Joint Appendix One

I
I
i
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
l
Case 2 10-cv-07678-JFW -DTB
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
Document 64 Filed 10/07/11 Page 3 of 9 Page ID #:1214
Nanoptix seeking to amend these dates and amend its Answer and Counterclaims,
as set forth below.
The relevant facts supporting Nanoptix's proposed amended pleading are set
forth in detail in Nanoptix's Statement of Uncontroverted Facts in support of its
Motion for Summary Judgment of Invalidity Regarding the '855 Patent, and
Nanoptix's proposed amended pleading. (Doc.# 56, III[ 9-47 ); Yowell Decl.,
Exhibit A, I[!1[29-55. In summary, Nanoptix alleges that FutureLogic, the inventor
Mark Meyerhofer and the patent attorney representing FutureLogic made false
representations to the United States Patent and Trademark Office ("PTO")
concerning the offer for sale, sale and public use of printers that are covered by the
'855 Patent. Id. As Nanoptix's Motion for Summary Judgment makes clear, there
can be no dispute that the claimed invention is invalid under the on sale and public
use bars of 35 U.S.C. § 102(b), and it is likewise clear that the critical material
evidence supporting the '855 Patent's invalidity was withheld and misrepresented
to the PTO. ld.
On July 27 and 28, 2011, Nanoptix conducted the deposition of the inventor
Mark Meyerhofer and the facts concerning the inequitable conduct at issue
surfaced. Yowell Decl., q[ 6. Following the Meyerhofer deposition, on August 4,
2001, FutureLogic produced additional emails and letters containing more detailed
information regarding at least the critical non-disclosure agreements with Coca-
Cola. ld. 112. Finally, on August 25,2011 FutureLogic served its Third
Nanoptix, Inc.'s Motion For Leave To File Amended Answer
with Inequitable Conduct Counterclaim and Defen_
-A0323-
3