patent is not invalid.
There are a number of very significant deficiencies in Defendants Report on the

applicable law, burdens of proof, the factual issues concerning tiie substantial similarities
between the Patent and Defendanf s product, and the prior art.
A. Defendants Report Ignores The Overall Appearance Standard.
First, with respect to the applicable law and burden of proof, Defendants Report ignores
a key principle in the governing case, Egyptian Goddess, Inc. v. Siwsa. Inc., 543 F.3d 665 (Fed.
Cir. 2008) - the issue of infringement is determined by comparing the overall appearance
between the patented design and the accused product; not by merely pointing out points of
difference;
156 WEST 56TH STREET
NEW YORK, NY 10019-3800
1 TELEPHONE (212) 26B-6888
PAX (212) 967-3983
2053019 www.pbnlaw.com
In addition, the more novel the design, and the more points of novelty that are
identified, the more opportunities there are for a defendant to argue that its design
does not infringe because it does not copy all tire points of novelty, even though it
may copy most of them and even tliough it may give the overall appearance of
being identical to the claimed design.
at 677.
B. Defendantls Report Inaccurately Depicts Its Product And

Mischaracterizes The Comparison Between The Patent And Its Product
Second, and most importantly, Defendants disregard of this fundamental legal principle
infects its graphical comparison of the Figures of the Patent with photographs of its product. As
brought out in the presentation below, as contrasted with Defendants corresponding
presentation. Defendant has provided graphical elements and photo shots that work to create the
appearance of dissimilarities, when in fact an overall similarity exists. For example, as shown
below. Defendants Report, in a number of instances, shows its brush product with the brush
removed, so as to give tlie appearance of different overall shapes between the brush of the Patent
and that of Defendants product. As we show, when the brush is re-attached, the Patent and
Defendants product show an overall similarity. In addition, Defendants Report has utilized
camera angles and a product sample that appears to differ from that provided to us by your office
which also work to enhance the appearance of dissimilarity. When proper techniques are
utilized, a similar overall appearance is revealed:
2053019
o
CO
CD
hO
tM85.990 SFigure I o
O)
o
<5
Hi SHIII O
cn
CD
-il -vl
00
ilB ifi I
I# >
ii iiffja
a
r f :s'f
I iir Wm ig?;X-i#3Sn
gpJiiiSfec;
ilM
D
-as? o
o
c
9i 3
p '^S CO
fs^/M
^X-5! #
O)
T1
CD
Fiai CL
H'
DJ
!-
Defendants Report, at page 3, depicts its product with the brush
removed. When the brush is included, the overall design similarity of 00
Defendants product is shown. In particular, the circular configuration D
of the brush and the mounting of the brush shows that Figure 1 of the CP
CQ
Patent and tlie Defendants product have almost identical brush/brush CD
mount designs. In addition, as shown here, that contrary to 4i>.
\ O
Defendants statement at page 3 of its Report, its product does in fact
have finger pips. The grips are there, but just not visible at page 3 of M
Defendants report because of the poor quality of Defendants "0
photograph.___________________________________ CJ
CQ
CD
a
00
o
h-
2053019
o
S3
CD
O
O)
J
o
D485.990S--Fi2ure2 <I
o
cn
03
-vi
w
i
>
D
O
I %
o
o
c
t
i \V 3
I CD
* S t 1 \ 13
i
i f O)
I I
I I I
.V' '
% T1
CD
ptIlllfK Q.
H'
DO
.2 H'
CjO
D
pj
CQ
Defendants Report, at page 4, shows its product with the brush CD
removed. When the brush is placed back on the product, as shown tJl
here, the dose similarities of the overall design are clear: the O
brush/bmsh mount is almost identical, the product head below the 1-^
r\3
mount of Defendants product is curved. The design differences are "D
not materially significant. Figure 2 shows the addition of a brush P3
<n
extension and a protrusion. However, with respect to the protrusion. CD
Defendants product is similar with respect to the protruding material O
extending from the brush mount.________________ CO
o
M
2053019
o
CO
D485.990SFigure 4 CD
NJ
O
CD
I
O
<
o
CJl
O)
-vj
CO
1
Cj
>
D
O
o
o
c
flG.4 CD
CD
1-^
!
-vJ
1
T!
CD
Q.
DO
At page 6 of Defendant's Report, Defendant shows its product with
the brush removed. The photograph herewith shows the product with
the brush put back on. As shown here, the overall design similarity of 00
Figure 4 of the patent and the Defendant's product with the brush re
attached is apparent. -a
CD
CQ
CD
CD
O
DO
TJ
iD
CQ
CD
o
00
o
00
2053019
o
tn
CD
ro
D485.990SFigures o
O)
i
o
<J
o
CJl
<y>
-vi
CO
>
D
D
I msg
o
O
c
I 3
CD
CD
\
FIG. 5
CD
Q.
1-^
M
At page 7 of Defendants Report, Defendant provides a photograph of
its prcxiuct with the brush removed. In addition. Defendants 1-^
M
photograph at page 7 of the report depicts its product in a tilted or 00
skewed manner, perhaps achieved by using an indirect camera angle,
"0
that provides an inaccurate impression of the curvature of Defendants 0)
CQ
product so as to make it appear different from Figure 5 of the Patent CD
when in fact it is virtually the same. As shown here, when the brush is --si
re-attached to Defendants product, and the product is aligned properly O
with the image of Figme 5, without an indirect camera angle, the
rso
overall design similarities are dear on their face. The brush and base
T)
are circular, the brushes have at least one inner circle, and the brush
CQ
handles are very close in configuration (note the Y shape of the end (D
of the handle that approaches the bush mount, a feature which is O
distorted in the photo.graph provided at page 7 of Defendants Report). to
o
20S3019
o
&)
D485.990 SFi2ure 6 CO
M
O
CT)
I
O
<I
o
Ol
CD
.1'
iiii 00
I
V\ I Ml!
s;
1
>
u
I I '
D
kV-
*t! I o
o
!Z
^ ' 3
CD
FIG. 6 CD
WSigiihm
T1
CD
The photograph at page 8 of Defenciants Report ciepicts a product Q.
which is different than the version of Defendants product supplied by
ro
the Plaintiff, which is depicted here. Using this product as a 1-^
comparison to Figure 6 of the Patent shows that the back of the brush
end of the Defendants product and that of Figure 6 are more similar, 00
i.e irwre circular, than the corresponding comparison at page 8 of
Defendants Report. In addition, the configuration of the handle Q
&)
portions of both the product and Figure 6 are similar (note, again, the CQ
n
CD
Y shape of the terminus of the handle leading to the brush mounting. CD
o
1-^
T3
SD
CQ
CD
D
CD
O
CD
7
2063019
Case 2;06-cv-05673-JAD Document 61-7 Filed 12/11/13 Page 9 of 12 PagelD: 306
E. The Patent Has Not Been Narrowed By The 826 Patent Or During
Prosecution
The prior art supplied by Defendant fails on its face to show that the Patent has been
narrowed or that it is invalid by clear and convincing evidence.
At pages 9-11 of Defendants Report, Defendant relies on selected figures from US
Patent 4,417,826 in support of its argument that the Patent in suit is narrow in light of the 826
prior art. Again, Defendant fails to supply the complete picture to show the Court a proper
comparison of the Patent in suit and the overall appearance of the prior art. For example,
Defendants Report omits the following drawings of the 826 brush which are clearly different
from the brush in the Patent.
862 Patent Figure 4 - Not Shown In Defendants Report

C. Defendant Bears The Burden Of Proving Non-Infringement Based On

The Prior Art
Defendants Report confounds the role of prior art on the issues of validity and
infringement. Pointedly, Defendant ignores established Federal Circuit law that Defendant bears
the burden of proof of demonstrating non-infringement when Defendant relies on the prior art
on the issue of infringement:
Thus, as is always the case, the burden of proof as to infringement remains on the
patentee. However, if the accused infringer elects to rely on the comparison prior
art as part of its defense against the claim of infringement, the burden of
production of that prior art is on the accused infringer. To be sure, we have stated
that the burden to introduce prior art under the point of novelty test falls on the
patentee [citation omitted]. Under the ordinary observer test, however, it makes
sense to impose the burden of production as to any comparison prior art on the
accused infringer. The accused infringer is the party with the motivation to point
out close prior art, and in particular to call to the courts attention the prior art that
an ordinary observer is most likely to regard as highlighting the differences
between the claimed and accused design.
Egyptian Goddess, 543 F. 3d at 678-679.
D. The Patent Is Presumed Valid; Defendant Must Show Invalidity By

Clear And Convincing Evidence.
Moreover, Defendants Report fails to point out that the Patent is presumed to be valid
and that Defendant bears the burden of establishing that the Patent is invalid by clear and
convincing evidence:
A patent is presumed valid and the burden of establishing invalidity rests on the
party asserting such invalidity 35 U.S.C. 282(1982). This presumption may be
rebutted only by clear and convincing evidence.
Uniroyal, Inc. v. Rudkin-Wiley Corp., 837 F.2d 1044,1051 (Fed. Cir. 1988).
2053019
862 Patent Figure 5 -- Not Shown In Defendants Repon
F. Defendants Report Does Not Demonstrate Patent Invalidity
In addition to the 826 Patent. Defendants Report cites, but does not provide, the
following prior art patents as allegedly demonstrating invalidity. We attach copies of these
patents hereto as Exhibits A through G, respectively.
A. U.S Patent No. D158.250 issued to Cosby
B, U.S Patent No. 2,516,778 issued to Kreidenweiss
C. U.S Patent No. 3,813,721 issued to Gaudio
D. U.S Patent No. 3,932,908 issued to Bitgood
E. U.S Patent No. 4,458,676 issued to Pileggi

F. U.S Patent No. 4,513,466 issued to Keddie
G. U.S Patent No. D346,698 issued to Hinnant
We have reviewed these patents, including the figures thereof, and strongly disagree with the
statements at pages 12-13 of Defendants report that any of them alone, or in combination would
10
2053019
render the Patent in suit invalid under 35 U.S.C. 102; 103. A review of the designs in the
asserted prior art shows striking differences in overall design configurations and features of the
prior art and the Patent. See, for example. Figure 1 of Exhibit A, Figures 1-9 of Exhibit B,
Figures l-3of Exhibit C, Figures 1-4 of Exhibit D, Figures 1-6 of Exhibit E, Figures 1-6 of
Exhibit F and Figures 1-7 of Exhibit G. Defendants Report at page 12 states that a
reexamination of the Patent is appropriate in light of the cited art, but provides no analysis as to
how any of the cited art would present a substantial new question of patentability as required
by 35 U.S.C. 304.
G. Conclusion
Based upon the evidence provided to us, a Court would likely find, based upon the
testimony of an qualified witness, familiar with the products at issue and the prior art, and
testifying as to the overall similarities of the Patent and Defendants product through the lens of
the ordinary purchaser, that infringement e.xists because there is a substantial overall similarity
between the Plaintiffs Patent and the Defendants product. Further, the prior art cited in
Defendants Report does not, in our view, demonstrate by clear and convincing evidence, that
the Patent is invalid.
PORZIO, BROMBERG & NEWMAN, P.C.
"A
By: Josepft M. Manal, Esq.
11
3053019
EXHIBIT 16

EXHIBIT 17

EXHIBIT 18

EXHIBIT 19

EXHIBIT 20
Details
Third-Party Information Liability Disclaimer
Some of the information on this Web page has been provided by external sources. The Government of Canada
is not responsible for the accuracy, reliability or currency of the information supplied by external sources.
Users wishing to rely upon this information should consult directly with the source of the information.
Content provided by external sources is not subject to official languages, privacy and accessibility
requirements.
Registration number : 161331

Date of Registration :
2015-12-08
Status :
Registered
Title: CUBIC ACTION CAMERA

Canadian Classification:
084-03-01-Video Cameras, Motion-Picture Cameras, Camcorders, Home Movie (8mm) Cameras
Other Classes Searched:

N/A
The design consists of the features of shape, configuration, pattern and ornament of the CUBIC ACTION
CAMERA as shown in solid lines in the drawings. FIG. 1 is a top perspective view of a cubic action camera;
FIG. 2 is a front view thereof; FIG. 3 is a rear view thereof; FIG. 4 is a left side view thereof; FIG. 5 is a right
side view thereof; FIG. 6 is a top view thereof; and FIG. 7 is a bottom view thereof.
Interested Parties
Applicanttsl as Filed:
C & A MARKETING LUC
Repistered Pronrietor(sl:
C & A MARKETING LUC
2 BERGEN TURNPIKE,
RIDGEFIELD, 07660
NEW JERSEY, UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
Current Owner(s):
Details 1
C & A MARKETING LLC

2 BERGEN TURNPIKE,
RIDGEFIELD, 07660
NEW JERSEY, UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
Representative for Service;

JEFFREY FIRESTONE
C/0 SAMMY SUN, 16 FERNWAY DR
PORT MOODY, V3H 5H7
BRITISH COLUMBIA, CANADA
Term of Protection: 10 years, subject to payment of a maintenance fee.
Maintenance Fee Paid:

No
Filing Date:
2015-03-10
CorrectionIsJ:
No
Third-Party Information Liability Disciaimer 2

FIG. 1
Third-Party Information Liability Disclaimer 3

FIG. 2

FIG. 3

FIG. 4

FIG. 5

//
/
/
FIG. 6

\N
\
\ >
/,
FIG. 7

EXHIBIT 21
Case
Find a1:15-cv-07854-RMB-JS
registered design - GOV.UKDocument 86-6 Filed 05/22/17 Page 75 of 77 PageID:
Page 1 1126
of 3
GOV.UK
Find a registered design
BETA
This is a new service - your feedback will help us to improve it. Find out more about the beta phase.
Design number
4039186
Status
Registered
Registration date
30 January 2015
Renewal date
30 January 2020
Overview
Application date
30 January 2015
Description
Cubic action camera
Classification
Class 16 - Photographic, cinematographic and optical apparatus
Sub class 01 - Photographic cameras and film cameras
Indication of goods Photographic cameras
Indication of goods Camcorders, Video cameras
Television cameras. Cinema cameras. Filming apparatus and Surveillance

Indication of goods
cameras
https;//www.registered-design.service.gov.ul<7fmd/4039186 5/2/2017
Case
Page 2 1127
of 3
Illustrations
Names and addresses
Contact (address for service)

Jeffrey Firestone
do Stephen Hunter, Customer Services Director (UK)], Consensio Global Limited, Communications House,
26 York Street, London, W1U 6PZ
Owners
incorporation Incorporation
Name Address
Country State
C & A Marketing 2 Bergen Turnpike, Ridgefield, New Jersey, 07660 US New Jersey
https://www.registered-design.service.gov.uk/fmd/4039186 5/2/2017
Case
Page 3 1128
of 3
History
No history is available for this design
https://www.registered-design.service.gov.uk/find/4039186 5/2/2017







REDACTED
DEFENDANT AND COUNTERCLAIMANT GOPRO, INC.S STATEMENT OF

MATERIAL FACTS NOT IN DISPUTE PURSUANT TO LOCAL RULE 56.1

New York, NY 10036
Telephone: (212) 775-8700
Facsimile: (212) 775-8800

Telephone: (415) 576-0200
Facsimile: (415) 576-0300

GoPro, Inc.
Defendant and Counterclaimant GoPro, Inc. (GoPro) respectfully submits the
following Statement of Material Facts Not in Dispute Pursuant to Local Rule 56.1.
MATERIAL FACTS NOT IN DISPUTE
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).]
2. 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.]
3. 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.]
4. The D423 Patent does not purport to claim a design for a camera of any particular size.
[Visser Decl., Ex. 3 (D423 Patent); .]
5. 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.]
6.
7. The following are images of the Polaroid Cube camera:

[Mosley Decl., 5.]
8. C&A Marketing accuses the HERO4 Session (now rebranded the HERO Session) and
the HERO5 Session (collectively the Session Cameras) of infringing the D423
Patent. [Dkt. No. 1 (Complaint);
.]
9. The HERO4 Session and HERO Session share an identical external appearance other
than slightly different logos. The HERO Session is a rebranded version of the HERO4
Session. [Declaration of Richard Gioscia In Support of GoPros Summary Judgment of
Non-Infringement (Gioscia Decl.) 8;
.]
10. 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.]
11. The differences between the external appearance of the Session Cameras are immaterial
for purposes of evaluating infringement. [

; Visser Decl., Ex. 2 (Non-Infringement
Report) 6; Gioscia Decl., 9.]
12. A side-by-side comparison of the claimed and accused designs is shown below:
Fig. 2 Front
Fig. 3 Rear
Fig. 4 Left
Fig. 5 Right
Fig. 6 Top
Fig. 7 Bottom
[Mosley Ex. 10 (D423 Patent) compared to Exs. 11, 12 (physical specimens of Session
Cameras); Visser Decl., 14.]
13. Figures 2 through 5 of the D423 Patent show a narrow stripe wrapping around the left
and right sides and portions of the front and rear sides of the camera depicted in D423
Patent, which are missing entirely from the Session Cameras. Neither the horizontal
band-shaped door of the Session Cameras nor any feature of the side opposite that door
wrap around in this fashion. [Mosley Decl.,
Ex. 10 (D423 Patent) Figs. 2-5 compared to Exs. 11,
12 (physical specimens of Session Cameras); Visser Decl., 15.]
14. 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. 10 (D423 Patent)
Fig. 2 compared to Exs. 11, 12 (physical specimens of Session Cameras); Visser Decl.,
16.]
15. 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. 10 (D423 Patent) Fig. 3
compared to Exs. 11, 12 (physical specimens of Session Cameras); Visser Decl., 18.]
16. 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. 10
(D423 Patent) Figs. 1, 6 compared to Exs. 11, 12 (physical specimens of Session
Cameras); Visser Decl., 14, 17.]
17. 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. 10 (D423 Patent)
Fig. 7 compared to Exs. 11, 12 (physical specimens of Session Cameras); Visser Decl.,
19.]
18. 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.]
19. Every design element shown in the D423 Patent is part of the claimed design. [
Visser Decl., Ex. 2 (Non-Infringement
Report) 18.]
20.
By: /s/ Frederick L. Whitmer


GoPro, Inc.

69379052V.1




GOPRO, INC.,


[PROPOSED] ORDER
GRANTING MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT OF
NON-INFRINGEMENT
THIS MATTER comes before the Court on the motion of Defendant GoPro, Inc., for an
Order granting it Summary Judgment of Non-Infringement; and the Court having considered the
submissions of the parties and for good cause shown;
IT IS, THEREFORE, on this _____ day of ______, 2017, for the reasons set forth in the
Courts Opinion filed herewith;
ORDERED that Defendants Motion for Summary Judgment of Non-Infringement is
hereby GRANTED.
____________________________________
United States District Court Judge
I hereby certify that on May 22, 2017 a true and correct copy of the foregoing was served
upon the counsel of record by filing it electronically with the Courts CM/ECF system.


C&amp;A Mktg. v. GoPro - MSJ of Noninfringement

Încărcat de

Informații document

Drepturi de autor

Formate disponibile

Partajați acest document

Partajați sau inserați document

Opțiuni de partajare

Vi se pare util acest document?

Este necorespunzător acest conținut?

Drepturi de autor:

Formate disponibile

C&amp;A Mktg. v. GoPro - MSJ of Noninfringement

Încărcat de

Drepturi de autor:

Formate disponibile

Case 1:15-cv-07854-RMB-JS Document 86 Filed 05/22/17 Page 1 of 3 PageID: 652

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

C&A MARKETING, INC., Civil Action No. 1:15-cv-07854-RMB-JS

NOTICE OF MOTION AND

KILPATRICK TOWNSEND & STOCKTON LLP

KILPATRICK TOWNSEND & STOCKTON LLP

Attorneys for Defendant and Counterclaimant

TO: ALL COUNSEL

States Courthouse, Camden, New Jersey.

A proposed form of Order is also submitted herewith.

DATED: May 22, 2017 Respectfully submitted,

KILPATRICK TOWNSEND & STOCKTON LLP

By: /s/Frederick L. Whitmer

Attorneys for Defendant and Counterclaimant

By: /s/Frederick L. Whitmer

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

C&A MARKETING, INC., Civil Action No. 1:15-cv-07854-RMB-JS

MEMORANDUM IN SUPPORT OF GOPRO, INC.S

KILPATRICK TOWNSEND & STOCKTON LLP

KILPATRICK TOWNSEND & STOCKTON LLP

Attorneys for Defendant and Counterclaimant

II. STATEMENT OF UNDISPUTED FACTS ................................................................... 2

A. The Complaint and D423 Patent ....................................................................... 2

B. The Session Cameras .......................................................................................... 3

III. APPLICABLE LAW ...................................................................................................... 5

A. Standard for Summary Judgment........................................................................ 5

B. Standard for Design Patent Infringement ........................................................... 6

IV. GOPRO SHOULD BE GRANTED SUMMARY JUDGMENT OF

1. A Side-by-Side Comparison of the Claimed and Accused Designs

2. C&A Marketing Lacks a Viable Infringement Theory ......................... 16

a) C&A Marketing Disregards Design Features Claimed in

b) C&A Marketings Remaining Infringement Assertions Are

C. Purported Disputes about the Prior Art Cannot Prevent Summary

D. Baseless Allegations of Confusion Do Not Preclude Summary Judgment ... 25

Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc.,

Arthur A. Collins, Inc. v. N. Telecom Ltd.,

Azur v. Chase Bank, USA, Natl Assn,

Celotex Corp. v. Catrett,

Contessa Food Prods., Inc. v. Conagra, Inc.,

Crocs, Inc. v. Intl Trade Commn,

Egyptian Goddess, Inc. v. Swisa, Inc.,

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

Fanimation, Inc. v. Dans Fan City, Inc.,

High Point Design LLC v. Buyers Direct, Inc.,

Matsushita Elec. Indus. Co. v. Zenith Radio Corp.,

Pac. Handy Cutter, Inc. v. Quick Point Inc.,

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

Unette Corp. v. Unit Pack Co., Inc.,

Wallace v. Ideavillage Prods. Corp.,

Wing Shing Prods. (BVI) Co. v. Sunbeam Prods., Inc.,

Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(c) ........................................................................................................................2

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

the same to the ordinary observer? The answer is simply no.

Marketing must introduce evidence warranting trial on whether a hypothetical ordinary

Marketings infringement allegationsthat it has exclusive rights in the cubic shape of a

Circuit and this Court have ruled under similar circumstances.

infringement claim for the reasons set forth in detail below.

II. STATEMENT OF UNDISPUTED FACTS

A. The Complaint and D423 Patent

See Undisputed Facts 2.

products (depicted below) embody the design of the D423 Patent:

See Mosley Decl., 5; Ex. 1 (Ball Infringement Report) 6.

B. The Session Cameras

small, rugged, and easily-mountable waterproof camerayears before C&A Marketing

C&A Mktg. v. GoPro - MSJ of Noninfringement

C&A Mktg. v. GoPro - MSJ of Noninfringement