Case: 15-1326 Document: 1-1 Page: 1 Filed: 02/11/2015 (1 of 72) UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FEDERAL CIRCUIT

NOTICE OF DOCKETING

15-1326 - Glassey v. Microsemi Inc.

Date of docketing: February 11, 2015

Appeal from: United States District Court for the Northern District of California case no. 3:14-cv-03629-WHA

Appellant(s): Michael E. McNeil, Todd S. Glassey

Critical dates include:

• Date of docketing. See Fed. Cir. R. 12. • Entry of appearance. (Due within 14 days of the date of docketing.) See Fed. Cir. R. 47.3. • Certificate of interest. (Due within 14 days of the date of docketing.) See Fed. Cir. R. 47.4. • Docketing Statement. (Due within 14 days of the date of docketing, or within 30 days if the United States or its officer or agency is a party in the appeal.) [Only in cases where all parties are represented by counsel. See the en banc order dated September 18, 2006, and guidelines available at www.cafc.uscourts.gov.] • Requests for extensions of time. See Fed. Cir. R. 26 and 27. N.B. Delayed requests are not favored by the court. • Briefs. See Fed. Cir. R. 31. N.B. You will not receive a separate briefing schedule from the Clerk's Office. However, in a case involving an appellant, a cross-appellant, and an appellee, a special briefing schedule is used. The appellant's opening brief is due within 60 days of the date of docketing. The cross- appellant's opening brief is due within 40 days of filing of the appellant's opening brief. The appellee's brief is due within 40 days of filing of the cross-appellant's brief. The appellant's response/reply brief is due within 40 days of filing of the appellee's brief. The cross-appellant's reply brief is due within 14 days of filing of the appellant's response/reply brief. The joint appendix is due within 10 days of filing of the cross-appellant's reply brief. • Settlement discussions. See Fed. Cir. R. 33. • ORAL ARGUMENT SCHEDULE CONFLICTS: Counsel should advise the clerk in writing within 30 days once briefing is completed of potential scheduling conflicts or as soon as they are known and should not wait until an actual conflict arises. Once scheduled, a case will not be postponed except on motion showing compelling reasons. See Practice Note following Fed. Cir. R. 34.

Pro se parties should refer to the Guide for Pro Se Petitioners and Appellants.

Attachments (to pro se parties only):

• Caption sheet • Guide for Pro Se Petitioners and Appellants • Required forms: o Entry of Appearance o Informal Brief o Motion and Affidavit for Leave to Proceed in Forma Pauperis (only to petitioners owing the docketing fee)

The official caption is reflected on the electronic docket under the listing of the parties and counsel. Counsel may download the Rules of Practice and required forms from www.cafc.uscourts.gov.

Daniel E. O'Toole Clerk of Court cc: United States District Court for the Northern District of California Heather F. Auyang Stephen Andrew Chiari David R. Eberhart Case: 15-1326 Document: 1-1 Page: 2 Filed: 02/11/2015 (2 of 72)

Todd S. Glassey Jonathan S. Kagan James Lin Michael E. McNeil Warren Metlitzky Jason David Russell Stefani E. Shanberg

Case: 15-1326 Document: 1-2 Page: 1 Filed: 02/11/2015 (3 of 72)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA 333 Constitution Avenue, NW Washington, DC 20001-2866 Phone: 202-216-7000 I Facsimile: 202-219-8530

Plaintiff: Glassey and McNeil In Pro Se

vs. Civil Action No. 3:14-CV-03629

Defendant: Microsemi Inc, et AI.

CIVIL NOTICE OF APPEAL

Notice is hereby given this day of January 20 -·15 that Glassey and McNeil do hereby Amend the original Notice of Appeal hereby appeals to the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit from the judgement of this court entered on the 29 day of __D_e_c __ , 20_1_4 , in favor of Defendants (and US Government) against said Claims of Intellectual Property Fraud Losses and related matters

Todd S. Glassey, In ProSe

Attorney or Pro Se Litigant

(Pursuant to Rule 4(a) of the Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure a notice of appeal in a civil action must be filed within 30 days after the date of entry of judgment or 60 days if the United States or officer or agency is a party)

USCA Form 13 August 2009 (REVISED) Case: 15-1326 Document: 1-2 Page: 2 Filed: 02/11/2015 (4 of 72)

Name Address City, State, Zip Phone Fax E-Mail G FPD G Appointed G CJA G Pro Per G Retained UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

CASE NUMBER:

PLAINTIFF(S), v.

NOTICE OF APPEAL DEFENDANT(S).

NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that hereby appeals to Name of Appellant the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit from:

Criminal Matter Civil Matter G Conviction only [F.R.Cr.P. 32(j)(1)(A)] G Order (specify): G Conviction and Sentence G Sentence Only (18 U.S.C. 3742) G Pursuant to F.R.Cr.P. 32(j)(2) G Judgment (specify): G Interlocutory Appeals G Sentence imposed: G Other (specify):

G Bail status:

Imposed or Filed on . Entered on the docket in this action on .

A copy of said judgment or order is attached hereto.

Date Signature G Appellant/ProSe G Counsel for Appellant G Deputy Clerk

Note: The Notice of Appeal shall contain the names of all parties to the judgment or order and the names and addresses of the attorneys for each party. Also, if not electronically filed in a criminal case, the Clerk shall be furnished a sufficient number of copies of the Notice of Appeal to permit prompt compliance with the service requirements of FRAP 3(d).

A-2 (01/07) NOTICE OF APPEAL United States District Court For the Northern District of California 28 27 26 25 24 23 22 21 20 19 18 17 16 15 14 13 12 11 10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 The motions todismiss are rules asfollows.Forthe reasonsstatedherein,allclaims are assign themselves patentrightstheyadmit theydonotown. motions, includingamotion totakeamulti-trillion dollar lossontheir2014taxesandamotion to their rights“controlmost onlinecommerce intheUStoday.” intellectual propertyrightsto“apartofvirtually allnetworkingsystems inuseglobally” andthat have suedmore thantwentydefendants, including loss inhistory”basedonallegationstheysay“soundedLooneyoriginally.”Nevertheless, and “UNSERVED”DOES, ERIK VANDERKAAY,ANDTHALESGROUP, NETFLIX INC.,ORACLEMARKHASTINGS, JUNIPER NETWORKS, MICROSOFTCORP., PAYPAL INC.,GOOGLE APPLE INC.,CISCOEBAY THE IETFANDINTERNETSOCIETY, STATE OFCALIFORNIA,GOVERNORBROWN, PRESIDENT OFTHEUNITEDSTATES, MICROSEMI INC,USGOVERNMENT, v. TODD S.GLASSEYandMICHAELE.MCNEIL, Case3:14-cv-03629-WHA Document185Filed12/29/14Page1of8 Case: 15-1326Document:1-2Page:3Filed:02/11/2015 Having reviewedthemore than1,000 pages lardedintherecordbyplaintiffs,thisorder A weekafterfilingtheirsecondamended complaint, plaintiffs filedsix“dispositive” Two pro se Defendants. Plaintiffs, plaintiffs seektoobtainmillions of dollarsindamages for the“largestfraud FOR THENORTHERNDISTRICTOFCALIFORNIA IN THEUNITEDSTATESDISTRICTCOURT * * * G RANTED . Allofplaintiffs’motions are the UnitedStates.Plaintiffsclaim toownthe / VACATING HEARINGS SUMMARY JUDGMENT,AND PENDING MOTIONSFOR COMPLAINT, DENYINGALL SECOND AMENDED TO DISMISS,STRIKING ORDER GRANTINGMOTIONS No. C14-03629WHA D ISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE D ENIED . . (5 of72) United States District Court For the Northern District of California 28 27 26 25 24 23 22 21 20 19 18 17 16 15 14 13 12 11 10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 No. 3:13-cv-04662-NC(N.D. Cal.)(JudgeNatCousins). No. 4:06-cv-06128-PJH(N.D. Cal.)(JudgePhyllisHamilton); al. Technologies, etal. No. 04-05142(N.D.Cal.Bankr.) (JudgeMarilynMorgan); dismissal withprejudice(Dkt.No.109).Theinitialcasemanagement conferencewasvacated. plausible case.Theywerewarnedthatfailureto curetheidentifieddeficienciescouldresultin complaint wasstricken. Plaintiffsweregivenonemore chancetopleadtheirbestandmost denied. Sixdefendantsthenmoved todismiss andinanOctober2014order,thefirstamended was issued. voluntarily dismissed aswell,after anordertoshowcauseregardingsubject-matter jurisdiction Symmetricom, Inc. Ct.). dismissed thelawsuit. contract, andotherclaims arisingfrom thesettlement agreements. Plaintiffs thenvoluntarily plaintiffs commenced alawsuit inSantaCruzSuperiorCourt,allegingmalpractice, breachof patents referencedinthesecondamended complaint. 1999 viatwosettlement agreements. DefendantMicrosemi Corp.isnowtheassigneeof alleged thatplaintiffs assignedtheirintellectualpropertyrightstoanentitycalledDatum Inc.in least sevenlawfirms wereretainedfor thismatter. Corp., NetflixInc.,OraclePayPala Apple Inc.,CiscoeBayGoogleJuniperNetworksMicrosemi Inc.,Microsoft States, the“StateofCalifornia,”individuals,andmany technologycompanies —including, , No. 5:05-cv-01604-RMW (N.D. Cal.) (Judge Ronald Whyte); (N.D.Cal.)(JudgeRonaldWhyte); , No.5:05-cv-01604-RMW Case3:14-cv-03629-WHA Document185Filed12/29/14Page2of8 Case: 15-1326Document:1-2Page:4Filed:02/11/2015 * Pro se Plaintiffs subsequentlycommenced anewlawsuitinfederalcourt. After thesettlement agreements weresigned—approximately sevenyearslater— In essence,totheextentcomprehensible, theeighty-pagesecondamended complaint Pro se Mr. Glasseyhascommenced severalactionsinour district. plaintiffslatercommenced thisaction.Their motion fora“three-judgepanel”was plaintiffsareToddGlasseyandMichaelMcNeil. , No. 5:04-cv-02522-JW (N.D.Cal.)(JudgeJames , No.5:04-cv-02522-JW Ware); , No.3:13-cv-04662-NC(N.D.Cal.)(JudgeNatCousins).Thatactionwas McNeil, etal.v.Symmetricom,Inc. nd more. The UnitedStateshasappearedandat 2 Glassey v.NationalInstitute of Standards& Glassey,etal.v.Symmetricom, Inc. Glassey v.D-LinkCorporation See, e.g. , No.CV-165643(SantaCruzSup. * Glassey v.AmanoCorporation, et DefendantsincludetheUnited , Glassey v.AmanoCorp.,etal. Glassey, etal.v. , , , (6 of72) United States District Court For the Northern District of California 28 27 26 25 24 23 22 21 20 19 18 17 16 15 14 13 12 11 10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 that offends theConstitutionisrejected. exist) wereissuedtoanunidentified “attorney”whichthencouldcreatea“conflict of interest” Their contentionthatitispossibleFISAwarrants may existandthatthosewarrants(ifthey —, 133S.Ct.1138,1150(2013).Plaintiffs’theory, totheextentcomprehensible, isfarfetched. three-judge panelisrequired. panel (Dkt.No.70).Now,plaintiffsmove again “abandoned” patentapplications allegedlyfiledin their 2014taxesbasedon “lossofaccess”totheir“intellectualpropertyrights” basedon does notsufficetoestablishArticleIIIstanding. The Supreme CourthasstatedintheFISAcontextthatamere speculative chainof possibilities attorney-client relationships.TheUnitedStatesfiledanoppositionbrief(Dkt.No.158). to refuseopenfraudinvestigations,andthatthere“could”beinterferencewithpotential “treason” hasoccurredandthatthereisa“seditiousconspiracy”byvariousforeigngovernments Plaintiffs donotknowifanywarrantsexist,they Internationally issuedFISAorIntelligenceWarrants” concerningvarious“intellectualproperty.” defendants (whohaveappeared)eachfiledbriefs.Thisorderrulesasfollows. stricken. DefendantMicrosemi, Inc.thenfiledamotion todismiss. to showcauseregardingwhetherthesecondamended complaint should(ornot)be six motions. Defendant InternetSocietyfiledamo Case3:14-cv-03629-WHA Document185Filed12/29/14Page3of8 Case: 15-1326Document:1-2Page:5Filed:02/11/2015 Plaintiffs’ motion is .M 3. M Plaintiffs’ motion is 2. No motion toquash“FISAorrelatedwarrants”couldpossiblybejustifiedonthisrecord. R Plaintiffs’ motion is 1. In responsetotheordershowcause,plaintiffs,UnitedStates,andother An eighty-pagesecondamended complaint wasthenfiled.Aweeklater,plaintiffsfiled ENEWED OTION TO OTION OTION FOR M Q D D D OTION FOR P UASH ENIED ENIED ENIED ARTIAL FISA . Apriororderdeniedtheoriginalmotion forathree-judge . Plaintiffs move totakeamulti-trillion dollar“fraud loss”on . Plaintiffs move toquash“anyexistingIntelligenceor S T UMMARY OR OR HREE R ELATED -J 3 for athree-judgepanel.Asstatedbefore,no forthrightly admit. Theyinsteadspeculatethat Clapper v.AmnestyInternationalUSA UDGE foreigncountries.Plaintiffs pointtoonline J tion todismiss. Bothsidesweretheninvited UDGMENT W P ANEL ARRANTS R . E “F . RAUD L OSS .” , —U.S. (7 of72) United States District Court For the Northern District of California 28 27 26 25 24 23 22 21 20 19 18 17 16 15 14 13 12 11 10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 104 F.2d967,969(3dCir. 1939).Plaintiffs’relianceon Telular Corp. 121-2). to the“ProtectedTechnology,”aterm definedatlengthinthesettlement agreement (Dkt.No. royalties fortheyears2000through2002,plaintiffs agr thereof” withrightstosublicense(Dkt.No.121-3). Inthe“TTIsettlement,” in exchange for a non-exclusive,irrevocableworldwidelicenseto the“PhaseIITechnologyandderivative “Controlling AccessPatent”andpatentapplicationto in exchangefor$300,000,plaintiffsagreedtoassignallrights,title,andinterestthe (based ontheunauthenticatedsettlement agreements filed byplaintiffs), inthe“DDIsettlement,” moving to“void” thesettlement agreements theysignedmore thanfifteenyearsago.Inshort briefs havebeenread. appropriate. Plaintiffs’motion totakea“fraudloss”ontheir2014taxes is plaintiffs’ filingsandthisordertotheInternalRevenueServiceanyotheragenciesas it willnotbereferredtotheiroffice.TheUnitedStatesAttorneymay forwardacopyof “tax” matter plaintiffsbrought.SincetheUnitedStatesAttorneyisalreadyawareofthismotion, the complaint; and(4)thebaremotion lackedanyswornandauthenticatedsupport. plaintiffs’ motion wasprocedurallyimproper becauseitwasfiledbeforeanydefendantanswered jurisdiction; (2)thereisnoevidencetheUnitedStateswaiveditssovereignimmunity; (3) D Australia. Plaintiffs’requestsforjudicialno “printouts” from patentofficesinEurope,S ENIED Case3:14-cv-03629-WHA Document185Filed12/29/14Page4of8 Case: 15-1326Document:1-2Page:6Filed:02/11/2015 To “void”thesetwosettlement agreements, plaintiffs reference twodecisions: Plaintiffs move toawardthemselves “fullcustody” oftwoUnitedStatespatentsby Plaintiffs statethatdocketnumber 123“replaces”docketnumber 118.Nevertheless,both None ofthereliefdemandedbyplaintiffsisgranted The UnitedStatesrespondsthatplaintiffs’motion shouldbedeniedbecause(1)thereisno .M 4. . , 449F.App’x941,945 (Fed. Cir.2011)and OTION TO OTION V OID THE DDI AND outh Africa,Japan,Brazil,Korea,Canada,and tice, whichwerenotproperlyauthenticated,are 4 TTI

S Datum, Inc.Plaintiffsalsogranted Datum ETTLEMENTS eed todisclaim anyownershipinorrights Gellman . ThisCourtlacksjurisdictionoverthe Talbot v.Quaker-StateOil Ref.Co. and . Talbot D ENIED ismisplaced. . Gellman v. (8 of72) , United States District Court For the Northern District of California 28 27 26 25 24 23 22 21 20 19 18 17 16 15 14 13 12 11 10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 passed. years,” plaintiffssuedtoenforcethoseagreements backin2009. Thestatuteoflimitations has if plaintiffsneverreceiveda“countersignedcopy” provided inthesecondamended complaint andnoneofplaintiffsarguments ispersuasive.Even should be“voided”basedontherecordpresented.Indeed,nonoticeofthis“claim forrelief”was answered thecomplaint andbeforetheinitialcasemanagement conference(Dkt.No.148). and (4)plaintiffs’motion wasprocedurallyimproper becauseitwasfiledbeforeanydefendant plaintiffs nowseekto“void;”(3)norescissionclaim waspledinthesecondamended complaint; (2) thesecondamended complaint reliedonthevalidityoftwosettlement agreements should bedeniedbecause(1)plaintiffs’claims arebarredbythefour-yearstatuteoflimitations; party permitted toenforcethetwopatentsatissue”(Opp.1).Itarguesthatplaintiffs’motion Talbot co-owner. Thatjudgment wasbindinginthelater-filedfederallawsuit.Neither owner ofapatenthadthepowertograntlicense because of standing toassertpatentinfringement. (Moreonthisbelow.) sole ownershipwas“thinandunsupportive,”dismi the legalownersofassertedpatentwerenotpartiestoactionandplaintiff’sevidence standing. Plaintiff’slatehusbandwasanamed co-i patent andto“reassign” that patentand“allpublishedinstancesofit”to themselves. As “proof,” requests forjudicialnoticeare Case3:14-cv-03629-WHA Document185Filed12/29/14Page5of8 Case: 15-1326Document:1-2Page:7Filed:02/11/2015 support“voiding”thetwosettlement agreements here. Plaintiffs’ motion is Accordingly, plaintiffs’motion is No reasonablejurorcouldfindthatthesettlement agreements plaintiffssignedin1999 Defendant Microsemi statesthatitisthecurrentassignee,“soleownerandonly In .M 5. In Talbot Gellman res judicata (anon-bindingdecisionfrom 1939),theThirdCircuitaffirmed dismissal OTION FOR (anunpublisheddecision),theFederalCircuitaffirmed dismissal forlackof . TheSupreme CourtofPennsylvaniahadpreviouslyheldthatonejoint D P ENIED ARTIAL D ENIED AS . Plaintiffsmove toaddthemselves asnamed inventors toa S UMMARY D M ENIED OOT 5 . tothepatentwithoutconsentofother . Totheextentnotreliedupon,Microsemi’s J ofthesettlement agreements for“12and3/4 ssal wasproper.Heretoo,plaintiffslack nventor oftheassertedpatent.Becauseall UDGMENT OF P ATENT I NVENTORSHIP Gellman nor . (9 of72) United States District Court For the Northern District of California 28 27 26 25 24 23 22 21 20 19 18 17 16 15 14 13 12 11 10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 Microsemi’s requestsforjudicialnoticeare Society alsoarguesthat plaintiffs shouldbe plaintiffs lardedintothe record innowaysupportthereliefdemanded, saysdefendant.Internet to identifyanyspecificpublicationorstandardpromulgated by defendant.The“narratives” complaint failedtoallegeownershipinany identifiablecopyrightedworkand(2)plaintiffsfailed specific swornfacts.Inpertinentpart,InternetSociety arguesthat(1)thesecondamended argues thatnoreliefcanbeprovidedforpl activity” withinit—notalegalentitydefendant clarifies. Inanyevent,Internet Society Plaintiffs seekcopyrightprotectionovertheIETF’spublications. companies, includingApple,Google, Cisco,Micros Engineering TaskForce(“IETF”)isa“rogue IETF StandardcontainingPlaintiffs’PHASE-IIIPs” PERFORMANCE RIGHTSSTANDINGagainsttheex relief demanded byplaintiffs.Plaintiffs’motion is before theinitialcasemanagement conference(Dkt.No.156). was procedurallyimproper becauseitwasfiledbeforeanydefendantansweredthecomplaint and “all publishedinstances”ofthepatentshouldbe“reassigned”tothem; and(4)plaintiffs’motion plaintiffs contributedtoconceptionoftheclaime since therelevantpatentissuedin2002;(2)thereisnoclearandconvincingevidencethat plaintiffs thesoleinventors. they soughtto“void”above)purportedlysuppor plaintiffs arguethatthe“existence”oftheirsettlement agreements (theverysame agreements Case3:14-cv-03629-WHA Document185Filed12/29/14Page6of8 Case: 15-1326Document:1-2Page:8Filed:02/11/2015 .M 6. Defendant InternetSocietyisanon-profitcorporationandtheIETFan“organized Plaintiffs’ Motionis There isnoevidenceintherecord,letaloneclearandconvincingevidence,supporting Defendant Microsemi arguesthat(1)plaintiffs’inventorshipclaim isbarredbylaches OTION FOR D P ENIED ARTIAL . Totheextentcomprehensible, plaintiffsseek“full S UMMARY aintiffs’ baremotion, whichwasunsupportedby D ordered toshowcausewhy theyshouldnotbe state,” whopublishedstandardsusedbytechnology ENIED AS 6 ts removing thenamed inventorsandmaking d invention;(3)plaintiffsprovidednoproofthat J D UDGMENT RE oft, Oracle,JuniperNetworks,andsoforth. (Br.2).PlaintiffsarguethattheInternet ENIED ecution ofanyprogram derivedfrom an M OOT . Totheextentnotreliedupon, . “P ERFORMANCE R IGHTS (10 of72) .” United States District Court For the Northern District of California 28 27 26 25 24 23 22 21 20 19 18 17 16 15 14 13 12 11 10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 556 U.S.662,678(2009)and plausible claim. Noneofplaintiffs’ amended complaint are utterly frivolouslawsuit. Accordingly,defendant States, andsevenlawfirms shouldnotbedragged intoincurringtheexpenseofthishopelessand to dismiss andthepriororderstrikingcomplaint. Twentydefendants,including theUnited previously identified,despitehavinghadanopportunity toreviewthethen-pendingsixmotions granting leavetoamend wouldbefutile. Plaintiffs havefailed tocurethemultitude of defects motions todismiss, andplaintiffs’responsetotheorder showcause,thisorderfindsthat antitrust injury. statute oflimitations haslongpassed. time-barred. Most, ifnotall,ofplaintiffs’claims datebacktothe1990sandearly2000s.The for eventheyconcedethatdonotowntheassertedpatents. standing tosuetheUnitedStates. failed toestablishthattheUnitedStateshaswaiveditssovereignimmunity, orthattheyhave problems with plaintiffs’ pleadingsoonlya few willbecalledoutnow. plausible casecouldresultindismissal withprejudice(Dkt.No.109). multitude of defects. Atthattime, plaintiffs werewarnedthatfailure topleadtheirbestandmost Plaintiffs arenowontheirsecondamended complaint, aftertheirpriorpleadingwasstrickenfora Plaintiffs’ motion is shown anyspecificswornevidencethatthey“own”theInternetSociety’spublications. brought.) declared avexatiouslitigant.(Nomotion todeclareplaintiffs avexatiouslitiganthasbeen Case3:14-cv-03629-WHA Document185Filed12/29/14Page7of8 Case: 15-1326Document:1-2Page:9Filed:02/11/2015 .D Months havepassedandplaintiffsutte 7. Having consideredplaintiffs’secondamended complaint, plaintiffs’oppositionstothe It isnowhopelesstocontinuewiththislawsuit.Therearetoomany fundamental None ofthereliefdemanded byplaintiffsiswa ISMISSAL OFTHE D ENIED G RANTED . Bell AtlanticCorp.v.Twombly . Second S ECOND pleadings (Dkt.Nos.1,6,112)satisfied Fourth , plaintiffslackstandingtoassertpatentinfringement A , thesecondamended complaint failedtoallege MENDED 7 s’ motions todismiss and tostrikethesecond rly failedtofileapleadingthatstates rranted bythisrecord.Plaintiffshavenot C OMPLAINT , 550U.S.544,555(2007). Third . , plaintiffs’claims are First Ashcroft v.Iqbal , plaintiffshave (11 of72) , United States District Court For the Northern District of California 28 27 26 25 24 23 22 21 20 19 18 17 16 15 14 13 12 11 10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 herein ( ae: Dcme 9 04 Dated: December 29,2014. order. complaint ishereby relied upon,allofplaintiffs’requestsforjudicialnoticeare Case3:14-cv-03629-WHA Document185Filed12/29/14Page8of8 Case: 15-1326Document:1-2Page:10Filed:02/11/2015 IT ISSOORDERED. For thereasonsstatedherein,allofplaintiffs’motions are i.e. , January8,15,and29)arehereby

S TRICKEN . Theentireactionis CONCLUSION V ACATED 8 U W D NITED ILLIAM ISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE . Judgment shallbeenteredinaseparate D S ENIED TATES A LSUP D ENIED . Thesecondamended D ISTRICT . Totheextentnot J . Allhearings UDGE (12 of72) United States District Court For the Northern District of California 28 27 26 25 24 23 22 21 20 19 18 17 16 15 14 13 12 11 10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 ae: Dcme 9 04 Dated: December 29,2014. striking secondamended complaint, and “UNSERVED”DOES, ERIK VANDERKAAY,ANDTHALESGROUP, NETFLIX INC.,ORACLEMARKHASTINGS, JUNIPER NETWORKS, MICROSOFTCORP., PAYPAL INC.,GOOGLE APPLE INC.,CISCOEBAY THE IETFANDINTERNETSOCIETY, STATE OFCALIFORNIA,GOVERNORBROWN, PRESIDENT OFTHEUNITEDSTATES, MICROSEMI INC,USGOVERNMENT, v. TODD S.GLASSEYandMICHAELE.MCNEIL, defendants andagainstplaintiffs.TheClerk Case3:14-cv-03629-WHA Document186Filed12/29/14Page1of1 Case: 15-1326Document:1-2Page:11Filed:02/11/2015 IT ISSOORDERED. For thereasonsstatedinaccompanying ordergrantingmotions todismiss and Defendants. Plaintiffs, FOR THENORTHERNDISTRICTOFCALIFORNIA IN THEUNITEDSTATESDISTRICTCOURT F INAL J UDGMENT IS S HALL C U W / LOSE THE NITED ILLIAM H JUDGMENT No. C14-03629WHA EREBY S TATES A F ILE LSUP E NTERED . D ISTRICT in favorof J UDGE (13 of72) Case: 15-1326 Document: 1-2 Page: 12 Filed: 02/11/2015 (14 of 72)

Todd S. Glassey, In Pro Se, and Michael E. McNeil, In Pro Se 1 Todd S. Glassey In Pro Se, 305 McGaffigan Mill Rd. 2 Boulder Creek CA 95006 408-890-7321 3 [email protected] AND 4 Michael E. McNeil, In Pro Se PO Box 640 5 Felton CA 95018-0640 831-246-0998 6 [email protected]

7

8 UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

9 San Francisco Division

10 Appeal No.: 14-17574 11 Todd. S. Glassey, In Pro Se, and , Motion to Correct Filing Error and 12 Michael E. McNeil, In Pro Se, refer to DC Circuit

13 Plaintiffs,

14 vs.

15 Microsemi et Al,

16 Defendants

17

18 Notice of Motion and Motion to Transfer Newly Filed Appeal to DC Circuit

19

20 Plaintiffs improperly filed this appeal with the Ninth Circuit, it should

21 have gone to the DC Circuit because of the amount of the matter pertaining to

22 Tax Code and IRS related matters.

23

24

25

DC Circuit Referral - 1 Case: 15-1326 Document: 1-2 Page: 13 Filed: 02/11/2015 (15 of 72)

1 Because no substantive work has happened yet in the matter other than

2 docketing, this is the perfect time to move the appeal to the proper venue,

3 the Court of Appeals for the DC Circuit.

4

5 Therefore to correct that filing error, Plaintiffs do move with this notice

6 of motion and motion the Clerk of the Court be ordered to transfer this

7 appeal to the DC Circuit so it may be heard and properly referred to the

8 Court of Federal Claims therein.

9

10 Dated this 7th day of January, 2015 11 /s/ Todd S. Glassey 12 Todd S. Glassey In Pro Se, 305 McGaffigan Mill Rd. 13 Boulder Creek CA 95006 408-890-7321 14 [email protected]

15 /s/ Michael E. McNeil AND 16 Michael E. McNeil, In Pro Se PO Box 640 17 Felton CA 95018-0640 831-246-0998 18 [email protected]

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

DC Circuit Referral - 2 Case: 15-1326 Document: 1-2 Page: 14 Filed: 02/11/2015 (16 of 72)

May it please the Court,

Declaration in Explanation of the Filing Error in the matter herein.

1. I Todd S. Glassey Declare the following under the penalty of perjury of the Laws of the United States of America.

Notice of Appeal form has no check box or method of noticing the clerk which Court the appeal goes to 2. That I and Mr. McNeil reviewed the Pro Se Appellate Manual and filed the documents specifically as instructed. 3. The Ninth Circuit Appellate Pro Se instructions require the use of the Courts NOTICE OF APPEAL form. 4. That the NOTICE OF APPEAL FORM has no way or place to indicate to the Clerk of the US District Court where to refer the Appeal.

5. The Clerk as such assumes all appeals filed through them go to the NINTH CIRCUIT by default.

Our Matter has Tax Code and Revenue implications - should have been heard before the Court of Federal Claims 6. This matter for instance never should have been filed in the San Francisco District Court, it is a Tax Related Matter and should have been heard before the US Court of Federal Claims. 7. As such it was always our intent to file the Appeal with the DC Circuit to place the decisions pertaining to the larger issues of jurisdiction and venue in the hands of the people responsible for the rulings on tax code and enforcement issues.

8. As a Pro Se litigant McNeil and I realized this late into the process, and apologize to the court for adding more work to its already overburdened schedule. 9. We therefore ask the Clerk of the Ninth Circuit to refer this matter to the US Court of Appeals for the DC Circuit;

Jan 7th 2015, /s/ Todd S. Glassey, from Boulder Creek Ca, 95006 Case: 15-1326 Document: 1-2 Page: 15 Filed: 02/11/2015 (17 of 72)

Supplemental Memorandum pertaining to Jurisdiction

1. 26 U.S.C. § 7482(a)(1). Congress originally placed venue for all appeals from decisions issued by the U.S. Board of Tax Appeals – later renamed the U.S. Tax Court – in the regional circuits, unless the individual did not file a return. 26 U.S.C. § 1141(b)(1) (1940) (providing that “decisions may be reviewed by the Circuit Court of Appeals for the circuit in which is located the collector’s office to which was made the return of the tax in respect of which the liability arises or, if no return was made, then by the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia”)

2. Since in this matter no Tax Return was filed this matter by its very nature MUST be appealed to the DC Circuit. Further from James Bamberg, A Different Point of Venue: The Plainer Meaning of Section 7482(b)(1) , 61 T AX LAW . 445 (2008), in which the author contends that [a] plain meaning reading of the [statute] instructs that the D.C. Circuit Court is the appropriate venue, the default even, for all tax cases on appeal from the Tax Court that are not expressly brought up in section 7482(b)(1). Thus, it would appear that cases dealing with . . . “collection due process” hearings . . . should all be appealed to the D.C. Circuit Court.

3. In 1966, Congress changed the venue provision, adding two subsections that prescribed the proper venue for appeals from Tax Court decisions concerning redetermination requests sought by individuals and by corporations. Pub. L. No. 89-713, § 3(c), 80 Stat. 1107, 1108-09 (1966) (codified at 26 U.S.C. § 7482(b)(1)(A)-(B) (1970)). For both corporations and individuals, the statute stated that the proper venue for appeals involving redeterminations of liability was the federal court of appeals for the circuit in which the taxpayer’s residence was located. Id. However, for the appeal of any case not enumerated in subsection (A) and (B), it assigned venue to the D.C. Circuit. Id. In other words, in 1966, Congress deliberately made the D.C. Circuit the default venue for tax cases.

4. Between 1966 and 1997, as Congress continued to expand the jurisdiction of the Tax Court, it also amended § 7482(b)(1) to add four more subsections, § 7482(b)(1)(C)-(F), that established venue based on a taxpayer’s residency. See Revenue Act of 1978, Pub. L. No. 95-600, § 336(c), 92 Stat. 2763, 2842; Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974, Pub. L. No. 93-406, § 1041(b), 88 Stat. 829, 950-51; Tax Reform Act of 1976, Pub. L. No. 94-455, §§ 1042(d), 1306(b), 90 Stat. 1520, 1638-39, 1719; Tax Equity and Fiscal Responsibility Act of 1982, Pub. L. No. 97-248, § 402, 96 Stat. 324, 668; Taxpayer Relief Act of 1997, Pub. L. No. 105-34, § 1239, 111 Stat. 788, 1028. After these various revisions, the D.C. Circuit remained the default venue if “for any reason no subparagraph [assigning venue to a regional circuit] applies.” 26 U.S.C. § 7482(b)(1). Unlike its approach when expanding Tax Court jurisdiction to other areas, Congress did not alter the venue provision when it created the CDP framework in 1998.

/s/ Todd S. Glassey, From Boulder Creek Ca, 95006, 7-jan-2015 Case: 15-1326 Document: 1-2 Page: 16 Filed: 02/11/2015 (18 of 72)

PROOF OF SERVICE

This Motion to Refer this Matter to the DC Circuit is filed here in paper for the Clerk of the Ninth Circuit Appellate Court and electronically in the CASE FILE inside CAND based on my ECF account; As of today all parties in this matter are still active on the CAND ECF System and will be noticed through the ECF system of this filing.

Additionally a PDF copy of all documents filed is being Emailed to each of the attorney's representing defendants in the matter in addition to the ECF notice.

/s/ __Todd S. Glassey, ______Todd S. Glassey, Plaintiff, Jan-7th 2015 Case: 15-1326 Document: 1-2 Page: 17 Filed: 02/11/2015 (19 of 72)

!"#$opqqrstruvwxxyzr{|r}~prsy %%&$''€r‚ƒuw„„ †w|r‚ vvr‡pwq ()01230"0$24)5ˆp‰vqy~rŠ~yy‹rŠŒr€€Ž 6789$€‘€‘’“” @"A B
C")D•†vwxxyz–yw~•—v |‹t|y• E@6FE558)90$%E(GE6&86$&˜ EH$0")9$% 1PQRRQRSPS TUVWXYVT1QRS S opqqrstruvwxxyz™r{|r}~prsy™rw|qr‚ ƒ—ywvrštr‚ƒ›y vr{|r (3B!eCfBHg }~prsy™r œ”‘Š‘€Ž“‘žŸŒ 6`a!ba@@3 2 cd ‚ ƒ~pxy r{|ƒry•rŒvt  FB@B!F!b3 d

!hba(Ba3iBHBfpqarB!07"0 ¡¢££¤¥¦¤§¨©ªª«¬¤©­£¤®¯°±©«¨¤®°²«¯¨ 7$&$s1"55$"D'08 tuvwNy€N‚‚wƒƒu„ 07$e9)0$%30"0$'(8†&08‡55$"D'‡8&07$F(()&ˆ†)0‡&8#g

‰‘’“”•“––—‰ ˜”•“––—‰ E(89c)ˆ0)8989D1™@dHd(&d6dde   f Eh&%$&'5$ˆ)‡1 g˜ E(89c)ˆ0)89"9%3$90$9ˆ$ ³«­¬¯­´¤®¢µ¯¢­ª¶¤·¸¸¢¯­µ¤¹¤º»£´«¤ E3$90$9ˆ$h9D1ged3d(ddh ¼©­«¨½¤¾¿ÀÁÂ䥵©­£¯­´½¤Ä¾¥·¤Å¡ÁÆÅ¡Ç E6†&'†"9008@dHd(&d6dde  EG†%i#$90'5$ˆ)‡1 g˜ Ea90$&D8ˆ†08&155$"D' È xx xxwvrÉ •—r}~yqʉq ƒy E3$90$9ˆ$)#58'$%g Eh07$&'5$ˆ)‡1 g˜ ˹¤º»£´«¤¼©­«¨¤®¢µ¯¢­¤ª±¢»¨£¤±©Ì«¤Í««­¤ Ef")D'0"0†'g ±«©Î£¤¸Î¯¢Î¤µ¢¤©¨¨¤¢µ±«ÎªÏ¤©­£¤´Î©­µ«£¤ ª¯­°«¤¯µ¤©ÐЫ°µª¤µ±«¤¡Î¯©¨¤¥µÎ»°µ»Î«¤©­£¤ ·¸¸«¨¨©µ«¤Ñ¢£«¨½¤©¨ª¢¤Ä¾¥·¤Å¡ÁÆÅ¡ÇÒ a#58'$%8&@)D$%89ÓÔÕÔÖÕÔ×ÓØÙÔÕÚÕÔ×ÓÛ dB90$&$%8907$%8ˆj$0)907)'"ˆ0)8989”“‘“‘“€” d

ˆ8518‡'")%e†%i#$908&8&%$&)'"00"ˆ7$%7$&$08d

”“‘“‘“€” ƪƤ¡¢££¤¥¦¤§¨©ªª«¬¤¤¤ÆªÆ¤®¯°±«©¨¤Ü¦¤®°²«¯¨ F"0$ 3)i9"0†&$ E55$DD"906&83$E(8†9'$D‡8&55$DD"90E˜ F$5†01(D$&j

k–—lb7$!80)ˆ$8‡55$"D'7"DDˆ890")907$9"#$'8‡"DD5"&0)$'0807$e†%i#$908&8&%$&"9%07$9"#$'"9%"%%&$''$'8‡07$ "008&9$1'‡8&$"ˆ75"&01dD'82)‡980$D$ˆ0&89)ˆ"DD1‡)D$%)9"ˆ&)#)9"Dˆ"'$207$(D$&j'7"DDs$‡†&9)'7$%"'†‡‡)ˆ)$909†#s$& 8‡ˆ85)$'8‡07$!80)ˆ$8‡55$"D085$&#)05&8#50ˆ8#5D)"9ˆ$m)0707$'$&c)ˆ$&$n†)&$#$90'8‡@H6d% d

 
    !"# !"$%&' &( )012&)$&1 4@ 49 48 47 46 45 44 43 4B 3A 3@ 39 38 37 36 35 34 33 3B A @ 9 8 7 6 5 4 3    1  $ F V PC  #FD g  e G#Hd  aI# RC G#C  FY PaF IUY f  YIYYRF %F F %h  IR C P PD   #0S EF #F eIIUX C H %QF  D D #0S X C  C ID cQPeH HY X #0S PF   F F  D WC X H QPI0RF   X I#% C Q   0PQH X   %F  TQQTRF I#%   WC`S #D 0 F D 0C IR  WC EIR  0PQH C D C  H0Q  Q EF F #0S  H Q  C  C  QP  #0X D  #0S D #C C X TPQGY C  EF  #D #0S  IXDQ%% 0QPY   X F  WIPe P#F G#C X GH    X S  TQaF D  H D   X S F EIH TQaF  FbIU % H P  #QP Q0C  DC P#WF H TRIH   D #TH F ID #D C  b D H P F UX X #0S X Qc#X  H FU X    X  1   $  V    WC  0EIFR    FS    W0#FC    RX      D!"  ™ & $'   V& ' ™& ' '  1  "  t 1' ' & d$ !"™' !"& "2& `"'  $  "2!1   & –1 `" 2 d! 2 "(  "$ ' ' ' e"  ' e12   g($ V  &  & ™ $ – d! !& "  –"  2 ' '   !1  ™' $ !"f f fh   ‰" & 1V™& ˜1' $2 $ d! f "V & ' $"   V" $ ) !"f  (™™" " $V1 12 g1 V 2 $ (" "d1 –1 ' X &  & $  & $' ) $( !"  2  `& eV& !"f G  $d e12 ' 1f ! 2 g' e ™ & $' X  & $(2 eV& $d 1 ™ & $  1—" 1 ™e2 & p  & 2 2 &   e2 "'  1'  ) 2 2 ‰' S     !"  "1' $'  ' 1 "V !" "& $X  1 klm nop qrs t u s vowxys z{|} } } ~t €n‚ƒ q„ } } } †‡ ˆ n‰qxŠ xyŠ qr Case: 15-1326Document:1-2Page:18Filed:02/11/2015 D‰ ‘ ’] ” • –2 1& $ & ) ) '  ' ""—  ˜ 1& $ ™& 2 2 & $'  )  V I ‰" " — 1 ) "   ) & 2 & $d !" &   ' " ( $V 1 ™" $V" V ( ™–2 1 & $ X E1 `& $d  " `& " ‰" V !"  ™ "  !1 $ 3X BBB –1 d" '  2 1  V" V & $ %" ) " $ V 1 $ ' S Y2 1& $ & ) ) ' X  QP D EF  #QPD EF P# %C H D PC 0D  Q  0IR C  QP#C I C # D EF  G#C D F % H D ID F H  %C H D PC 0D  0QGPD j                                   j              ruvws                                     S   I2 2  )  –2 1& $ & ) ) ' i  ™ & $'  1 "  f 12 2  $" ‰ —& $d ' f' "™'  & $ e' " d2 ˜12 2 fh 1$V !1 2 2  (2 1& ™'  1 "  $ V2 2 1  2 ' '  $ !"&   4B36 1g"'  1$V 1 ™ & $  $V" V R$" f  & d& $1 2 2 fS h   #" `"  !" 2 " ' ' X  !" f $ ‰$S H V1fSh " G$& "V H 1 "' S   Y2 1& $ & ) ) '  (2 1& ™  ‰$ !" i 2 2 1 '  & $ V1™1d"'  )   !" g2 1 d"'  )  1eV                      j ‡ u  u w x yyu‚ v r t s „  vxqy‚ ˆs † vt u ƒ r  ux s x tys wq qv v v yqw vw t w  € x € qr x qv    u s ys r  v u s    v yx s  v„x tr   qr u  v vt w € x#  v uƒ t S  ƒ wrx yqw  x 0 x qv  vt 3 6 p B 5 8 4 A  cEI  –2 1& $ & ) ) '  ) & 2 "V ' & g gV& ' –' & & `"h  !"  "( V ˜f –2 1& $ & ) ) ' X  !& '   V" x  yx   s  hx w ˆ ‚ rs † x s } } } ‹lŒnq}  } „ svxs S S (20 of72)
    !"# !"$%&' &( )012&)$&1 4@ 49 48 47 46 45 44 43 4B 3A 3@ 39 38 37 36 35 34 33 3B A @ 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 #E  5‘ 35s ( Ps B6884s #0 t #E %E  01 2 E w  t x QIy"  #1  0Q' & $' #Ea`  6‘ˆS V X ‰ B8s#E  gh` #E  ( Ps B6s hW‚  B834@s 7‘ B7364 S B7s b T 7 ( ˜x Ps S t r ™ #E B38B6s 7 t %E a` #E  V %E 01 X “D’  2  01 E t #E 2  #E E u1  %E w $v 7‘   t 01 B6s E x 2 w QIy" E (  Ps w t  x  B4744s t QIy" ˜!G2 x QIy"  2 x D1 &  ’  ' “$1 & t  #E 2 ™1 G$ 2 %E  D 01 y 2 "1'0  eElee2 ' "P"$ X h " #" 1 m 2 ) $(E 1n "' 2 & X X ) o  &   m 0& !" H' $(E '  ( n" ih X  m " p 1 $(E 1(2  " " X ) "  1& "u1G  0 $"I 012 eE m & ) X $(E )    ˜1G˜12  X $&  !& 1X Fy2 ' j   m H1 & " $(E $I& m $(E " X P&  1$I IQ12 X  x ' Q$ X  1$I e1 "3AAA $ '12  P&  2 " "y"I 1 )  "  n " $( ' !1 " " I  & e2 2 $ " 1& H" !" $ $   & ' 1 ) " y ( ) $I ' "  " H" 1' $ 1 ' H" & ' $I" E y$"I  I  %" ( He2 ) !"& " $I1 1  & $  $ &  E $ D& ( "2  2 "( Q12 ($ e2  1( 1 & $ X  & 1$I ) ) '   ( HH" !" $(  " (2 I 1& 1  H' 2  1 1 n' Q& & ' &  $y & $ )  h1 H $ 1  !" 0 Qr ' "  hQe" 2 "H  & I& ' H&e2 ' 1Q' '(He2 12 &  q2I" n& 1& " $& $ ! (1' " IE  e n1'n1 "E  "v '     h& QI&P2 '  & o f!"G ' ("  ' Q$Rc & I" Q" (v"$E ffS ) IE t 1 n" " %v r $I1 & p " 2 ‚ E 0 $ G ‰  n1  hfTEwE #E ' ˜2 I&I&  $"I 7 1&  ' ƒ ' H& 3BAw !" H& $ g‰ ' $ ' V ' & !1 ' "I E X HP" ) "I   )   ' #E 1' I )  f!" 1& n"  !"  n"2 5‘  2 " & Q 2 35s $& I& 2 1n' y& " X '  ( Q& P"$ H& & Ps 1)  ' B6884s ' E (  $" "  1  $I  s‰S‚ 1$ #0 & t  ` #E T I" %E 7 Sr   01 7 2  a` E ' w V ! 7 dV 7 RcffSr p ‚ ‰ wxy z{| }~ €   ‚{ƒ„  †‡ˆ‰ ‰ ‰ Š‹€ ŒzŽ }‘‰ ‰ ‰ ’“ ” z•}„– „ – }~ Case: 15-1326Document:1-2Page:19Filed:02/11/2015 C m $ "' ' "$("X   !" "o "$  (He "!"$' & q2 "X  !" "& y! dp h7 b S  e2 1 & $ & ) ) '  1  "  fII F2 1 ' ' " G 1 $I D& ( !1 " 2  D( #" l) "   !"  ' " 2 " H" $  1 y " " H" $ '  n"  "  ' & y$" I k 1 ee  dp h7 b S e2 1& $ ˜2 & ) 1 ) & ' $  2 & 1 ) ) " '   ' (HH"$("I Qq' " uQ" $ 2 !& G ' (  HH" 1( $( & " $E I 1    $" f!" n 2 1 n' Q&  & $ D E  F2 1 ' ' " G !1 '  ( HH" $( " I ' " P"  1 2  1 ( & $'  & $ Q  I& 2 E w  t x QIy"  x 1 H" '  ’1  " w €  Y` ab b S c 7 d V 7 efagh7 ihp qhp ar ‚ h H& 2 $w € 7 Y` ab b ScT 7 Sr 7 a` V 7 dV 7 RcffSr p ‚ ‰hfT 7 ƒ g‰V X  1$w €  Y` ab b Sc7 dV 7 ar ‚ hga` 7 ƒ gb r ‚ r „r S7 h 7 Rr ag†ap †b 7 ‡ wE I ’!G " w €  Y` ab b S c 7 d V 7 ”• –‚ g— 7 ihp qhp ar ‚ hgX   e e" G  & y! '   1$ "$ & G (12 2 "I %1 QH m $(E  & $ 4  H1 $G " ( !$2 yG ( He1 $& " '  k & $( 2 QI& $yX n (1Q' "  "y1 I& $y ' Qqv "( s H1 "  v Q & ' I& ( & $ E  H " E   f!"  g$& " I h 1 " '  !1 '  1 ee" 1  " I 1 $I 1 1 2  ( 1 ' "  H1 $1 y" H" $  ( $) "  " $( "  n1 '  P1 ( 1 " IE  "$  1y ""H"$ ' E   ˜2 1& $ & ) ) '  !"$ P2 Q$ 1 & 2 G Q " !" & I"$ & ) & "I I") & (& "$(& "'  (Q2 I  "' Q2  & $ hfT 7 ƒ g‰ V X  #E  0ts 387865 t h1 $ 1  0 Qr  hQeE & e"   #" n v'  m $( E X  D& (  ' " H&  m $( E X  D& (  ' ) H "  ( !1 $( "   e2 " 1 I !" &   q" '  1 $I H' $ 1 $ p( q"   4B36  I"  X  !"  ) &  '  1 H" $I" I '  & ( E   RSST 7 SV WV X  Y` ab b Sc7 dV 7 efagh7 ihp qV T 7 Sr 7 a` V X   0Q X  12 2 "y& $y H12 e 1( & ("X  q "1(! ) ' " H&  0 eE  & '  $n !"  1 ' ' & y$" "  )  !"  t x QIy"  #1  0Q' & $' w E   f!1  1 ( & $ n1 ' Gs e1 y"  ' " ( $I 1 H" $I" I ( He 2 1 & $ &   H & $ )   1 i ! ""s v QIy" e1$"2 j n1' ) "I" 12  (Q E   Y` ab b ScT 7 Sr 7 a` V 7 dV o& H1 "2 G ' "P"$ G"1 '  2 1 "  k &2E C   %" ) " $I1 $ '  & $( 2 QI"  !"  g$& " I ‰ ‰ ‰ —x˜z„‰ ‹™ ‰  gT7Sr (21 of72) 
    !"# !"$%&' &( )012&)$&1 4@ 49 48 47 46 45 44 43 4B 3A 3@ 39 38 37 36 35 34 33 3B A @ 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 H") "$H1$ '  ` P! !1X" 1GG"1 "Ha  "1(! ) & 2 "H b & ") ' Q   1b1$H$"H’ !"&   4B36 G1 "$ !1 1T"' "T&   1GG2 ) ' e!"& ) b1' a "$H' & qS (1  "H P"    355 ($H"' & $ " $' !" & VQ 2e!" "$  '  0$' ' $  12 '  Y"H & 0 VYG ' 2 $  Q  "D"H2 ' &  ) 1 Y) " 335@S  I"  Y !1 ) 1(("'  1$ &  E & 0Y  ("  $ $"EF  ) & Y$&  337B & ' ") & 2  ’    H"$ (2 ' "H & Y' "1' !1  ' "' & `  " '   & 4B35a "$ "† $’  & G' $ ) ' 1b2 "(  &  !"& ' 1 "H !1'  Q & & G"$ "HQ "2  b2 '  "  !  H 1 1 " „2 ((Y C & ) & 1& $  $' !1  1YH ! & $  (2 $"E’ !& !" ""FG1$"2 "H  & "  U & ) G' U † ) $X"' 1$H VC U Q ' YHD" P! VC U   U P1 `    %R ( e!" & $ ' !1  !" G1$"2 D1 Q 1$H&  " d$&  T & #Q $'  !"  $DQ  & "H S 9Ba ' ! "   V  1$H Q & "‡Y& 1  '   "' 1 #PS  !1  "HQ ' )   "H& G2 1& ! & $  & ) ) '  IX" 1D1& $ )  „2 1&U $ $ & " )  ) $1 '  & H $1 $ 2 2 E  R$P & ' ' Y" & ) H  1$E U VC P1    1$ U $ ' "  2 "T& 2 & D" ' $( S "   ‘1 !"E   1 $ '  &  (R"$Q' ' & !P T   I ( %") 1 Y' & "$H1$ $' "   Q "  D1    %") c& H& ( "$H1$ $D ' "I& P!" S  !"  U $ U  $(Q  " $" !"   !"$  ' " V(& ( $H ) & " 2 1 "H E I" $H" ) 1 & 2 H I "H 1 I vwx yz{ |}~  € ~ z‚ƒ„~ †‡ˆ ˆ ˆ ‰Š ‹ŒyŽ |ˆ ˆ ˆ ‘’ “ y”|ƒ• ƒ„• |} Case: 15-1326Document:1-2Page:20Filed:02/11/2015 „2 1& $ & ) ) '  I & $ & '   gh fg gr rg # I & $  ‡Y1 ' !  U VC    " 2 1 " H P1   1 $ ' ’  ( Y2 H U $  "' G$' "  !"  H"   ' !P (1Y' "S  G2 1& $ & ) ) ' S gr ˆg „2 1& $ & ) ) '  I & $ & '   „2 1& $ & ) ) '  I & $ & '   C$ " & D! EF G1 D"  ' " ( $H 1 I" $H" H ( IG2 1 & $  P1 '  !" $ ) & ipiqi stuspvsh stuspts r ‰ stuspvsh  ‚w ipui ipui ipui ‚htu‚ƒ vu‚ Q   C G &    H"  H"$& "H !"  & D& $12  I & $ )   1 Q   „2 1& $ & ) ) '  IX"  1R" 1 IY2 & F  & 2 2 & $Q H2   2 „2 1 1&  $ & ) ) '  IX"  ‡Y1' ! 1$E "T& ' & $D U $ "2 2 & D"  t rr‚hs sh whii h iƒ‚ti xy   “” •––— ˜ c d e c fgh— i j k c l hj — ˜ h•j m nh•” c opfS  q dQ VQ 5 " " (Y2 H’ b" & $ " ) " "$(" P& ! G "$ & 12 & 2 "H 1$ GG' & & $ b & ")  ` %R Q  #Q  37@a Q  )  ! & D! 2 E 1HI& Q   e!"E & $' "1H ' G"(Y2 1 " !1 Y'  ( $' G&  1 ( E’  bE X1  & Y'  )  " & D$ DX"  $I" $ '  & $ "2 2 "( Y12  G G" E  & D! ' ’ b1' "H $ 1$ '  I1E "T& '  1$H !1  !' " P1  1$ '  ` & )  !"E €i y ES   !" "T "$  (IG "!"$' & b2 "S  & '  ) 1 ) " (!"HQ  )  "& D$ (Y$  & "' Q   „2 1& $ & ) ) '  G& $   $2 & $" & (! !"$ (Y2 H ( "1 " 1 ($) 2 & (  )  & $ " "' ’ e!& '   H"   Y2 "'  1'  ) 2 2 P' Q  & $  H& ' I& ' ' Q & $  H& ' I& ' ' Q   W ! ' & H"'  P" " !"$ & $X& "H   1 ! ""F † YHD" G1$"2 Q   C'  ' 1 "H b")  "S  $ ' ’ ($(" $& $D X1 & Y'  & $ "2 2 "( Y12  G G" EQ ’ €ript 1  1 I" " ' G"(Y2 1 & X" (!1& $ )  G' ' & b& 2 & & "' ( IG2 1 & $  ' !Y2 H `   ' !Y2 H $ a  b" q   !" d$& "H V 1 "' S  1$H !"  !" ‚piƒ ‚hh‚pt  G' ' & b2 E b" † Y' & ) & "H $ !& '   "( HQ  2 "HQ   C P""R 2 1 " S  G2 1& $ & ) ) '  ) & 2 "H h g i tv ˆ ˆ ˆ –w—yzˆ Š˜ ˆ  g h‚ ƒ s gu )  1YH 2 ' ' ’ $ !""F†YHD" $(" (22 of72)
    !"# !"$%&' &( )012&)$&1 4@ 49 48 47 46 45 44 43 4B 3A 3@ 39 38 37 36 35 34 33 3B A @ 9 8 7 6 5 4 3  QE' C  D 12 & & $ 1W E   ' X2 F  1& )  $ G & ) D1 ) ' " Y $    "`E"' ) ) & ( ' " '   ) &  $  HE a EV& D" (& I 12  PE  $ ! & Q) ( 3B6qy W 4V r ‰„ A89I P sw„  A8A ’p I  p 66A 5V 0& W   W QDDY  3A5Aq • A63I W    X2 A67 1& $ p " & VW ) )  ' 0& Y    W "2  4B3 & Gs& $t  C s& VF  !"  ' " 2 " G" $  1 t " " G" $ '  !" c ' & t 343l4qW  c12 !" CX !" &1  "' ") $$l "( C F ) 0$  "V "•(2 b& &   $ g"(!$2 2 ! !" E'p "•(!1$t" 2  i1 & & & c"1 ' s"I t! $t " V tcI  ' Q( ' $ &   ( )  " F 4BBB   ' i ' "s(1i2 1 !"   & ' k5BBI  Ei2 X1 " ) E$1 " ! ' & "  G Et! E $ ("$' " BBBI !1 V") !" F s" b  $ "  1 &  4BB4I 2 $V i" $"V D2 & p Vb& ( " %u 1& 1 $ D1 V"  1 $ W "  D2 V  " "  & 2 $ 1 #W 1& 2 ) & ' VW "  ) " ("$' $  ' 1 343l DD2  & 2 1t ) " " & G" 5q ( ""V $ 1   & 1 $ t  " 1' " G" ' $ & ' a E & ' V& ( & $r  p 4q  !" " & '  $ "s& V"$(" !" h$& "V P 1DDD2 D 1& && $ 1  &C "W b& ) ) 2 1•F  ' 2  Y  X2  $ G1 ) 1& & !"  $ 2 D2 " i" & (GD2 & $t' 1  ) &  D2 )  $ ") ' 1& 1& 1$V Y & "  $ ) $ G  ) r "V & ' & !&  Y ) $ 1$V  ) ' ' G     i & p  $ V" 6q !"& Et!  1u" b1   '  !" W   ) 1  D i1 )  C) ( & !" P& ("W " "  $(" VE 1EV – G $  1  " 2 & 2 g!" !" 2 $ $12 c h$& 2 h$& &  1(u"V GD "V " D"  1$c  i" ( ' 1 E' defd z{| }~ €‚ ƒ „ ‚ ~†‡ˆ‚ ‰Š‹Œ Œ Œ Žƒ }‘’ €“”Œ Œ Œ •– — }˜€‡™ ‡ˆ™ € Case: 15-1326Document:1-2Page:21Filed:02/11/2015 g C s& VF  !" ' "  b ' " 2 " G" $  1 tX2 " " 1 G" & $ $ ' &X2 I )  ) 1& ' D2  $ 1 Gs" & & $ )  ) & ' )   ' 1 b1 1  " V !" !1 G'  " 2 V(u" s" '  C  ) $EGi" E2 2  (  E' 345 VcF C "D2  1("' F ™d ˜™ vwxyP w P ‚ ƒyP „ y g!" † y h$& P ‡yˆ‰x‡y‡P "V P 1 ‘P "'  ’  "' ‰† D$V' x‚ †    “ !1 P †  “ P D2 ”„ 1& ‰x‚ $ y & ) ) ' Y  G & $ W effeefe g effhd f ie —" s" $E"  P"  s& ( "  1 $V 1 $c  !"   1 t" $( & " '  1 ' "I  b!& (! b" " $  D D" 2 c 1E !"$ & (1 "VI  1 " V P 1 " '  Q  $" c G1 c )  b1  V 1  ( Dc ) ' ' F $ !"&   4B36 1•"'  & '   6 fff 1 $( "  $ ny ˆ‰x 1 $V q‰ w‚  & '  G& ' D2 1 ( " VW 1 " '  b1 & s" V & '  ' s"  " & t$ & GGE$& cr  p 5q P 1 "'  Q  $"c & '  12  "1Vc 1b1 " )  !& '  G & $I ) '  1t ""V  V& ' (2 1& G 1$c b$" ' !& D & $    & t! ' t$ 12 2   & t! 'I  & 2 "I  1$V & $ " "'  & $ !" W   – $ !" Cgg–  ' " 2 "G"$ I F & $ "•(!1$t" )  $t ! & $ !"  ' " 2 " G" $  1 t " " G" $  p %u W  #W !"  C X!1 ' "  – –  g" ( !$2 tc 1 $V V"  & s1 & s" b $ 1 $V 1 E !" $ & ( 1 " V ' EDD W  & (1I  R 1D1$I  S 1T& 2 I  U "1I  01$1V1I  1$V  %1 EGI  – $(W   X2 1& $ & ) ) '  12 '  t 1$ "V %1 EG 3q  1 $V q‰ w‚ P op P tr‰uy„ v w‚ ‰‚ yP x† P yy p P swp I $"V G " !1$ ) & ) ""$ c"1 '  1tW   – $ ' ! "  &  b1 '  ) & 2 " V i" )  "  1 $c V" ) " $V1 $  1 $' b"  " V  ) & 2 "V ic D2 1& $ & ) ) ' q I  & $ !" C%%–  ' " 2 "G"$ I F   dffjdddef ‡W   g!& '  0E  2 1(u'  a E & ' V& ( & $ s"  !" V( u"  $EGi"   33@W   #" s"  !" 2 " ' ' I  i ! ' !E2 V i" V"$& "V i"(1E' " p 3q  !" " & '  $ ) '   ") " "$(" b V"(& ' & $' m   ny ˆ‰xP op )  b h$& "V P 1 "'  D1 "$ '  ic Œ Œ Œ š{›}Œ Žœ Œ “ ™ defd W (23 of72)
    !"# !"$%&' &( )012&)$&1 4@ 49 48 47 46 45 44 43 4B 3A 3@ 39 38 37 36 35 34 33 3B A @ 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 R1 "$  1$T  g "1' ' & Y$h !1  R1 "$  1$T g12 2  RQS2 &  "–Q"' '  )   † QT& (& 12  $ & (" 1 "  ' 1$T&' 2 $Y "  !" c$" '  2  "Y12 1$T& 1' ' !& ' " R $Y`  c$" c1   ' R1   a2 ' g  "$ 1& ) !& $   $ & & 1 !" $) ) $T )  b 1' & Q$' ' $Y"W"$ '  " 2 QRR 1 "T " `  !Q' & R1  e" P S1$T V "$ p h  "  T& c1' c" $ ' W&  " 1 ' ' $ $1W"T  R1 (d 1$' c"1 $T "TR2 P 6U 1& !"P  $ 4U R2 (WR2 & ' 1 ) !Q2 & ) !" $ 'R1 1&   & T ' $c ) $ " S" ) (   ' $T ' b 1$T R"qHF ""X T"$&  W 1 W& rst W" S")( "T & d $T"  $   c$"c$" "T S"(1Q' ' T ge& QRR " c1 (  'S" WR2 `    Tˆ !" (  R ) " 1  "$) h 1 Q'  (  u!1 & & P g 1 " P $ " $& 3U  e&  5U TQ R1  )  ("   T&  R2 & † 1  $ " 12 QTYW" 2 "$ v $Yh 2 1& 2 E & !"   w  $ "   (1' N "' $ T !1T & y & (& !" WR  €‚ $ c ) " c1 )  ' R" ' ' ' R1 ƒ b !"  & Ht c !"  S& $ "$ (2 H`  ' Rc" $T& e1 " (2  1& ' 2   $Y W' & u!"  2 1  " & 1  W"   $ „QR $ & " Y '  ' !" 1$ Q" 1 " Y W"    2 " 0Q " 1 1 W" " 2  & d  ("$' ) )  " a" $$ ' !Q2 T S"  g e& T" Th  S1 ' " T $ !"   " (  T R " ' " $ " T`   R1''"T` "1& ' ) V  hR R2 R2 e& 1& 1& $ T" $ & T ) & & ) ) $ ' )  ' $"e"  !" ' Q"T  '  "  ( $T "("&  "$) 1 e"T W"  $T" (" 1 T g(Q$ ( WR2 !' " 1 " & 1Y $ ' &  ""W"$ Y$"T 1 $T $$" (R h '   pqr stu vwx y z x {t|}~x €‚ ‚ ‚ ƒ„y †s‡ˆ v‰Š‚ ‚ ‚ ‹Œ  sŽv} }~ vw Case: 15-1326Document:1-2Page:22Filed:02/11/2015 a2 1& $ & ) ) ' b  W & $ & '   f˜ ef C $ DE F F GHI P 1 $ Q$RQS2 & ' !" T T" ( & ' & $U V  !"  " T"  1 2  0 %") "$T1$  p& ( ' "W&  ' 1 "'  !1  &  & '  !" (Q  "$  1 C $ qHF rst  P 1  $$d S& $T& $Y T" ( & ' & $ )  W 3A5AU V  !"  u #  "1' $1S2 " † Q   (Q2 T ) & $T !1  !" ' " 2 "W"$  ‘(( T& $Y2 V  R2 1& $ & ) ) ' b  W & $ & '   ™d”™“g™h i ’“”’ —hd”—j ’“”’— `   a2 1 & $ & ) ) '  We"   1 TT !" W' " 2 e" '  1 '  $1 W" T & $e" $  ˜˜—hk ˜ ’“”’ ™™d 7 1 & W c1 '  R2 " T & $ !"  ' " ( $T 1 W" $T" T ( WR2 1 & $ ˆ ' !"T & $' 1$("'  )  & h  !"W' "2 e"' `   ‘'  gR ) V h ` `   u !" "• "$  $   "2 & "T QR$V  p& ( ' "W& b ' h P ‡RR`  3U `   C  1 YQ"'  !1  R2 1& $ & ) ) ' b  W & $ !& '  S" 2 c` U  S1  "T S  !" ) Q d "1  ' 1 Q " )  2 & W& 1 & $' ˆ  S1(X & $ 4BBA`   u!" ' 1 Q " )  2 & W& 1 & $'  !1' l  !" R1 "$  c& !Q  !" ($' "$  )  !"  !"  & "'   !" 1( & $ 1$T R2 1& $ & ) ) b '  "e& T"$(" )  )  !" ' " 2 "W"$  1Y ""W"$ '  )   g34 1$T 5 6 W1 $1 Y" W" $  ( $) "  " $( "  P %X `  #`  36@U ` & $e"$   )  !" 1' ' " "T R1 "$ `   f"(1Q' " 12 2  ) C $T""TV  $ $ & (" )  !& '  g(2 1& W )    "2 & ") h c1' & 2 "T ) "T" 12  2 1c' Q& `   #"& !"  DEF F GHI $  m˜’ “ d  ™g  T&  )  !"  c ' " 2 " W" $  1 Y " " W" $ '   S"(1Q' " &  c1'  ) & 2 "T S")  " 1$  T") "$T1$ 12  c1'  R R" `   i" " V  R2 1& $ & ) ) '  2 1(X ' 2 e1$& 1 !1T R "e& Q' 2  !"2 T !1  $" † & $ $ '!""` )  R2 1& $ & ) ) '  1 YQW"$ '  & '  R" ' Q1' & e"`   ‰e"$ ' ' & Y$""V  !" g' 2 " c$"  1$T !" $2 1Y ""W"$ '  R2 1& $ & ) ) '  ' & Y$"T & $ 3AAA !&  T 0&  (Q&  1) ) &  W"T T& ' W& ' ' 12 &  (Q&  1) ) &  W"T T& ' W& ' ' 12  )   2 1(X ) i ‚ ‚ ‚ q‘sŠ‚ „’ ‚ ‰ —d’“d ” “ n ’ “ d ™h  o” i ' 1 f (24 of72)
    !"# !"$%&' &( )012&)$&1 4@ 49 48 47 46 45 44 43 4B 3A 3@ 39 38 37 36 35 34 33 3B A @ 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 “(&C2 " 1& R $  12 &(IC2 & ' ) S"$  ) '' 1  1& C"(& & 2 DE"' ) $1 1 R )  DE"' S"S  & 1$R )1( ( 1& !1  & ' & 2 ' a $ Q& "S C"(&  !1 C2  $ RH  1& ) )  $ !" 1( & $ a& 12 (  &  ' 2 CET2 "2 ) "( !& W "D" )  & $ '  ")  & S  & (1 ' a$" $  !E2 & (1$  $ C" & ˜ ' $ $ $ S !& T" & T"  C  a1R $"$ 1 C  &  ' $ Q& 2 '  S" "D12 ECC 1$S1 1$R C1 S"S  & c "$ S ) S"$   C  &  $ & C2 R ) " 1& ˜ $" S") $  & "$S1$ ) ) T" ) a1 ' "  F12 C !" ( 2C2  "  & SE 1& CET2 $&' $ & 1 $(" 2 & & & 2 1 ' ) R 2 !"S )  ' & ( !"  IC 1 ($ & ' $' " C"   "2 I1   1$("' & $1 "Q1$  TE T" D" ( I" "S H 1  $ E' C1 )  "  (   "$ $) & ($("C !"  "   a1 & C1 " ' ' $(  ' E"S " ) "$ &  & $ P 2  %V " & ' ) S $ !E2 W  T" 4BB4` ) !" S  T"  (2 P 4U 1& F  I"S !" " d2 1&( $ IC1 &†$D& $& ) ) " ' $" '  †b c " '   ""Vd & †‡ & “ $( $D ˆ‡X‰#0† 1 2 (CR $S1 ES& b1 '  ‡ V $D S & ‘’b“ D!  ( ‰CC2 $  (  “ " b‰#% 1 C "  & c P  $&  #‘ F ‘D2  "( $D †bH 1 D 1 & d2 & U " $ c $  1 ' &  & Q" $ 0& '   ' & 1 ( ) !   c " ) F  '   !" " Y DE" G X&  " ( d’‰“†” (   E  †bY ' ' & )   1 $    "   c d' H H  C2 1& $ !" & RC2 ) ' ) 1& ED! '  $ & !"  ) ) ' '  2  F 1 " Q& DE" & SH $Q"$  1 !1 TQ"   ' U W  !" CE F"G& C ' " S2 "$("H R ' ECC )  !"& '     ' "  "2 & ")  S"I1$S"S TR C2 1& $ & ) ) ' W   d2 1& $ & ) ) ' Y  I & $ X& ( ' "I& Y '   "hE"' '  )   i ES& (& 12  $ & (" 1 "  ™de fgh ijk l m k ngopqk rstu u u vwl xyfz{ i|}u u u ~ € fip‚ pq‚ ij Case: 15-1326Document:1-2Page:23Filed:02/11/2015 %") "$S1$   $ " $"  “(& " R & '  1 $$” C ) &  ( C 1 d2 1& $ & ) ) ' Y  X & $ & '   b!" " & '  $ "Q& S"$(" & $ !"  "( Sc  2 "  12 $" (2 "1 %") "$S1$  X& ( ' "I&  1 DE"'  !1  P 3U  C2 1& $ & ) ) ' Y  & $Q uq tu rsgrfvrw x efge pwsgpy W   b !" "G "$  (IC "!"$' & T2 "c  C2 1& $ & ) ) '  ' ""V F)  qqpw€ efgep 2 " I" $  1 D " " I" $ '  P !"  Q"  R ' 1 I"  1 D " " I" $ ' “( & " R 1  DE" '  !1  P 3U  !"  ' " ( $S 1 I" $S" S 8 ' Y  T1  "  I & $c  a!& ( ! a1 '  E$' ECC " S TR &'  & '  $ (2 "1  1$S ($Q& $(& $D "Q& S"$(" !1 IE2 D1 " S TR S" ) " $S1 $ W   b!"  F $1   1 & Q" ' H " S  ' !a ( 1 E' "  a!R !" R ' !E2 S $  T"  !"  "2 & ")  S"I1$S"Sc  ' 1R'  S") "$S1$ W    $ " $"  "1' ' & D$"SH  !"I`  1$S P 6U  C2 1& $ & ) ) ' Y  I & $  & $Q"$ & $`  P 5U  C2 1& $ & ) ) '  C Q& S"S $ C )  !1 & 1T2 " (CR & D! "S a V 1$S P 4U  C2 1& $ & ) ) '  ) 1& 2 "S  '  CET2 & (1 & $' W  (2 1 & ) & "' W    $ 1$R "Q"$ c   $ " $"  “(& " R  ‚qe f s  w e  " IQ& $D !"  $1 I" S & $Q" $  '  1 $S I1 V& $D  a! CET2 & ' !" S ' 1 $S1  S'  E' " S TR " ( !$2 DR #W378UW  "  1 $R S" ) " $S1 $  1 $' a"  " S !"  ( IC2 1 & $  1 $S P • W  4U W   d2 1& $ & ) ) '  1 DE" !1  !"  $ " $" efge c  ˆ 1(2 "c  – E$& C"  #" a V' c  1$S '  )  !W  q  1 $S ( $Q& $( & $D " Q& S" $( " c  ' ECC & $D !" & $ 1 $S !"   †b & '  1 $ F  D1 $& — " S rrs "$  ' !& C (2 1& I & '  T1  "S TR 2 1(!"' W   b !" "G "$  $   "2 & "S EC$c W )  1 $R C D 1 I S"  & Q" S )  I 1 $ ƒx u u u ƒd„fou w u | e w v r w qp f  e  w g‚„s E22 (25 of72) u
    !"# !"$%&' &( )012&)$&1 4@ 49 48 47 46 45 44 43 4B 3A 3@ 39 38 37 36 35 34 33 3B A @ 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 RFG!C"(2 HS 1 "C 1 D"E1 & F'  2 & & G1$ H   I # P & $  C"(2 1 V2 1&' $ !U$ & ) ) 1 $T ' a  ' P Q" ( & & $ ) & & (  '  ' U  $ " D& C" $( "  !1  !" T W U$X  1 P" $C"F C "` ( PQ2 1 2 T "  1 ' ) & w Q C& $  & "D& 1 ' D2  $C P&G 1  ' F' F' 1$ " ' '   " 2 r  D" 1$C & T 2 $G $ 1U' & 2 C"$ 2 F& 1 !" "1D" U ) & H Q & )   & &  P'  "Cw  i((   ' 1P"$C   !F2 C"' C& C" $G2 C Q& UF2  $ ' Tw " C    & !1D& C") R" R" v&  $G "$C1$ ) C $G F 1 & GG" !1C !" 2 ' "H C (PQ2 1$  &  QQ V2 1& 1& $ & ) ) P & $'   C& ' P& ' ' w  1$C Q2 1& $ & ) ) ' a   "' Q$' "  !" 1$ &'  1 F' F & P"o  ") &  R1 ) $j '  F "  D" 2 1$C& "CH TH &) $ 1& P&  $G 2Q  !" 1 "C u' R2 T &  $' ( w " $(  ' P' Q2  F" &  "' " !1' ) U& 1F' C"  PF2  $ 1R2  !" ! & 2 R2V2 !1 $G Q2 &  & ”$& " 12 ' 1 1 FC" ! &  & (1' 2 Q1' $ $ "C w !" !1 &  & " ) ' T ) ) ` "CH ) )  (F2 )  C  ' 1 C") '   Q2 a !" "' 1   $ C "(  1& lƒp‚ Q2 H " ”$&   $   " ' "' $U  U$ 1 H & C& m–ƒ—nw F2 €w  ) "C )  $G $  ' i !"  ` a  & ' !   1  $ !" (2  1 !1 ' Q2 & $2 "' C& ' 1&  " 1&  '   T !1' P& ' $ " & ' 1 ( '  P"w  & $C 12 ) U1& "   U Q2 D 1 U& U& P" 1& $C" ! $ C Q & ( "j ) PQ2 ) F '  1 U" & $ 778Q2 ”H 1F' `H  & 884w R2 "  (2 89@ 1& I PH 4BBAS   #$"  1 $C ) •–  Q2 “ “ 1& V x $ “ & ’— ) ) ' ˜ a   V Q2 ™ƒ‚ "1C& dˆ V $G' ‡ ˆ  I %v tuv wxy z{| } ~ | x€‚| ƒ„ † † † ‡ˆ} ‰Šw‹Œ zŽ† † †  ‘ w’z“ ‚“ z{ Case: 15-1326Document:1-2Page:24Filed:02/11/2015 #$" )  !"  "2 & ")  C"P1$C"C RT Q2 1& $ & ) ) '  & '  U1  1$ f ef q1 D& $G ( $' & C"  " C Q2 1 & $ & ) )Y ' a   & ' ' "  ( $C $U !Q"2 1 P" $C" "' C ' (  PQ2  1 ($ & $F" U& ! !& '  2 1U' F& H   u$ !'  !1D" Q1' ' "C 1$C Q2 1& $ & ) ) '  !1D" F " 2 T ) 1& 2 d  gd   hi pq  rsb bcdb shcrb H H  bpc h gbcb P'  C1 "  R1 ( v  !"  3AAB'  1 $C " 1  2 T 4BBB' H   k!" " U1 $"C !1  ) 1& 2 F "  Q2 "1C !"&   R"'  1$C P' 9 "  ' " ( $C 1 P" $C" C ( PQ2 1 & $  ) 1 & 2 " C  1 2 2 " G" "C & '  ' D" "& G$ & PPF$& Tw    !1  !"T !1D" ) ) '  2 1(v ' 1$C& $G  1' ' "  Q1 "$  & $)  & $G"P"$ C& ( "  I %v H  #H  3BAS H   C"   ' !U (1F' "w  !& '   C"  ) & $C'  !1 '  !1D" ) 1& 2 "C  (F " !" PF2 & FC" )  C") "( ' $ H   kU" $ T C" ) " $C1 $ ' w  & $( 2 FC& $G !"  ”$& " C  " Q2 1& $ & ) ) '  1 D"E1 & F'  2 & & G1$  !1'  R""$ H  #' H  3w  8w  334S  ' 1 & ' ) & "C xy €‚ ƒ„ V ‡ˆ V ‰ ‘’“ w a  P & $'   C& ' P& ' '  1$C  '  & v" !" ' "($C F$& T   " D& " U !"  !" $o Q" $C& $G ' & E P & $' 2 2  R" (12 2 "C F  $UH   l˜ ‚ y w  Q2 1& $ & ) ) '  !1D" $  & $(F  & $G !" "EQ"$' " )  !& '  !Q"2 "' '  1$C V efƒg‘“ h w  77B ”H `H  766w  777 I 4BB9S H   "C Q1 "$ ' H   e€˜ ‚ nw  Q2 1& $ & ) ) ' a  (2 1& P'  1 " !" Y $ " $"  `(& " Ta '  QFR2 & (1 & $' H  w  1) "  !"&   Q &   Q2 "1C& $G U1'  '  & (v"$ )   1  k!"  "  1  "   P1 $T ) F$C1 P" $ 1 2 pgtihdcr "C  ) & 2 " 1 Q2 "1C& $G !1  ' 1 "'  1 "C RT !& '   "( CH   V2 1& $ & ) ) '  !1D" $ & $ w  Q2 1& $ & ) ) ' a  QQ' & & $'   !" † † † ”u•w–† ˆ— †  f (26 of72)
    !"# !"$%&' &( )012&)$&1 4@ 49 48 47 46 45 44 43 4B 3A 3@ 39 38 37 36 35 34 33 3B A @ 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 G"S %1 " G €    %" ( " QY "   4 A H  4 B 3  6  S                     !" "& $ q r s ts H  u 1$V1 ` @H  37H  1$G 4Av  1 " !" "Y` w  "2 & "G VI$H  12 2  )  I2 1& $ & ) ) ' P   "WV"' '  )   X VG& (& ( QI2 1 & $  & '  !"  " Y` ‘’“ ”•– —˜™ d e ™ f•ghi™ jklm m m nod pq”rs —tum m m vw x ”y—hz hiz —˜ Case: 15-1326Document:1-2Page:25Filed:02/11/2015   !"  "1' $'  ' 1 "G !" "& $H  12 2  )  I2 1& $ & ) ) ' P  Q F a F    C CbRbRy   abFcRD S   T!" "$ &  " 1( & $ & '   CDEFCD 12  $ & (" 1 "  xxaR @ †  #‚Tˆ% ‚ƒƒ‚i„ F  dF   R  eF a f g bR h F R  & $'  1 "  S   u VGpQ"$  ' !12 2  Y" "$ " "G & $ 1 ' "I1 1 "

RDFR                                              TiTˆ  i ƒ †‡ m m m {’|”tm o} m t RDFR S   T!"  ' " ( $G 1 Q" $G" G % ‚ T‰‚0T S   T !" "U "$  $ u S   i2 2  !"1 & $p' †%ˆ (27 of72)
    !"# !"$%&' &( )012&)$&1 4@ 49 48 47 46 45 44 43 4B 3A 3@ 39 38 37 36 35 34 33 3B A @ 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 V") "$V1$ '  1$V 1€1& $'  x2 1& $ & ) ) ' S   D!" 02 "   %1 " V ’    %" ( " w“ "    4 A  X    4  B 3  6  S                '  & & $€ ' " ( $V 1 w" $V" V ( wx2 1 & $ X  ‚    1  $ F V PC  #FD g  e G#Hd  aI# RC G#C  FY PaF IUY f  YIYYRF %F F %h  IR C P PD   #0S EF #F eIIUX C H %QF  D D #0S X C  C ID cQPeH HY X #0S PF   F F  D WC X H QPI0RF   X I#% C Q   0PQH X   %F  TQQTRF I#%   WC`S #D 0 F D 0C IR  WC EIR  0PQH C D C  H0Q  Q EF F #0S  H Q  C  C  QP  #0X D  #0S D #C C X TPQGY C  EF  #D #0S  IXDQ%% 0QPY   X F  WIPe P#F G#C X GH    X S  TQaF D  H D   X S F EIH TQaF  FbIU % H P  #QP Q0C  DC P#WF H TRIH   D #TH F ID #D C  b D H P F UX X #0S X Qc#X  H FU X    X  1   $  V    WC  0EIFR    FS    W0#FC    RX      ”•– —˜™ def g h f i˜jklf mnop p p qrg st—uv dwjp p p xy z —{dk| kl| de Case: 15-1326Document:1-2Page:26Filed:02/11/2015 ƒ v ƒ     ‡t‡t‘   !"   " 1 ' $'  ' 1 " V & $ !"  1 ( ( wx1 $y& $€  V"   € %" ) " $ V 1 $ ' S Y2 1& $ & ) ) ' X  QP D EF  #QPD EF P# %C H D PC 0D  Q  0IR C  QP#C I C # D EF  G#C D F % H D ID F H  %C H D PC 0D  0QGPD                                     ƒu„  q rst uv  ƒ   †„   G c i tv†t #CDF% CRRCIW † qrstuv # S  0 3 6 p B 5 8 4 A  cEI 1 $ & $€ w & $'   V& ' w& ' '  1 $V t‡tˆ‰ H DIDFH I ‚ ƒ t                                           p p p }•~—dp r p d RHGY t uvt‡t S % CHDPC0D & $ ) 1`  ) d G%TF (28 of72) Civil Litigation Packets | United States District Court, Northern District ... http://www.cand.uscourts.gov/civillitpackets Case: 15-1326 Document: 1-2 Page: 27 Filed: 02/11/2015 (29 of 72)

HOME > Pro Se Litigants Forms to Use in Civil Cases

There are two groups of forms on this page. The first group is official court forms. The second group is forms developed specifically for the San Francisco Legal Help Center by the Justice & Diversity Center (JDC); the JDC forms are organized into packets that include instructions. It is recommended that you look at everything offered on this page in deciding what might be helpful in your case.

Official Court Forms

JS 44 Civil Cover Sheet (.pdf)

AO 398 Notice of a Lawsuit and Request to Waive Service of a Summons (.pdf)

AO 399 Waiver of Service of Summons (.pdf)

AO 440 Summons in a Civil Action (.pdf)

Application to Proceed In Forma Pauperis (non prisoner case only) (.pdf)

Employment Discrimination Complaint Interactive (.pdf)

Social Security Review (.pdf)

Consent To Proceed Before a United States Magistrate Judge (.pdf)

Declination to Proceed before a Magistrate Judge and Request for Reassignment (.pdf)

AO 133 Bill of Costs (.pdf)

Notice of Appeal (.pdf)

ADR Forms

Civil Litigation Packets

Forms in this section are provided by the Justice & Diversity Center (JDC) of the San Francisco Bar Association, which operates the Legal Help Center in the San Francisco courthouse. These are not official court-approved forms. The San Francisco Courthouse Legal Help Center staff would like to receive feedback and comments about these forms. If you have questions about these forms or need help filling out any of these forms, please contact the Legal Help Center at (415) 782-8982.

Complaint packet (to start a lawsuit)

Answer packet (to to respond to a lawsuit)

Motion packet (to ask the court to do something, for example dismiss the complaint or for summary judgment)

Answer packet (after the other side has opposed your motion, use this form for further support of your motion)

Opposition (to motion) packet (to use if you want to oppose another party's motion, for example a motion to dismiss your case)

Initial Disclosures packet

Request for Documents packet (to request documents from the other side in the lawsuit)

Request for Interrogatories packet (to request answers from another party to questions that you have regarding the lawsuit)

1 of 2 2/7/2015 9:29 AM Civil Litigation Packets | United States District Court, Northern District ... http://www.cand.uscourts.gov/civillitpackets Case: 15-1326 Document: 1-2 Page: 28 Filed: 02/11/2015 (30 of 72)

Motion for Permission for Electronic Case Filing and Proposed Order

Case Management Statement Packet

Request to Continue Packet (to change a court hearing date)

Voluntary Dismissal Packet (to voluntarily dismiss your case if you are the plaintiff)

Blank Forms

Blank Pleading Paper (.doc)

Blank Declaration (.doc)

Certificate of Service (.pdf)

2 of 2 2/7/2015 9:29 AM Case: 15-1326 Document: 1-2 Page: 29 Filed: 02/11/2015 (31 of 72)

Name Address City, State, Zip Phone Fax E-Mail G FPD G Appointed G CJA G Pro Per G Retained UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

CASE NUMBER:

PLAINTIFF(S), v.

NOTICE OF APPEAL DEFENDANT(S).

NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that hereby appeals to Name of Appellant the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit from:

Criminal Matter Civil Matter G Conviction only [F.R.Cr.P. 32(j)(1)(A)] G Order (specify): G Conviction and Sentence G Sentence Only (18 U.S.C. 3742) G Pursuant to F.R.Cr.P. 32(j)(2) G Judgment (specify): G Interlocutory Appeals G Sentence imposed: G Other (specify):

G Bail status:

Imposed or Filed on . Entered on the docket in this action on .

A copy of said judgment or order is attached hereto.

Date Signature G Appellant/ProSe G Counsel for Appellant G Deputy Clerk

Note: The Notice of Appeal shall contain the names of all parties to the judgment or order and the names and addresses of the attorneys for each party. Also, if not electronically filed in a criminal case, the Clerk shall be furnished a sufficient number of copies of the Notice of Appeal to permit prompt compliance with the service requirements of FRAP 3(d).

A-2 (01/07) NOTICE OF APPEAL United States District Court For the Northern District of California 28 27 26 25 24 23 22 21 20 19 18 17 16 15 14 13 12 11 10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 NETFLIX INC., ORACLE INC., MARK HASTINGS, rules as follows. For the reasons stated herein, all claims a all herein, stated reasons the For follows. as rules own. not admit do they they rights themselves patent assign los dollar multi-trillion a motion take a to motions, including commerce most today.” US online the “control in rights their n all virtually of part “a to rights property intellectual United the including more defendants, sued twenty have than Loo “sounded say they allegations on based history” in loss and “UNSERVED” DOES, ERIK VAN DER KAAY, AND THALES GROUP, JUNIPER NETWORKS, MICROSOFT CORP., PAYPAL INC., GOOGLE INC., APPLE INC., CISCO INC., EBAY INC., THE IETF AND THE INTERNET SOCIETY, STATE OF CALIFORNIA, GOVERNOR BROWN, PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES, MICROSEMI INC, US GOVERNMENT, v. TODD S. GLASSEY and MICHAEL E. MCNEIL, The motions dismiss to The are Case3:14-cv-03629-WHA Document185 Filed12/29/14 Page1 Case: 15-1326Document:1-2Page:30Filed:02/11/2015 Having reviewed the more than 1,000 pages larded in the recor the in larded more pages the 1,000 than reviewed Having amended complaint, second plaint their filing after week A Two pro sepro Defendants. Plaintiffs, plaintiffs seek to obtain millions of dollars in damages for in millions of dollars obtain to seek plaintiffs FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT * * * G RANTED . All of plaintiffs’ motions are plaintiffs’ of All . etworking systems in use globally” and that and globally” use systems in etworking / re re No. C 14-03629 WHA VACATING HEARINGS SUMMARY JUDGMENT, AND PENDING MOTIONS FOR COMPLAINT, DENYING ALL SECOND AMENDED TO DISMISS, STRIKING ORDER GRANTING MOTIONS ney originally.” Nevertheless, they Nevertheless, originally.” ney s on their 2014 taxes and a motion a to and taxes 2014 their on s States. Plaintiffs claim the own to Plaintiffs States. D ISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE WITH ISMISSED iffs filed six “dispositive” six filed iffs D d by plaintiffs, this order this plaintiffs, by d ENIED of 8 . the “largest fraud “largest the . (32 of72) United States District Court For the Northern District of California 28 27 26 25 24 23 22 21 20 19 18 17 16 15 14 13 12 11 10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 No. 3:13-cv-04662-NC (N.D. Cal.) (Judge Nat Cousins Nat (Judge Cal.) (N.D. 3:13-cv-04662-NC No. No. 04-05142 (N.D. Cal. Bankr.) (Judge Marilyn Morg Marilyn (Judge Bankr.) Cal. (N.D. 04-05142 No. No. 4:06-cv-06128-PJH (N.D. Cal.) (Judge Phyllis Ha Phyllis (Judge Cal.) (N.D. 4:06-cv-06128-PJH No. Technologies, et al. et Technologies, al. plaintiffs commenced a lawsuit in Santa Cruz Superior Court Superior Cruz commenced Santa in plaintiffs lawsuit a patents referenced in the second amended complaint. second the in referenced patents plausible case. They were warned that failure to cure the ide the cure to failure that warned were They case. plausible Ct.). lawsuit. dismissed the from agre settlement claims arising the other and contract, 1999 via two settlement agreements. Defendant Microsemi Co settlement agreements. Defendant two via 1999 pro intellectual their assigned plaintiffs that alleged matter. for this firms retained law were seven least more. and Inc., PayPal Th Corp., Oracle Inc., Netflix Corp., Net Juniper Inc., Google Inc., eBay Inc., Cisco Inc., Apple many and te individuals, California,” of “State the States, dismissal with prejudice (Dkt. No. 109). The initial case initial The 109). No. (Dkt. prejudice dismissal with complaint was stricken. Plaintiffs were given one more one chanc given were Plaintiffs stricken. complaint was moved then Octobe dismiss an to in and defendants Six denied. Inc.Symmetricom, was issued.was r cause show to order an after well, as dismissed voluntarily , No. 5:05-cv-01604-RMW (N.D. Cal.) (Judge Ronald W Ronald (Judge Cal.) (N.D. 5:05-cv-01604-RMW No. , Case3:14-cv-03629-WHA Document185 Filed12/29/14 Page2 Case: 15-1326Document:1-2Page:31Filed:02/11/2015 * Pro sePro Pro sePro Plaintiffs subsequently commenced federal in lawsuit subsequently new a Plaintiffs After the settlement agreements were signed — approximate — signed were agreements settlement the After In essence, to the extent comprehensible, the eighty-page s eighty-page the comprehensible, extent the to essence, In Mr. Glassey has commenced several actions in our di our in commenced actions has several Glassey Mr. plaintiffs are Todd Glassey and Michael McNeil. Michael and Glassey Todd are plaintiffs plaintiffs later commenced this action. Their motion “ a for Their commenced later action. this plaintiffs , No. 5:04-cv-02522-JW (N.D. Cal.) (Judge James War (Judge Cal.) (N.D. 5:04-cv-02522-JW No. , , No. 3:13-cv-04662-NC (N.D. Cal.) (Judge Nat Cousins). T Cousins). Nat (Judge Cal.) (N.D. 3:13-cv-04662-NC , No. McNeil, et al. v. Symmetricom, Inc. Symmetricom, v. al. et McNeil, milton); an); an); ). 2 Glassey v. National Institute of Standards & Standards of Institute National v. Glassey hyte); hyte); Glassey, et al. v. Symmetricom, Inc. Symmetricom, v. al. et Glassey, perty rights to an entity called Datum Inc. in Datum Inc. called entity an to rights perty strict. strict. Glassey v. D-Link Corporation D-Link v. Glassey management conference was vacated. vacated. was management conference chnology companies including, — chnology See, e.g. See, ements. Plaintiffs then voluntarily then ements. Plaintiffs , No. CV-165643 (Santa Cruz Sup., No. Cruz CV-165643 (Santa works Inc., Microsemi Inc., Microsoft Microsemi Inc., Inc., works egarding subject-matter jurisdiction subject-matter egarding e United States has appeared and at and appeared has States United e ntified deficiencies could result in result could deficiencies ntified , alleging malpractice, breach of breach malpractice, alleging , e); e); e to plead their best and most and best their plead to e rp. is now the assignee of the of assignee the now is rp. * r 2014 order, the first amended first the order, 2014 r Glassey v. Amano Corporation, et Corporation, Amano v. Glassey Defendants include the United the include Defendants , Glassey v. Amano Corp., et al. et Corp., Amano v. Glassey econd amended complaintecond court. court. ly seven years later — later years seven ly three-judge panel” was panel” three-judge Glassey, et al. v. al. et Glassey, of 8 hat action was action hat , , (33 of72) , United States District Court For the Northern District of California 28 27 26 25 24 23 22 21 20 19 18 17 16 15 14 13 12 11 10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 panel (Dkt. No. 70). Now, plaintiffs move thr a plaintiffs Now, for 70). again No. (Dkt. panel —, 133 S. Ct. 1138, 1150 (2013). Plaintiffs’ theory, to the ex the to theory, Plaintiffs’ (2013). 1150 1138, Ct. S. 133 —, defendants (who have appeared) each filed briefs. This ord This briefs. filed each appeared) have (who defendants motion a d filed to then Microsemi, Inc. Defendant stricken. amended complain second the whether regarding cause show to motion a dis to filed Society Internet motions.six Defendant does not suffice to establish Article III standing. III Article establish to suffice not does mere a sp that context FISA the in stated has Supreme Court The an filed States United The relationships. attorney-client “coul there that and investigations, fraud open to refuse to conspi “seditious a is there that and occurred has “treason” forthrig they exist, warrants any if know not do Plaintiffs Warrants” con Intelligence or FISA issued Internationally required. is panel three-judge “abandoned” patent applications allegedly filed in forei filed allegedly applications patent “abandoned” “intelle their to access” of “loss on based taxes 2014 their that offends the Constitution is rejected. is Constitution offends the that then which “attorney” unidentified an to issued were exist) may warrants FISA that possible is it that contention Their Case3:14-cv-03629-WHA Document185 Filed12/29/14 Page3 Case: 15-1326Document:1-2Page:32Filed:02/11/2015 No motion to quash “FISA or related warrants” could possibl could warrants” related or “FISA motionNo quash to Plaintiffs’ motion is motion is Plaintiffs’ .R motion is Plaintiffs’ 1. Unit the plaintiffs, cause, show to order the to response In amended we A second filed. complaint then was eighty-page An Plaintiffs’ motion is motion is Plaintiffs’ M 2. .M 3. ENEWED OTION TO OTION FOR M Q D D D OTION FOR P UASH UASH ENIED ENIED ENIED ARTIAL FISA . A prior order denied the original motion three-judge a for original the denied order prior A . . Plaintiffs move to take a multi-trillion dollar “fraud loss “fraud dollar multi-trillion a move Plaintiffs take . to or Intelligence existing “any move Plaintiffs . quash to S T UMMARY OR OR HREE R ELATED -J 3 Clapper v. Amnesty International USA International Amnesty v. Clapper UDGE UDGE J UDGMENT UDGMENT gn countries. Plaintiffs point to online to point Plaintiffs countries. gn opposition brief (Dkt. No. 158). 158). No. (Dkt. brief opposition W P htly admit. They instead speculate that speculate instead admit. They htly ee-judge panel. As stated before, no before, stated As panel. ee-judge ANEL ctual property rights” based on based rights” property ctual cerning various “intellectual property.” property.” “intellectual various cerning d” be interference with potential with interference be d” ARRANTS exist and that those warrants (if they (if warrants those that and exist racy” by various foreign governments foreign various by racy” could create a “conflict of interest” “conflict a create could er rules as follows. as rules er ismiss. miss. Both sides were then invited then were miss. sides Both tent comprehensible, is farfetched. farfetched. comprehensible, is tent R . t should (or should not) be not) should (or should t E eculative chain of possibilities chain eculative ed States, and the other the and States, ed “F . y be justified on this record. record. this on justified be y RAUD ek later, plaintiffs filed plaintiffs later, ek L of 8 OSS .” , — U.S. (34 of72) ” on” United States District Court For the Northern District of California 28 27 26 25 24 23 22 21 20 19 18 17 16 15 14 13 12 11 10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 briefs have been read. been have briefs w it improper because motion procedurally was plaintiffs’ wai States United the evidence no is there (2) jurisdiction; plaintiffs’ filings and this order to the Internal Revenue S Revenue Internal the to order this and filings plaintiffs’ 121-2). th in length at term a defined Technology,” “Protected the to agre plaintiffs 2002, through 2000 years the for royalties the In 121-3). No. (Dkt. sublicense to rights with thereof” “Pha the to license worldwide irrevocable non-exclusive, a to Dat application patent and Patent” Access “Controlling r all assign to agreed plaintiffs $300,000, for exchange in filed agreements settlement unauthenticated the on (based more signed settlement agreements the they moving “void” to Telular Corp.Telular 104 F.2d 967, 969 (3d Cir. 1939). Plaintiffs’ reliance on on reliance Plaintiffs’ 1939). Cir. (3d 969 967, F.2d 104 it will not be referred to their office. The United States At States United The office. their to referred be not will it States United the Since brought. matter plaintiffs “tax” au and sworn any motion lacked bare the (4) and complaint; the D whi notice, judicial for requests Plaintiffs’ Australia. J Africa, South Europe, in from offices “printouts” patent appropriate. Plaintiffs’ motion to take a “fraud loss” on the on loss” “fraud a motion take to Plaintiffs’ appropriate. ENIED Case3:14-cv-03629-WHA Document185 Filed12/29/14 Page4 Case: 15-1326Document:1-2Page:33Filed:02/11/2015 None of the relief demanded by plaintiffs is granted is plaintiffs by demanded relief the of None To “void” these two settlement agreements, plaintiffs ref plaintiffs agreements, settlement two these “void” To Un two of custody” move themselves “full award to Plaintiffs The United States responds that plaintiffs’ motion should motion should plaintiffs’ that responds States United The .M n docket number “replaces” 123 docket that state Plaintiffs 4. . , 449 F. App’x 941, 945 (Fed. Cir. 2011) and and 2011) Cir. (Fed. 945 941, App’x F. 449 , OTION TO V OID THE THE OID DDI AND AND 4 T S TTI ch were not properly authenticated, are authenticated, properly not were ch ETTLEMENTS Attorney is already aware of this motion, this of aware already is Attorney ed to disclaim any ownership in or rights or in ownership disclaim any to ed ights, title, and interest in the in interest and title, ights, Gellman ervice and any other agencies as agencies other any and ervice apan, Brazil, Korea, Canada, and Canada, Korea, Brazil, apan, um, Inc. Plaintiffs also granted Datum granted also um, Plaintiffs Inc. by plaintiffs), in the “DDI settlement,” “DDI the in plaintiffs), by as filed before any defendant answered defendant any before filed as ved its sovereign immunity; (3) sovereign its ved “TTI settlement,” in exchange for exchange in settlement,” “TTI torney may forward a copy of may copy a torney forward se II Technology and derivative and Technology II se . This Court lacks jurisdiction over the over jurisdiction lacks Court This . Talbot v. Quaker-State Oil Ref. Co. Ref. Oil Quaker-State v. Talbot ir 2014 taxes is is taxes 2014 ir e settlement agreement (Dkt. No. agreement (Dkt. settlement e than fifteen years ago. In short In ago. years fifteen than thenticated support.thenticated erence two decisions: decisions: two erence be denied because (1) there is no is there (1) because denied be and and umber 118. Nevertheless, bothumber Nevertheless, 118. . ited States patents by patents States ited Talbot D of 8 ENIED is misplaced. is . Gellman v.Gellman (35 of72) , United States District Court For the Northern District of California 28 27 26 25 24 23 22 21 20 19 18 17 16 15 14 13 12 11 10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 because of of because patent and to “reassign” that patent and “all published in published “all and patent that “reassign” to and patent provided in the second amended plaint of complaint second none the and in provided claim p was rescission no (3) “void;” to seek now plaintiffs (Opp. issue” at patents two the enforce to permitted party passed. co-owner. That judgment was binding in the later-filed fe later-filed the in judgmentbinding was That co-owner. pat the to license a grant to power the had patent a of owner Talbot standing to assert patent infringement. (More on this bel this on (More infringement. patent assert to standing dismissal was unsupportive,” and “thin was ownership sole to parties not were patent asserted the of owners legal the named a was co-inventor husband late Plaintiff’s standing. requests for judicial notice are are notice judicial for requests should be “voided” based on the record presented. Indeed presented. record the on based “voided” be should managem case initial the complaintbefore and the answered improper bec motion procedurally was plaintiffs’ (4) and years,” plaintiffs sued to enforce those agreements back those enforce to sued plaintiffs years,” the of copy” “countersigned a received never plaintiffs if th of validity the on amended complaint relied second the (2) claimsbar are plaintiffs’ (1) because denied be should Case3:14-cv-03629-WHA Document185 Filed12/29/14 Page5 Case: 15-1326Document:1-2Page:34Filed:02/11/2015 support “voiding” the two settlement agreements here. agreements settlement two the “voiding” support No reasonable juror could find that the settlement agreeme settlement the that find could juror reasonable No Defendant Microsemi states that it is the current assignee, current the is it that Microsemi states Defendant In In .M motion is Plaintiffs’ 5. Accordingly, plaintiffs’ motion is plaintiffs’ Accordingly, Talbot Gellman res judicatares (a non-binding decision from 1939), the Third Circuit affir Circuit Third from the 1939), decision non-binding (a OTION FOR (an unpublished decision), the Federal Circuit affirmed di Circuit Federal the decision), unpublished (an . The Supreme Court of Pennsylvania had previously held tha held previously had Pennsylvania Supreme of The . Court D P ENIED ARTIAL D ENIED AS AS ENIED . Plaintiffs move a to themselves named as add to Plaintiffs . inventors S UMMARY D M ENIED OOT 5 . . To the extent not relied upon, Microsemi’s upon, relied not extent the To . J UDGMENT OF UDGMENT red by the four-year statute of limitations; of statute four-year the by red in 2009. The statute of limitations has of statute The 2009. in stances of it” to themselves. “proof,” As to it” of stances ow.) settlement agreements for “12 and 3/4 and settlement “12 agreements for ause it was filed before any defendant any before filed was it ause 1). It argues that plaintiffs’ motion plaintiffs’ that argues It 1). the action and plaintiff’s evidence of evidence plaintiff’s and action the deral lawsuit. Neither Neither lawsuit. deral , no notice of this “claim for relief” was “claim relief” this of for notice no , of the asserted patent. Because all of all Because patent. asserted the of led in the second amended complaint; second the in led ent without the consent of the other the of consent the without ent proper. Here too, plaintiffs lack plaintiffs too, Here proper. ent conference (Dkt. No. 148). No. (Dkt. conference ent e two settlement agreements settlement two e iffs arguments is persuasive. Even arguments persuasive. iffs is the “sole owner and the only the and owner “sole the P nts plaintiffs signed in 1999 in signed plaintiffs nts ATENT I NVENTORSHIP of 8 med dismissal smissal for lack ofsmissal lack for Gellman t one joint one t nor . (36 of72) United States District Court For the Northern District of California 28 27 26 25 24 23 22 21 20 19 18 17 16 15 14 13 12 11 10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 before the initial case management conference (Dkt. No. 15 No. management (Dkt. case conference initial the before claimed the invent of conception to contributed plaintiffs plaintiffs argue that the “existence” of their settlement a settlement their of “existence” the that argue plaintiffs plaintiffs larded into the record in no way support the relie the support way no in record the into larded plaintiffs inventors. sole the plaintiffs relief demanded by plaintiffs. Plaintiffs’ motion is Plaintiffs’ demanded plaintiffs. by relief was procedurally improper because it was filed before an before filed was it improper because procedurally was “reass be should patent the of instances” published “all cle no is there (2) 2002; in issued patent relevant the since Microsemi’s requests for judicial notice are are notice judicial for requests Microsemi’s Society also argues that plaintiffs should be ordered to ordered be should plaintiffs that argues also Society Plaintiffs seek copyright protection over the IETF’s pub IETF’s the over protection copyright seek Plaintiffs Ora Microsoft, Cisco, Google, Apple, companies, including pu who state,” “rogue a is (“IETF”) Force Task Engineering 2) IPs” (Br. PHASE-II Plaintiffs’ containing Standard IETF PERFORMANCE RIGHTS STANDING againstp any of the execution removin supports purportedly above) “void” to sought they to identify any specific publication or standard promulg standard or publication specific any identify to co identifiable any in ownership allege to complaint failed Societ Internet part, pertinent In facts. sworn specific ba plaintiffs’ for provided be can relief no that argues clarif defendant — entity legal a not — it within activity” Case3:14-cv-03629-WHA Document185 Filed12/29/14 Page6 Case: 15-1326Document:1-2Page:35Filed:02/11/2015 There is no evidence in the record, let alone clear and convin and clear alone let record, the in evidence no is There Defendant Microsemi argues that (1) plaintiffs’ inventor plaintiffs’ (1) that Microsemi argues Defendant .M is Motion Plaintiffs’ 6. Defendant Internet Society is a non-profit corporation and corporation non-profit a is Society Internet Defendant OTION FOR D P ENIED ARTIAL . To the extent comprehensible, plaintiffs seek “full seek plaintiffs comprehensible, extent the To . S UMMARY D ENIED AS AS ENIED 6 J D UDGMENT RE RE UDGMENT ENIED re motion, which was unsupported by motion, unsupported re was which y argues that (1) the second amended second the (1) that argues y show cause why they should not be not should they why cause show igned” to them; and (4) plaintiffs’ motion plaintiffs’ them; (4) to and igned” ated by defendant. The “narratives” The defendant. by ated M greements (the very same very agreements (the greements lications. ion; (3) plaintiffs provided no proof that proof no provided plaintiffs (3) ion; y defendant answered the complaint and the answered defendant y ies. In any event, Internet Society Internet event, any In ies. ar and convincing evidence that evidence convincing and ar OOT pyrighted work and (2) plaintiffs failed plaintiffs (2) and work pyrighted f demanded, says defendant. Internet defendant. demanded,f says g the named inventors and making and named the g inventors . To the extent not relied upon, relied not extent the To . 6). cle, Juniper Networks, and so forth. forth. so and Networks, Juniper cle, . Plaintiffs argue that the Internet the that argue Plaintiffs . blished standards used by technology by used standards blished . ship claim is barred by laches by claim barred is ship the IETF is an “organized an is IETF the “P cing evidence, supporting the supporting evidence, cing ERFORMANCE ERFORMANCE rogram from derived an of 8 R IGHTS (37 of72) .” United States District Court For the Northern District of California 28 27 26 25 24 23 22 21 20 19 18 17 16 15 14 13 12 11 10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 problems with plaintiffs’ pleading so only a few will be c be few a will only so pleading plaintiffs’ problems with plausible case could result in dismissal with prejudice (D prejudice dismissal with in result could case plausible plausible claim. None of plaintiffs’ pleadings (Dkt. No (Dkt. pleadings claim. plaintiffs’ of None plausible brought.) previously identified, despite having had an opportunity t opportunity an had having despite identified, previously multitude of defects. At that time, plaintiffs were warned t warned time, were plaintiffs that At multitude of defects. amended complaint, after second their on now are Plaintiffs and (2009) 678 662, U.S. 556 Plaintiffs’ motion is motion is Plaintiffs’ Intern the “own” they that evidence sworn specific any shown plaint motion declare (No to litigant. vexatious a declared for even they concede that they do not own the asserted paten asserted the own not do they that concede they even for States. United the sue to standing sov its waived has States United the that establish to failed granting leave to amend would be futile. Plaintiffs have fai have Plaintiffs futile. be amend to would leave granting to order the to response motions dismiss, plaintiffs’ to and injury.antitrust amended complaint are are amended complaint motio defendants’ Accordingly, lawsuit. frivolous utterly incur into dragged firmsbe not law seven should and States, complaint. Twen the striking order prior dismiss the to and statute of limitations has long passed. passed. long has limitations of statute claims date plaintiffs’ of all, not if Most, time-barred. Case3:14-cv-03629-WHA Document185 Filed12/29/14 Page7 Case: 15-1326Document:1-2Page:36Filed:02/11/2015 None of the relief demanded by plaintiffs is warranted by t by demanded warranted is relief the of None plaintiffs by It is now hopeless to continue with this lawsuit. There are to are There lawsuit. this with continue to hopeless now is It Months have passed and plaintiffs have utterly failed to f to failed utterly have plaintiffs and passed have Months .D 7. Having considered plaintiffs’ second amended complaint, second plaintiffs’ considered Having ISMISSAL OF THE THE OF ISMISSAL D ENIED G RANTED . Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly v. Corp. Atlantic Bell . Second S ECOND ECOND Fourth , plaintiffs lack standing to assert patent infringement patent assert to standing lack plaintiffs , A , the second amended complaint failed to allege to amended complaint failed second the , MENDED 7 back to the 1990s and early 2000s. The 2000s. early and 1990s the to back C s. 1, 6, 112) satisfied satisfied 112) 6, 1, s. OMPLAINT kt. No. 109). No. kt. alled out now. now. out alled o review the then-pending six motions six then-pending the review o ns to dismiss and to strike the second the strike to dismiss to and ns show cause, this order finds that finds order this cause, show iffs a vexatious litigant has been has litigant iffs vexatious a ereign immunity, have they ereign that or hat failure to plead their best and most and best their plead to failure hat led to cure the multitude of defects the cure to led ty defendants, including the United the including defendants, ty their prior pleading was stricken for a for stricken was pleading prior their ring the expense of this hopeless and hopeless this of expense the ring , 550U.S. 544,555(2007). ts. et Society’s publications. publications. Society’s et ile a pleading that states a states that pleading a ile Third plaintiffs’ oppositions to the to oppositions plaintiffs’ his record. Plaintiffs have not have Plaintiffs record. his . o manyo fundamental , plaintiffs’ claims are plaintiffs’ , First of 8 Ashcroft v. Iqbal v. Ashcroft , plaintiffs have , plaintiffs (38 of72) , United States District Court For the Northern District of California 28 27 26 25 24 23 22 21 20 19 18 17 16 15 14 13 12 11 10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 complaint is hereby is complaint ae: Dcme 9 04 DecemberDated: 2014. 29, order. (herein not judicial for requests plaintiffs’ of all upon, relied Case3:14-cv-03629-WHA Document185 Filed12/29/14 Page8 Case: 15-1326Document:1-2Page:37Filed:02/11/2015 IT IS SO ORDERED. motions ar plaintiffs’ of all herein, stated reasons the For i.e. , January 8, 15, and 29) are hereby hereby are 29) and 15, 8, January , S TRICKEN . The entire action is is action entire The . CONCLUSION V ACATED 8 U W ice are are ice D NITED ILLIAM ISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE WITH ISMISSED . Judgment shall be entered in a separate a in entered be Judgment. shall D S ENIED TATES A e e LSUP D ENIED . The second amended second The . D ISTRICT . To the extent not extent the To . of 8 J . All hearings All . UDGE (39 of72) United States District Court For the Northern District of California 28 27 26 25 24 23 22 21 20 19 18 17 16 15 14 13 12 11 10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 NETFLIX INC., ORACLE INC., MARK HASTINGS, striking second amended complaint, second striking defendants and against plaintiffs. The Clerk Clerk The plaintiffs. against and defendants ae: Dcme 9 04 DecemberDated: 2014. 29, and “UNSERVED” DOES, ERIK VAN DER KAAY, AND THALES GROUP, JUNIPER NETWORKS, MICROSOFT CORP., PAYPAL INC., GOOGLE INC., APPLE INC., CISCO INC., EBAY INC., THE IETF AND THE INTERNET SOCIETY, STATE OF CALIFORNIA, GOVERNOR BROWN, PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES, MICROSEMI INC, US GOVERNMENT, v. TODD S. GLASSEY and MICHAEL E. MCNEIL, Case3:14-cv-03629-WHA Document186 Filed12/29/14 Page1 Case: 15-1326Document:1-2Page:38Filed:02/11/2015 For the reasons stated in the accompanying order granting mot granting order accompanying the in stated reasons the For IT IS SO ORDERED. Defendants. Plaintiffs, FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT F INAL J S UDGMENT IS IS UDGMENT HALL C U W / LOSE THE THE LOSE NITED ILLIAM H No. C 14-03629 WHA JUDGMENT EREBY S TATES A F ILE LSUP E NTERED . ions to dismiss to andions D ISTRICT of 1 in favor of favor in J UDGE (40 of72) Case: 15-1326 Document: 1-2 Page: 39 Filed: 02/11/2015 (41 of 72)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA 333 Constitution Avenue, NW Washington, DC 20001-2866 Phone: 202-216-7000 I Facsimile: 202-219-8530

Plaintiff: Glassey and McNeil In Pro Se

vs. Civil Action No. 3:14-CV-03629

Defendant: Microsemi Inc, et AI.

CIVIL NOTICE OF APPEAL

Notice is hereby given this 7/L day of January 20-·15 that Glassey and McNeil do hereby Amend the original Notice of Appeal

hereby appeals to the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit from the judgement of this court entered on the 29 day of __D_ e_c__ , 20 14 , in favor of Defendants (and US Government) against said Claims of Intellectual Property Fraud Losses and related matters

Todd S. Glassey, In ProSe Attorney or Pro Se Litigant

(Pursuant to Rule 4(a) of the Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure a notice of appeal in a civil action must be filed within 30 days after the date of entry of judgment or 60 days if the United States or officer or agency is a party)

USCA Form 13 August 2009 (REVISED) Case: 15-1326 Document: 1-2 Page: 40 Filed: 02/11/2015 (42 of 72)

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FEDERAL CIRCUIT Appeal Information Sheet

United States District Court for the Northern District of California

TODD S. GLASSEY, et al. v. MICROSEMI INC, et al.

PLAINTIFF(S) DEFENDANT(S) Todd Glassey, Michael McNeil MicroSemi et al

(List all parties. Use asterisk to indicate dismissed or withdrawn parties. Use separate sheet if needed. Explain any discrepancy with caption used on judgment, order or opinion.)

Type of case: Patent

Docket No. 14-3629 WHA Date of Judgment/Order: 9/25/14, 12/29/14

Cross or related appeal? no Date of Notice of Appeal: 1/7/15, 2/7/15

Appellant is: ( X) Plaintiff ( ) Defendant ( ) Other (explain)

DOCKET FEE STATUS: ( X) Paid ( ) Not Paid Billed On:

U.S. Appeal? Yes ( ) No ( X)

In forma pauperis? ( ) Granted ( ) Denied ( ) Revoked ( ) Pending ( ) Never requested

COUNSEL (List name, firm, address and telephone of lead counsel for each party. Indicate party represented.):

See docket

COURT REPORTER: (Name and telephone)

See docket

IMPORTANT: Attach copy of opinion or order appealed from. Forward together with copy of notice of appeal and certified docket entries Case:Case: 3:14-cv-03629-WHA 15-1326 Document: As of:1-2 02/09/2015 Page: 41 10:06 Filed: AM 02/11/2015PST 1 of 19 (43 of 72)

ADRMOP,AO279,APPEAL,E−ProSe,ProSe U.S. District Court California Northern District (San Francisco) CIVIL DOCKET FOR CASE #: 3:14−cv−03629−WHA Internal Use Only

Glassey et al v. Microsemi Inc et al Date Filed: 08/11/2014 Assigned to: Hon. William Alsup Date Terminated: 12/29/2014 Case in other court: . Jury Demand: Plaintiff Cause: 28:1338 Patent Infringement Nature of Suit: 830 Patent Jurisdiction: Federal Question Plaintiff Todd S. Glassey represented by Todd S. Glassey 305 McGaffigan Mill Road Boulder Creek, CA 95006 408−890−7321 Email: [email protected] PRO SE

Plaintiff Michael Edward McNeil represented by Michael Edward McNeil P.O. Box 640 Felton, CA 95018−0640 831−246−0998 Email: [email protected] PRO SE

V. Defendant Microsemi Inc I hereby certify that the annexed represented by Eugene Lee Hahm instrument is a true and correct copy Lee Tran & Liang LLP 601 Gateway Boulevard, Suite 1010 of the original on file in my office. Lee Tran & Liang LLP South San Francisco, Ca 94080 ATTEST: 650−241−2140 RICHARD W. WIEKING Email: [email protected] Clerk, U.S. District Court LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED Northern District of California Heather Fai Auyang Lee Tran Liang and Wang LLP by: 601 S. Figueroa Street Deputy Clerk Suite 3900 Los Angeles, CA 90017 Date: 213−612−3737 Email: [email protected] ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Defendant Symmetricom, Inc.

Defendant Digital Delivery Inc

Defendant Datum, Inc. TERMINATED: 11/13/2014 Case:Case: 3:14-cv-03629-WHA 15-1326 Document: As of:1-2 02/09/2015 Page: 42 10:06 Filed: AM 02/11/2015PST 2 of 19 (44 of 72)

Defendant Erik Van Der Kaay

Defendant Mark Hastings

Defendant Internet Engineering Task Force represented by Jason David Russell Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher & Flom LLP 300 South Grand Avenue Suite 3400 Los Angeles, CA 90071−3144 213/687−5328 Fax: 213−687−5600 Email: [email protected] ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Defendant Internet Society, The represented by Jason David Russell (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Defendant United States Government represented by Warren Metlitzky United States Attorney Northern District of California, Civil Division 450 Golden Gate Avenue San Francisco, CA 94102 415−436−7066 Email: [email protected] LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Defendant US Department of Commerce TERMINATED: 11/13/2014

Defendant Peter Chen TERMINATED: 11/13/2014

Defendant US Department of Energy TERMINATED: 11/13/2014

Defendant US Department of Transportation TERMINATED: 11/13/2014

Defendant US Treasury TERMINATED: 11/13/2014

Defendant US Department of Defense TERMINATED: 11/13/2014 Case:Case: 3:14-cv-03629-WHA 15-1326 Document: As of:1-2 02/09/2015 Page: 43 10:06 Filed: AM 02/11/2015PST 3 of 19 (45 of 72)

Defendant US Intelligence Community TERMINATED: 11/13/2014

Defendant Office of the President of the United States of America

Defendant Jerry Brown the Governor of the State of California

Defendant State of California

Defendant Apple Corp. represented by David R. Eberhart O'Melveny & Myers LLP Two Embarcadero Center 28th Floor San Francisco, CA 94111 415−984−8700 Fax: 415−984−8701 Email: [email protected] LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED Alexander Bok−Sing Parker O'Melveny & Myers LLP Two Embarcadero Center 28th Floor San Francisco, CA 94111 415−984−8721 Fax: 415−984−8701 Email: [email protected] ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Defendant Cisco Corp. represented by James Ching−I Lin Winston and Strawn LLP 3300 Hillview Ave. Palo Alto, CA 94304 650−858−6434 Email: [email protected] ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Defendant eBay represented by Stephen Andrew Chiari Sacks, Ricketts & Case LLP 1900 Embarcadero Road Suite 110 Palo Alto, CA 94303 650−494−4950 Fax: 650−847−1520 Email: [email protected] LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED Crystal Evelyn Lopez SACKS, RICKETTS and CASE LLP Case:Case: 3:14-cv-03629-WHA 15-1326 Document: As of:1-2 02/09/2015 Page: 44 10:06 Filed: AM 02/11/2015PST 4 of 19 (46 of 72)

177 Post Street Suite 650 San Francisco, CA 94108 415−549−0580 Email: [email protected] ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Defendant Paypal represented by Stephen Andrew Chiari (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED Crystal Evelyn Lopez (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Defendant Google represented by Eugene Marder Wilson Sonsini Goodrich Rosati One Market Plaza Spear Tower Suite 3300 San Francisco, CA 94105 415−947−2039 Email: [email protected] LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED Stefani Elise Shanberg Wilson Sonsini Goodrich & Rosati P.C. One Market Plaza Spear Tower, Suite 3300 San Francisco, CA 94105 415−947−2000 Fax: 415−947−2099 Email: [email protected] LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED Jennifer J Schmidt Wilson Sonsini Goodrich & Rosati, P.C. One Market Plaza Spear Tower, Suite 3300 San Francisco, CA 94105 415−947−2000 Fax: 415−947−2099 Email: [email protected] ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Defendant Juniper Networks represented by Jonathan S Kagan Irell & Manella LLP 1800 Avenue of the Stars Suite 900 Los Angeles, CA 90067 (310) 203−7092 Email: [email protected] LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED Christine Michelle Woodin Irell Manella LLP Case:Case: 3:14-cv-03629-WHA 15-1326 Document: As of:1-2 02/09/2015 Page: 45 10:06 Filed: AM 02/11/2015PST 5 of 19 (47 of 72)

1800 Avenue of the Stars Suite 900 Los Angeles, CA 90067 310−203−7664 Email: [email protected] ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Defendant Microsoft Corporation represented by Eugene Lee Hahm (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED Heather Fai Auyang (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED Lisa Jennifer Chin Lee Tran & Liang LLP 601 Gateway Blvd Suite 1010 South San Francisco, CA 94080 650−241−2139 Email: [email protected] ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Defendant Oracle Corp. represented by Eugene Lee Hahm (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED Heather Fai Auyang (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED Lisa Jennifer Chin (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Defendant Thales Group

Defendant Netflix represented by Stefani Elise Shanberg (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED Eugene Marder (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Defendant Amano

Defendant Bancom Division Case:Case: 3:14-cv-03629-WHA 15-1326 Document: As of:1-2 02/09/2015 Page: 46 10:06 Filed: AM 02/11/2015PST 6 of 19 (48 of 72)

Date Filed # Docket Text 08/11/2014 1 COMPLAINT against Digital Delivery Inc, Microsemi Inc, Symmetricom, Inc. (Filing fee $ 400, Receipt # 34611098298.) SUMMONS ISSUED as to Microsemi Inc. Filed byTodd S. Glassey, Michael E. McNeil. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit − Part 1, # 2 Exhibit − Part 2, # 3 Exhibit − Part 3, # 4 Exhibit − Part 4, # 5 Civil Cover Sheet, # 6 Summons, # 7 Letter)(mclS, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 8/11/2014) (Entered: 08/12/2014) 08/11/2014 2 Initial Case Management Scheduling Order with ADR Deadlines: Case Management Statement due by 11/11/2014. Case Management Conference set for 11/18/2014 10:00 AM. (Attachments: # 1 Standing Order)(mclS, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 8/11/2014) (Entered: 08/12/2014) 08/12/2014 3 REPORT on the filing or determination of an action regarding Patent Infringement. (cc: form mailed to register). (mclS, COURT STAFF) (Entered: 08/12/2014) 08/18/2014 4 MOTION for Permission for Electronic Case Filing filed by Todd S. Glassey. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order, # 2 Envelope)(mclS, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 8/18/2014) (Entered: 08/18/2014) 08/20/2014 5 ORDER Granting 4 Motion for Permission for Electronic Case Filing signed by Chief Magistrate Judge Elizabeth D. Laporte. (Attachments: # 1 Certificate of Service)(shyS, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 8/20/2014) (Entered: 08/20/2014) 08/25/2014 6 AMENDED COMPLAINT against Digital Delivery Inc, Microsemi Inc, Symmetricom, Inc., Datum, Inc., Erik Van Der Kaay, Mark Hastings, Internet Engineering Task Force, Internet Society, The, United States Government, US Department of Commerce, Peter Chen, US Department of Energy, US Department of Transportation, US Treasury, US Department of Defense, US Intelligence Community, Office of the President of the United States of America, Jerry Brown, State of California, Apple Corp., Cisco Corp., eBay, Paypal, Google, Juniper Networks, Microsoft Corporation, Oracle Corp., Thales Group. Filed byTodd S. Glassey, Michael E. McNeil. (Attachments: # 1 Patents − Part 1, # 2 Patents − Part 2, # 3 Patents II, # 4 Other, # 5 Contracts)(mclS, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 8/25/2014) (Entered: 08/27/2014) 08/27/2014 7 Summons Issued as to Apple Corp., Cisco Corp., Google, Internet Engineering Task Force, Internet Society, The, Juniper Networks, Microsoft Corporation, Paypal, United States Government, eBay. (mclS, COURT STAFF) (Entered: 08/27/2014) 08/30/2014 8 Proposed Summons. (Glassey, Todd) (Filed on 8/30/2014) (Entered: 08/30/2014) 08/30/2014 9 Proposed Summons. (Attachments: # 1 Summons peter chen summons, # 2 Summons Oracle Summons, # 3 Summons Netflix Summons)(Glassey, Todd) (Filed on 8/30/2014) (Entered: 08/30/2014) 09/02/2014 10 Summons Issued as to Jerry Brown. (mclS, COURT STAFF) (Entered: 09/02/2014) 09/02/2014 11 Summons Issued as to Microsemi Inc. (mclS, COURT STAFF) (Entered: 09/02/2014) 09/02/2014 12 Summons Issued as to Peter Chen. (mclS, COURT STAFF) (Entered: 09/02/2014) 09/02/2014 13 Summons Issued as to Oracle Corp. (mclS, COURT STAFF) (Entered: 09/02/2014) 09/02/2014 14 Summons Issued as to Netflix. (mclS, COURT STAFF) (Entered: 09/02/2014) 09/02/2014 15 First MOTION to Transfer Case (three judge panel) filed by Todd S. Glassey. Motion Hearing set for 10/14/2014 09:00 AM in Courtroom 15, 18th Floor, San Francisco before Magistrate Judge Elizabeth D. Laporte. Responses due by 9/16/2014. Replies due by 9/23/2014. (Attachments: # 1 Declaration for three judge panel)(Glassey, Todd) (Filed on 9/2/2014) (Entered: 09/02/2014) 09/02/2014 16 Proposed Order re 15 First MOTION to Transfer Case (three judge panel) by Todd S. Glassey. (Glassey, Todd) (Filed on 9/2/2014) (Entered: 09/02/2014) 09/02/2014 17 EXHIBITS re 6 Amended Complaint,,, filed byTodd S. Glassey. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit USPTO as issued, # 2 Exhibit USPTO office actions)(Related document(s) 6 ) (Glassey, Todd) (Filed on 9/2/2014) (Entered: 09/02/2014) Case:Case: 3:14-cv-03629-WHA 15-1326 Document: As of:1-2 02/09/2015 Page: 47 10:06 Filed: AM 02/11/2015PST 7 of 19 (49 of 72) 09/02/2014 18 EXHIBITS abandoned instances of 629 − filed byTodd S. Glassey. (Attachments: # 1 abandoned, # 2 abandoned, # 3 abandoned, # 4 abandoned, # 5 abandoned, # 6 abandoned)(Glassey, Todd) (Filed on 9/2/2014) (Entered: 09/02/2014) 09/02/2014 19 EXHIBITS re 6 Amended Complaint,,, co−inventor agreement, patent and unauthorized changes. filed byTodd S. Glassey. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit, # 2 Declaration dec re uinauthorized changes to structure and content of patent)(Related document(s) 6 ) (Glassey, Todd) (Filed on 9/2/2014) (Entered: 09/02/2014) 09/02/2014 20 EXHIBITS re 6 Amended Complaint,,, IETF Notice Index for DO NOT USE and NO LICENSE TO IETF statements filed byTodd S. Glassey. (Related document(s) 6 ) (Glassey, Todd) (Filed on 9/2/2014) (Entered: 09/02/2014) 09/02/2014 21 EXHIBITS re 6 Amended Complaint,,, Notice to Microsemi on role per 8.4 filed byTodd S. Glassey. (Related document(s) 6 ) (Glassey, Todd) (Filed on 9/2/2014) (Entered: 09/02/2014) 09/02/2014 22 EXHIBITS re 6 Amended Complaint,,, PTO agrees − patent was misfiled and corrects federal record filed byTodd S. Glassey. (Related document(s) 6 ) (Glassey, Todd) (Filed on 9/2/2014) (Entered: 09/02/2014) 09/02/2014 23 EXHIBITS re 6 Amended Complaint,,, original 992, 629 and 3126 filings filed byTodd S. Glassey. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 629's original patent, # 2 Exhibit Unauthorized TTI patent with 629 IP in it, # 3 Exhibit Canadian and WO filings of 3126 patent)(Related document(s) 6 ) (Glassey, Todd) (Filed on 9/2/2014) (Entered: 09/02/2014) 09/02/2014 24 EXHIBITS re 6 Amended Complaint,,, CTI Sale order (bk) filed byTodd S. Glassey. (Related document(s) 6 ) (Glassey, Todd) (Filed on 9/2/2014) (Entered: 09/02/2014) 09/02/2014 25 EXHIBITS re 6 Amended Complaint,,, Robinson − Datum has no interest filed byTodd S. Glassey. (Related document(s) 6 ) (Glassey, Todd) (Filed on 9/2/2014) (Entered: 09/02/2014) 09/02/2014 26 EXHIBITS re 6 Amended Complaint,,, 3126 patent and PTO filed byTodd S. Glassey. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Datum TTI extensions, # 2 Declaration re 3126 patent, # 3 Exhibit notice to PTO)(Related document(s) 6 ) (Glassey, Todd) (Filed on 9/2/2014) (Entered: 09/02/2014) 09/02/2014 27 EXHIBITS re 6 Amended Complaint,,, This document predates any engineering work and proves the TTI was designed by Glassey PRIOR to the Contracting Phase; filed byTodd S. Glassey. (Related document(s) 6 ) (Glassey, Todd) (Filed on 9/2/2014) (Entered: 09/02/2014) 09/02/2014 28 EXHIBITS re 27 Exhibits, 6 Amended Complaint,,, Declaration from State Lit removed to USDC filed byTodd S. Glassey. (Related document(s) 27 , 6 ) (Glassey, Todd) (Filed on 9/2/2014) (Entered: 09/02/2014) 09/02/2014 29 EXHIBITS re 6 Amended Complaint,,, Exhibits from Apple v Samsung show infringements in both iPhone and Samsung Galaxy and other platforms based on how the encrypted modem chip alters the communications channel for the appliance (cellphone) filed byTodd S. Glassey. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit apple v samsung evidence)(Related document(s) 6 ) (Glassey, Todd) (Filed on 9/2/2014) (Entered: 09/02/2014) 09/02/2014 30 EXHIBITS re 6 Amended Complaint,,, Def Peter Chen as Symmetricom Atty − claim is he crossed the line and became a party to the alleged fraud. filed byTodd S. Glassey. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit)(Related document(s) 6 ) (Glassey, Todd) (Filed on 9/2/2014) (Entered: 09/02/2014) 09/02/2014 31 EXHIBITS re 6 Amended Complaint,,, DDI and TTI Settlements (account numbers are over a decade closed) filed byTodd S. Glassey. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit second settlement)(Related document(s) 6 ) (Glassey, Todd) (Filed on 9/2/2014) (Entered: 09/02/2014) 09/03/2014 32 CLERK'S NOTICE Re: Consent or Declination: Plaintiffs shall file a consent or declination to proceed before a magistrate judge by September 9, 2014 and serve such forms on the defendants. (Attachments: # 1 Certificate of Service) (shyS, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 9/3/2014) (Entered: 09/03/2014) Case:Case: 3:14-cv-03629-WHA 15-1326 Document: As of:1-2 02/09/2015 Page: 48 10:06 Filed: AM 02/11/2015PST 8 of 19 (50 of 72) 09/03/2014 33 CONSENT/DECLINATION to Proceed Before a US Magistrate Judge by Todd S. Glassey.. (Glassey, Todd) (Filed on 9/3/2014) (Entered: 09/03/2014) 09/03/2014 34 SUMMONS Returned Executed by Todd S. Glassey. Apple Corp. served on 8/28/2014, answer due 9/18/2014. (mclS, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 9/3/2014) (Entered: 09/04/2014) 09/03/2014 35 SUMMONS Returned Executed by Todd S. Glassey. Microsoft Corporation served on 8/28/2014, answer due 9/18/2014. (mclS, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 9/3/2014) (Entered: 09/04/2014) 09/03/2014 36 SUMMONS Returned Executed by Todd S. Glassey. Juniper Networks served on 8/28/2014, answer due 9/18/2014. (mclS, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 9/3/2014) (Entered: 09/04/2014) 09/03/2014 37 SUMMONS Returned Executed by Todd S. Glassey. Cisco Corp. served on 8/28/2014, answer due 9/18/2014. (mclS, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 9/3/2014) (Entered: 09/04/2014) 09/03/2014 38 SUMMONS Returned Executed by Todd S. Glassey. Internet Society, The served on 8/28/2014, answer due 9/18/2014. (mclS, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 9/3/2014) (Entered: 09/04/2014) 09/03/2014 39 SUMMONS Returned Executed by Todd S. Glassey. eBay served on 8/28/2014, answer due 9/18/2014. (mclS, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 9/3/2014) (Entered: 09/04/2014) 09/03/2014 40 SUMMONS Returned Executed by Todd S. Glassey. Paypal served on 8/28/2014, answer due 9/18/2014. (mclS, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 9/3/2014) (Entered: 09/04/2014) 09/03/2014 41 SUMMONS Returned Executed by Todd S. Glassey. Google served on 8/29/2014, answer due 9/19/2014. (mclS, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 9/3/2014) (Entered: 09/04/2014) 09/03/2014 42 SUMMONS Returned Executed by Todd S. Glassey. Internet Engineering Task Force served on 8/28/2014, answer due 9/18/2014. (mclS, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 9/3/2014) (Entered: 09/04/2014) 09/03/2014 43 SUMMONS Returned Executed by Todd S. Glassey. Office of the President of the United States of America served on 8/28/2014, answer due 10/27/2014. (mclS, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 9/3/2014) (Entered: 09/04/2014) 09/05/2014 44 SUMMONS Returned Executed by Todd S. Glassey. Oracle Corp. served on 9/4/2014, answer due 9/25/2014. (mclS, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 9/5/2014) (Entered: 09/05/2014) 09/05/2014 45 SUMMONS Returned Executed by Todd S. Glassey. Microsemi Inc served on 9/4/2014, answer due 9/25/2014. (mclS, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 9/5/2014) (Entered: 09/05/2014) 09/05/2014 46 SUMMONS Returned Executed by Todd S. Glassey. Peter Chen served on 9/4/2014, answer due 9/25/2014. (mclS, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 9/5/2014) (Entered: 09/05/2014) 09/05/2014 47 SUMMONS Returned Executed by Todd S. Glassey. Jerry Brown served on 9/4/2014, answer due 9/25/2014. (mclS, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 9/5/2014) (Entered: 09/05/2014) 09/08/2014 48 CLERK'S NOTICE of Impending Reassignment to U.S. District Judge. The Clerk of this Court will now randomly reassign this case to a United States District Judge because one or more of the parties has requested reassignment to a United States District Judge or has not consented to the jurisdiction of a United States Magistrate Judge. The CASE MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE previously scheduled for November 18, 2014 on Magistrate Judge Laporte's calendar will NOT be held. (Attachments: # 1 Certificate of Service) (shyS, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 9/8/2014) (Entered: 09/08/2014) Case:Case: 3:14-cv-03629-WHA 15-1326 Document: As of:1-2 02/09/2015 Page: 49 10:06 Filed: AM 02/11/2015PST 9 of 19 (51 of 72) 09/09/2014 49 ORDER, Case reassigned to Hon. Susan Illston. Magistrate Judge Elizabeth D. Laporte no longer assigned to the case.. Signed by Executive Committee on 9/9/14. (ha, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 9/9/2014) (Entered: 09/09/2014) 09/09/2014 (Court only) ***Deadlines terminated. (ysS, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 9/9/2014) (Entered: 09/10/2014) 09/09/2014 51 SUMMONS Returned Executed by Todd S. Glassey. Netflix served on 9/4/2014, answer due 9/25/2014. (ysS, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 9/9/2014) (Entered: 09/11/2014) 09/10/2014 50 ORDER OF RECUSAL. Signed by Judge Susan Illston on 9/10/14. (Attachments: # 1 Certificate/Proof of Service)(tfS, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 9/10/2014) (Entered: 09/10/2014) 09/11/2014 52 ORDER, Case reassigned to Hon. William Alsup. Hon. Susan Illston no longer assigned to the case.. Signed by Executive Committee on 9/11/14. (haS, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 9/11/2014) (Entered: 09/11/2014) 09/15/2014 53 EXHIBITS re 6 Amended Complaint,,, Exhibits showing California State refusal to prosecute its own BENINSIG standard here − Political Contributions are key here filed byTodd S. Glassey. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit, # 2 Exhibit)(Related document(s) 6 ) (Glassey, Todd) (Filed on 9/15/2014) (Entered: 09/15/2014) 09/15/2014 54 EXHIBITS re 6 Amended Complaint,,, California v beninsig prosecution − set public standard for California State − and AG's office filed byTodd S. Glassey. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit, # 2 Exhibit)(Related document(s) 6 ) (Glassey, Todd) (Filed on 9/15/2014) (Entered: 09/15/2014) 09/15/2014 55 EXHIBITS re 6 Amended Complaint,,, FBI EEA Complaint − DoJ 'squashed' any action here apparently filed byTodd S. Glassey. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit EEA complaint as filed with US DoJ/FBI Major Crimes and SA Manny Alverez in Sacto. CA office of FBI)(Related document(s) 6 ) (Glassey, Todd) (Filed on 9/15/2014) (Entered: 09/15/2014) 09/15/2014 56 EXHIBITS re 55 Exhibits, 6 Amended Complaint,,, Verszion III of the EEA complaint sent to FBI major crimes in 2013 with the recovery of the withheld contract assigning proper control on what today is all secure location based services to GLASSEY and MCNEIL filed byTodd S. Glassey. (Related document(s) 55 , 6 ) (Glassey, Todd) (Filed on 9/15/2014) (Entered: 09/15/2014) 09/15/2014 57 EXHIBITS re 55 Exhibits, 53 Exhibits, 19 Exhibits, 23 Exhibits, 6 Amended Complaint,,, 54 Exhibits, EPA filing of US6370629 − abandoned with an action done to prevent Plaintiffs from recovery filed byTodd S. Glassey. (Related document(s) 55 , 53 , 19 , 23 , 6 , 54 ) (Glassey, Todd) (Filed on 9/15/2014) (Entered: 09/15/2014) 09/15/2014 58 STIPULATION re 6 Amended Complaint,,, Extending Time to Respond filed by Google. (Shanberg, Stefani) (Filed on 9/15/2014) (Entered: 09/15/2014) 09/16/2014 59 NOTICE of Appearance by James Ching−I Lin (Lin, James) (Filed on 9/16/2014) (Entered: 09/16/2014) 09/17/2014 60 NOTICE of Appearance by Stephen Andrew Chiari (Chiari, Stephen) (Filed on 9/17/2014) (Entered: 09/17/2014) 09/17/2014 61 STIPULATION Extending Time for Defendants eBay and PayPal to Respond to Amended Complaint filed by Paypal, eBay. (Chiari, Stephen) (Filed on 9/17/2014) (Entered: 09/17/2014) 09/18/2014 62 STIPULATION Extending Time to Respond to Amended Complaint by Microsoft Corporation. (Hahm, Eugene) (Filed on 9/18/2014) Modified on 9/18/2014 (dtmS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 09/18/2014) 09/18/2014 Electronic filing error. Incorrect event used. Correct event is Stipulation without Proposed Order. Corrected by Clerk's Office. No further action is necessary. Re: 62 Answer to Amended Complaint filed by Microsoft Corporation (dtmS, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 9/18/2014) (Entered: 09/18/2014) Case:Case: 3:14-cv-03629-WHA 15-1326 Document: As of: 1-2 02/09/2015 Page: 50 10:06 Filed: AM PST02/11/2015 10 of 19 (52 of 72) 09/18/2014 63 MOTION to Dismiss Plaintiffs' Amended Complaint Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 12 (B)(6); Memorandum of Points and Authorities in Support filed by Cisco Corp.. Motion Hearing set for 11/20/2014 08:00 AM in Courtroom 8, 19th Floor, San Francisco before Hon. William Alsup. Responses due by 10/2/2014. Replies due by 10/9/2014. (Lin, James) (Filed on 9/18/2014) (Entered: 09/18/2014) 09/18/2014 64 Proposed Order re 63 MOTION to Dismiss Plaintiffs' Amended Complaint Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 12 (B)(6); Memorandum of Points and Authorities in Support by Cisco Corp.. (Lin, James) (Filed on 9/18/2014) (Entered: 09/18/2014) 09/18/2014 65 NOTICE by Cisco Corp. of Corporate Disclosure Statement Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 7.1 (Lin, James) (Filed on 9/18/2014) (Entered: 09/18/2014) 09/22/2014 66 STIPULATION Joint Stipulation Extending Time to Respond to Amended Complaint filed by Oracle Corp.. (Auyang, Heather) (Filed on 9/22/2014) (Entered: 09/22/2014) 09/22/2014 67 STIPULATION Joint Stipulation Extending Time to Respond to Amended Complaint filed by Microsemi Inc. (Auyang, Heather) (Filed on 9/22/2014) (Entered: 09/22/2014) 09/23/2014 68 CLERK'S NOTICE Scheduling Initial CMC on Reassignment. Case Management Statement due by 11/13/2014. Case Management Conference set for 11/20/2014 08:00 AM in Courtroom 8, 19th Floor, San Francisco. (Attachments: # 1 Certificate/Proof of Service) (dt, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 9/23/2014) (Entered: 09/23/2014) 09/23/2014 69 SUPPLEMENTAL ORDER TO ORDER SETTING INITIAL CASE MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE re 68 Clerk's Notice. Signed by Judge William Alsup on 10/16/12. (Attachments: # 1 Certificate/Proof of Service)(dt, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 9/23/2014) (Entered: 09/23/2014) 09/25/2014 70 ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR THREE−JUDGE PANEL AND VACATING HEARING by Judge Alsup re 15 Motion. (whalc1, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 9/25/2014) (Additional attachment(s) added on 9/25/2014: # 1 Certificate/Proof of Service) (dt, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 09/25/2014) 09/25/2014 71 NOTICE of Appearance by Jason David Russell (Russell, Jason) (Filed on 9/25/2014) (Entered: 09/25/2014) 09/25/2014 72 Error, Disregard NOTICE by Internet Engineering Task Force, Internet Society, The Certificate of Interested Entities or Persons re FRCP 7.1 (Russell, Jason) (Filed on 9/25/2014) Modified on 9/26/2014 (dtmS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 09/25/2014) 09/25/2014 73 MOTION to Dismiss the Complaint; Memorandum of Points and Authorities in Support Thereof filed by Internet Engineering Task Force, Internet Society, The. Motion Hearing set for 11/20/2014 08:00 AM in Courtroom 8, 19th Floor, San Francisco before Hon. William Alsup. Responses due by 10/9/2014. Replies due by 10/16/2014. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order)(Russell, Jason) (Filed on 9/25/2014) (Entered: 09/25/2014) 09/26/2014 Electronic filing error. Incorrect event used. Correct event is Certificate of Interested Entities. Please re−file in its entirety. Re: 72 Notice (Other) filed by Internet Engineering Task Force, Internet Society, The (dtmS, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 9/26/2014) (Entered: 09/26/2014) 09/26/2014 74 Certificate of Interested Entities by Internet Engineering Task Force, Internet Society, The (Russell, Jason) (Filed on 9/26/2014) (Entered: 09/26/2014) 10/01/2014 75 NOTICE of Appearance by Crystal Evelyn Lopez (Lopez, Crystal) (Filed on 10/1/2014) (Entered: 10/01/2014) 10/03/2014 76 STIPULATION Extending Time for Defendant Juniper Networks to Respond to Amended Complaint filed by Juniper Networks. (Woodin, Christine) (Filed on 10/3/2014) (Entered: 10/03/2014) 10/09/2014 77 REPLY (re 63 MOTION to Dismiss) filed byCisco Corp.. (Lin, James) (Filed on 10/9/2014) Modified on 10/9/2014 (dtmS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 10/09/2014) 10/09/2014 78 ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE RE CISCOS MOTION TO DISMISS. Response due October 24 at noon.. Signed by Judge Alsup on October 9, 2014. (whalc1, Case:Case: 3:14-cv-03629-WHA 15-1326 Document: As of: 1-2 02/09/2015 Page: 51 10:06 Filed: AM PST02/11/2015 11 of 19 (53 of 72)

COURT STAFF) (Filed on 10/9/2014) (Additional attachment(s) added on 10/10/2014: # 1 Certificate/Proof of Service) (dt, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 10/09/2014) 10/09/2014 79 DECLARATION of Todd Glassey in Opposition to 63 Motion to Dismiss. filed byTodd S. Glassey. (Glassey, Todd) (Filed on 10/9/2014) Modified on 10/10/2014 (dtmS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 10/09/2014) 10/09/2014 80 Error, Disregard First MOTION for Extension of Time to File Answer Modified on 10/10/2014 (dtmS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 10/09/2014) 10/09/2014 81 Response to Order to Show Cause 78 byTodd S. Glassey. (Glassey, Todd) (Filed on 10/9/2014) Modified on 10/10/2014 (dtmS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 10/09/2014) 10/09/2014 82 MOTION for Extension of Time to File Opposition to 63 , 73 Motions to Dismiss filed by Todd S. Glassey. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order proposed order, # 2 Declaration)(Glassey, Todd) (Filed on 10/9/2014) Modified on 10/10/2014 (dtmS, COURT STAFF). Modified on 10/10/2014 (dtmS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 10/09/2014) 10/09/2014 83 RESPONSE re 63 Motion to Dismiss byTodd S. Glassey. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit IETF BCP78, # 2 Exhibit IETF BCP79, # 3 Declaration TSG declaration in re CISCO and IETF)(Glassey, Todd) (Filed on 10/9/2014) Modified on 10/10/2014 (dtmS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 10/09/2014) 10/09/2014 84 RESPONSE re 73 MOTION to Dismiss byTodd S. Glassey. (Attachments: # 1 Declaration in re IETF)(Glassey, Todd) (Filed on 10/9/2014) Modified on 10/10/2014 (dtmS, COURT STAFF). Modified on 10/10/2014 (dtmS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 10/09/2014) 10/10/2014 (Court only) ***Motions terminated: 80 First MOTION for Extension of Time to File (dtmS, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 10/10/2014) (Entered: 10/10/2014) 10/10/2014 85 ORDER RE MOTION TO EXTEND TIME TO RESPOND by Hon. William Alsup re 82 Motion.(whalc1, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 10/10/2014) (Additional attachment(s) added on 10/10/2014: # 1 Certificate/Proof of Service) (dt, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 10/10/2014) 10/14/2014 86 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE by Cisco Corp. (Lin, James) (Filed on 10/14/2014) (Entered: 10/14/2014) 10/17/2014 87 REPLY (re 73 MOTION to Dismiss the Complaint; Memorandum of Points and Authorities in Support Thereof ) filed byInternet Engineering Task Force, Internet Society, The. (Russell, Jason) (Filed on 10/17/2014) (Entered: 10/17/2014) 10/17/2014 88 Certificate of Interested Entities by eBay (Chiari, Stephen) (Filed on 10/17/2014) (Entered: 10/17/2014) 10/17/2014 89 Certificate of Interested Entities by Paypal (Chiari, Stephen) (Filed on 10/17/2014) (Entered: 10/17/2014) 10/17/2014 90 MOTION to Dismiss Plaintiffs' Amended Complaint Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b(6) and Memorandum of Points and Authorities In Support Thereof filed by Paypal, eBay. Motion Hearing set for 12/4/2014 08:00 AM in Courtroom 8, 19th Floor, San Francisco before Hon. William Alsup. Responses due by 10/31/2014. Replies due by 11/7/2014. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order)(Chiari, Stephen) (Filed on 10/17/2014) (Entered: 10/17/2014) 10/17/2014 91 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE by Paypal, eBay re 88 Certificate of Interested Entities, 89 Certificate of Interested Entities, 90 MOTION to Dismiss Plaintiffs' Amended Complaint Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b(6) and Memorandum of Points and Authorities In Support Thereof (Chiari, Stephen) (Filed on 10/17/2014) (Entered: 10/17/2014) 10/17/2014 92 REPLY (re 63 MOTION to Dismiss Plaintiffs' Amended Complaint Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 12 (B)(6); Memorandum of Points and Authorities in Support ) filed byCisco Corp.. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 1)(Lin, James) (Filed on 10/17/2014) (Entered: 10/17/2014) Case:Case: 3:14-cv-03629-WHA 15-1326 Document: As of: 1-2 02/09/2015 Page: 52 10:06 Filed: AM PST02/11/2015 12 of 19 (54 of 72) 10/17/2014 93 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE by Cisco Corp. re 92 Reply to Opposition/Response, (Lin, James) (Filed on 10/17/2014) (Entered: 10/17/2014) 10/21/2014 94 Second RESPONSE (re 63 MOTION to Dismiss Plaintiffs' Amended Complaint ) filed byTodd S. Glassey. (Glassey, Todd) (Filed on 10/21/2014) Modified on 10/22/2014 (dtmS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 10/21/2014) 10/21/2014 95 RESPONSE (re 90 MOTION to Dismiss Plaintiffs' Amended Complaint Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b(6) and Memorandum of Points and Authorities In Support Thereof ) filed byTodd S. Glassey. (Glassey, Todd) (Filed on 10/21/2014) (Entered: 10/21/2014) 10/22/2014 96 First MOTION for Permission for Electronic Case Filing (filed for McNeil on my existing ECF account in this matter). filed by Todd S. Glassey. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order Proposed Order granting McNeil ECF status)(Glassey, Todd) (Filed on 10/22/2014) (Entered: 10/22/2014) 10/22/2014 97 ORDER GRANTING MICHAEL MCNEIL'S MOTION FOR PERMISSION FOR ELECTRONIC CASE FILING by Hon. William Alsup re 96 Motion for Permission for Electronic Case Filing.(whalc1, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 10/22/2014) (Additional attachment(s) added on 10/23/2014: # 1 Certificate/Proof of Service) (dt, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 10/22/2014) 10/24/2014 98 STIPULATION re 6 Amended Complaint,,, FURTHER EXTENDING TIME TO RESPOND filed by Microsemi Inc. (Auyang, Heather) (Filed on 10/24/2014) (Entered: 10/24/2014) 10/24/2014 99 STIPULATION re 6 Amended Complaint,,, FURTHER EXTENDING TIME TO RESPOND filed by Microsoft Corporation. (Auyang, Heather) (Filed on 10/24/2014) (Entered: 10/24/2014) 10/24/2014 100 STIPULATION re 6 Amended Complaint,,, FURTHER EXTENDING TIME TO RESPOND filed by Oracle Corp.. (Chin, Lisa) (Filed on 10/24/2014) (Entered: 10/24/2014) 10/28/2014 101 STIPULATION re 6 Amended Complaint,,, Extending Time to Respond filed by Netflix. (Shanberg, Stefani) (Filed on 10/28/2014) (Entered: 10/28/2014) 10/28/2014 102 NOTICE of Appearance by Warren Metlitzky (Metlitzky, Warren) (Filed on 10/28/2014) (Entered: 10/28/2014) 10/28/2014 103 STIPULATION Re USA's Response To Amended Complaint filed by United States Government. (Metlitzky, Warren) (Filed on 10/28/2014) (Entered: 10/28/2014) 10/29/2014 104 STIPULATION WITH PROPOSED ORDER to Continue Case Mgt Conference filed by Juniper Networks. (Attachments: # 1 Declaration of Christine Woodin in Support of Joint Stipulation)(Woodin, Christine) (Filed on 10/29/2014) Modified on 10/29/2014 (dtmS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 10/29/2014) 10/29/2014 105 STIPULATION Further Extending Time for Defendant Juniper Networks to Respond to Amended Complaint filed by Juniper Networks. (Woodin, Christine) (Filed on 10/29/2014) (Entered: 10/29/2014) 10/29/2014 106 Certificate of Interested Entities by Google (Shanberg, Stefani) (Filed on 10/29/2014) (Entered: 10/29/2014) 10/29/2014 107 MOTION to Dismiss Plaintiffs' Amended Complaint Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b(6) and Memorandum of Points and Authorities In Support Thereof filed by Google. Motion Hearing set for 12/11/2014 08:00 AM in Courtroom 8, 19th Floor, San Francisco before Hon. William Alsup. Responses due by 11/12/2014. Replies due by 11/19/2014. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order)(Shanberg, Stefani) (Filed on 10/29/2014) (Entered: 10/29/2014) 10/29/2014 108 NOTICE of Appearance by Jennifer J Schmidt (Schmidt, Jennifer) (Filed on 10/29/2014) (Entered: 10/29/2014) 10/30/2014 109 ORDER STRIKING COMPLAINT AND VACATING HEARINGS re 63 , 73 , 90 , 104 , and 107 .. Signed by Judge Alsup on October 30, 2014. (whalc1, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 10/30/2014) (Entered: 10/30/2014) Case:Case: 3:14-cv-03629-WHA 15-1326 Document: As of: 1-2 02/09/2015 Page: 53 10:06 Filed: AM PST02/11/2015 13 of 19 (55 of 72) 10/30/2014 (Court only) Set/Reset Deadlines: Amended Pleadings due by 11/13/2014. (dtmS, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 10/30/2014) (Entered: 10/30/2014) 11/12/2014 110 AMENDED COMPLAINT SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT against All Defendants. Filed byTodd S. Glassey. (Glassey, Todd) (Filed on 11/12/2014) (Entered: 11/12/2014) 11/12/2014 111 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE by Todd S. Glassey re 110 Amended Complaint POS for mailed copy to California (Glassey, Todd) (Filed on 11/12/2014) (Entered: 11/12/2014) 11/13/2014 112 Corrected Second AMENDED COMPLAINT against All Defendants. Filed byTodd S. Glassey. (Glassey, Todd) (Filed on 11/13/2014) Modified on 11/13/2014 (dtmS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 11/13/2014) 11/13/2014 (Court only) *** Party US Department of Commerce, US Department of Defense, US Department of Energy, US Department of Transportation, US Intelligence Community, US Treasury, Peter Chen and Datum, Inc. terminated. (dtmS, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 11/13/2014) (Entered: 11/13/2014) 11/13/2014 (Court only) ***Party Amano and Bancom Division added. (dtmS, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 11/13/2014) (Entered: 11/13/2014) 11/17/2014 113 Error, See Entry 114 Request for Judicial Notice re 6 Amended Complaint,,, includes OSC hearing before Judge Cousins filed byTodd S. Glassey. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order, # 2 Exhibit shows all eight patent filings including KOREA)(Related document(s) 6 ) (Glassey, Todd) (Filed on 11/17/2014) Modified on 11/17/2014 (dtmS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 11/17/2014) 11/17/2014 114 Error, See Entry 115 Request for Judicial Notice re 6 Amended Complaint,,, see a;sp EXHIBITS from Docket 6 filed byTodd S. Glassey. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order, # 2 Exhibit Au print out showing newly found au and kr filings)(Related document(s) 6 ) (Glassey, Todd) (Filed on 11/17/2014) Modified on 11/17/2014 (dtmS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 11/17/2014) 11/17/2014 115 Request for Judicial Notice re 6 Amended Complaint,,, replaces docket 114−115 (bad Adobe filter causing various errors) filed byTodd S. Glassey. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order replaces docket 114−115, # 2 Exhibit newly found au filing, # 3 Exhibit newly found kr filing)(Related document(s) 6 ) (Glassey, Todd) (Filed on 11/17/2014) (Entered: 11/17/2014) 11/18/2014 116 ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFFS REQUESTS FOR JUDICIAL NOTICE re 115 Request for Judicial Notice.. Signed by Judge Alsup on November 18, 2014. (whalc1, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 11/18/2014) (Entered: 11/18/2014) 11/18/2014 117 CLERK'S NOTICE Scheduling Hearing. Case Management Statement due by 1/8/2015. Case Management Conference set for 1/15/2015 11:00 AM in Courtroom 8, 19th Floor, San Francisco. (dt, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 11/18/2014) (Entered: 11/18/2014) 11/21/2014 118 MOTION TALBOT/GELLMAN REVIEW OF DDI AND TTI SETTLMENTS AND ORDER VOIDING THEM filed by Todd S. Glassey. (Attachments: # 1 Supplement Memo of PandA Regarding Rescission in Cal − if VOID is denied RESCISSION is ACTIVATED, # 2 Proposed Order Proposed Order Voiding Settlements)(Glassey, Todd) (Filed on 11/21/2014) Modified on 11/24/2014 (ysS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 11/21/2014) 11/21/2014 119 Request for Judicial Notice re 118 First MOTION for Hearing re 6 Amended Complaint,,, for ORDER Voiding SETTLEMENT AGREEMENTS transcript filed byTodd S. Glassey. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order)(Related document(s) 118 ) (Glassey, Todd) (Filed on 11/21/2014) (Entered: 11/21/2014) 11/21/2014 120 Second Request for Judicial Notice in support re 118 Motion for ORDER Voiding SETTLEMENT AGREEMENTS Conformed US Patent and full instances of Foreign filings − Conformed copies are being ordered for the cort. filed byTodd S. Glassey. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order, # 2 Declaration, # 3 Exhibit US conformed copy of Case:Case: 3:14-cv-03629-WHA 15-1326 Document: As of: 1-2 02/09/2015 Page: 54 10:06 Filed: AM PST02/11/2015 14 of 19 (56 of 72)

US6370629, # 4 Exhibit Abandoned AU Filing, # 5 Exhibit Abandoned BR Filing, # 6 Exhibit Abandoned CA Filing, # 7 Exhibit Abandoned EU Filng, # 8 Exhibit Abandoned JP Filing, # 9 Exhibit Abandoned KR Filing, # 10 Exhibit Abandoned ZA Filing, # 11 Exhibit Report on AU patent as example − all non US instances abandoned)(Related document(s) 118 ) (Glassey, Todd) (Filed on 11/21/2014) Modified on 11/24/2014 (ysS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 11/21/2014) 11/22/2014 121 Supplemental Evidence − Contacts for Docket re 118 Motion for ORDER Voiding SETTLEMENT AGREEMENTS filed byTodd S. Glassey. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit FIDUCIARY RETAINER AGREEMENT for filing US6370629, # 2 Exhibit Settlement Agreement − Trusted TIming Infrastructure − for review and declared as VOID or rescinded under Motion Supporting Precedent, # 3 Exhibit Settlement Agreement − US6370629 − for review and declared as VOID or rescinded under Motion Supporting Precedent)(Related document(s) 118 ) (Glassey, Todd) (Filed on 11/22/2014) Modified on 11/24/2014 (ysS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 11/22/2014) 11/23/2014 122 First MOTION for Judgment on Partial Findings for IRC165 Fraud Loss Filings filed by Todd S. Glassey. Motion Hearing set for 12/26/2014 08:00 AM before Hon. William Alsup. Responses due by 12/8/2014. Replies due by 12/15/2014. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order, # 2 Exhibit abandoned Australian Filing, # 3 Exhibit Abandones Brazilian Filing, # 4 Exhibit Abandoned Canadian Filing, # 5 Exhibit Abandoned Japanese Filing, # 6 Exhibit Abandoned South African Filing, # 7 Exhibit conformed US patent, # 8 Exhibit Exhibit showing Cannon demanding release for South African Filing, # 9 Exhibit Co inventor Agreement)(Glassey, Todd) (Filed on 11/23/2014) (Entered: 11/23/2014) 11/23/2014 123 Re−notice of MOTION for Partial Summary Judgment for ORDER Voiding SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT re DDI (US6370629) SETTLEMENT AND TTI (US6393126) SETTLEMENT filed by Todd S. Glassey. Motion Hearing set for 12/26/2014 08:00 AM before Hon. William Alsup. Responses due by 12/8/2014. Replies due by 12/15/2014. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order proposed order granting, # 2 Exhibit supporting dec, # 3 Supplement Rescission related P&A for if Voiding is denied, # 4 Exhibit DDI Coinventor agreement, # 5 Exhibit Target for Voiding, # 6 Exhibit Target for VOIDING)(Glassey, Todd) (Filed on 11/23/2014) Modified on 11/24/2014 (ysS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 11/23/2014) 11/24/2014 124 STIPULATION JOINT STIPULATION EXTENDING TIME TO RESPOND TO AMENDED COMPLAINT filed by Google. (Shanberg, Stefani) (Filed on 11/24/2014) (Entered: 11/24/2014) 11/24/2014 125 Corrected Joint Stipulation Extending Time to Respond to 110 Amended Complaint filed by Google, Netflix. (Shanberg, Stefani) (Filed on 11/24/2014) Modified on 11/25/2014 (ysS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 11/24/2014) 11/25/2014 126 CLERK'S NOTICE Rescheduling Hearing, Set/Reset Deadlines as to 123 First MOTION for Partial Summary Judgment for ORDER Voiding SETTLEMENT AGREEMENTS, 118 First MOTION for Hearing re 6 Amended Complaint, for ORDER Voiding SETTLEMENT AGREEMENTS, 122 First MOTION for Judgment on Partial Findings for IRC165 Fraud Loss Filings. Motion Hearing set for 1/15/2015 08:00 AM before Hon. William Alsup. Case Management Conference set for 1/15/2015 08:00 AM in Courtroom 8, 19th Floor, San Francisco. (Attachments: # 1 Certificate/Proof of Service) (dt, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 11/25/2014) (Entered: 11/25/2014) 11/25/2014 (Court only) ***Deadlines terminated. Administrative only. (dt, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 11/25/2014) (Entered: 11/25/2014) 11/25/2014 127 NOTICE of Appearance by David R. Eberhart (Eberhart, David) (Filed on 11/25/2014) (Entered: 11/25/2014) 11/25/2014 128 NOTICE of Appearance by Alexander Bok−Sing Parker (Parker, Alexander) (Filed on 11/25/2014) (Entered: 11/25/2014) 11/25/2014 129 JOINT STIPULATION EXTENDING TIME FOR APPLE INC. TO RESPOND TO THE SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT filed by Apple Corp.. (Eberhart, David) (Filed on 11/25/2014) Modified on 11/26/2014 (ysS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 11/25/2014) Case:Case: 3:14-cv-03629-WHA 15-1326 Document: As of: 1-2 02/09/2015 Page: 55 10:06 Filed: AM PST02/11/2015 15 of 19 (57 of 72) 11/25/2014 130 STIPULATION re 129 Stipulation CORRECTED JOINT STIPULATION EXTENDING TIME FOR APPLE INC. TO RESPOND TO THE SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT filed by Apple Corp.. (Parker, Alexander) (Filed on 11/25/2014) (Entered: 11/25/2014) 11/25/2014 131 Certificate of Interested Entities by Apple Corp. (Eberhart, David) (Filed on 11/25/2014) Modified on 12/1/2014 (dtmS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 11/25/2014) 11/25/2014 132 Rule 7.1 Disclosure Statement. by Apple Corp.. (Eberhart, David) (Filed on 11/25/2014) Modified on 11/26/2014 (ysS, COURT STAFF). Modified on 12/1/2014 (dtmS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 11/25/2014) 11/25/2014 133 STIPULATION re 112 Amended Complaint Extending Time to Respond to Second Amended Complaint filed by Paypal, eBay. (Chiari, Stephen) (Filed on 11/25/2014) (Entered: 11/25/2014) 11/25/2014 134 STIPULATION Extending Time for Defendant Juniper Networks to Respond to Amended Complaint filed by Juniper Networks. (Woodin, Christine) (Filed on 11/25/2014) (Entered: 11/25/2014) 11/25/2014 135 STIPULATION re 110 Amended Complaint (Joint Stipulation Extending Time for Defendant Cisco Systems, Inc. to Respond to Second Amended Complaint) filed by Cisco Corp.. (Lin, James) (Filed on 11/25/2014) (Entered: 11/25/2014) 11/25/2014 136 STIPULATION re 112 Amended Complaint Extending USA's Time To Respond filed by United States Government. (Metlitzky, Warren) (Filed on 11/25/2014) (Entered: 11/25/2014) 11/25/2014 Set/Reset Deadlines as to 118 First MOTION for Hearing re 6 Amended Complaint, for ORDER Voiding SETTLEMENT AGREEMENTS. Motion Hearing set for 1/15/2015 08:00 AM in Courtroom 8, 19th Floor, San Francisco before Hon. William Alsup. (dt, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 11/25/2014) (Entered: 12/08/2014) 11/29/2014 137 First MOTION to Quash FISA or related Intel Warrant filed by Todd S. Glassey. Motion Hearing set for 1/15/2015 08:00 AM before Hon. William Alsup. Responses due by 12/15/2014. Replies due by 12/22/2014. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order)(Glassey, Todd) (Filed on 11/29/2014) (Entered: 11/29/2014) 11/29/2014 138 MOTION for Empaneling of a Three Judge Panel. filed by Todd S. Glassey. (Attachments: # 1 Declaration Declaration in Support, # 2 Proposed Order)(Glassey, Todd) (Filed on 11/29/2014) Modified on 12/1/2014 (dtmS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 11/29/2014) 11/29/2014 139 First MOTION for Partial Summary Judgment Performance Rights award filed by Todd S. Glassey. Motion Hearing set for 1/29/2015 08:00 AM before Hon. William Alsup. Responses due by 12/15/2014. Replies due by 12/22/2014. (Attachments: # 1 Supplement, # 2 Exhibit, # 3 Exhibit)(Glassey, Todd) (Filed on 11/29/2014) (Entered: 11/29/2014) 11/30/2014 140 EXHIBITS re 117 Clerk's Notice, 121 Affidavit in Support of Motion,, 6 Amended Complaint,,, 120 Request for Judicial Notice,,, 122 First MOTION for Judgment on Partial Findings for IRC165 Fraud Loss Filings, 139 First MOTION for Partial Summary Judgment Performance Rights award, 118 First MOTION for Hearing re 6 Amended Complaint,,, for ORDER Voiding SETTLEMENT AGREEMENTS, 112 Amended Complaint filed byTodd S. Glassey. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit IETF BCP78 − Participation Standards, # 2 Exhibit BCP79 − IP Rights conveyance and development, # 3 Exhibit Report on the 20 Filings made to notice IETF to cease and desist use of Plaintiffs PHASE−II IP in their standards, # 4 Declaration IETF infringement actions − 35 USC 271(a))(Related document(s) 117 , 121 , 6 , 120 , 122 , 139 , 118 , 112 ) (Glassey, Todd) (Filed on 11/30/2014) (Entered: 11/30/2014) 11/30/2014 141 First MOTION for Partial Summary Judgment correct inventorship on us6393126 filed by Todd S. Glassey. Motion Hearing set for 1/15/2015 08:00 AM before Hon. William Alsup. Responses due by 12/15/2014. Replies due by 12/22/2014. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order proposed order granting inventorship on US6393126 to Plaintiffs, # 2 Declaration Second version of dec, # 3 Exhibit LE Complaint filed in re the use of this system by the Military and Intel communities, # 4 Declaration Counterfeiting analisys, # 5 Exhibit TTI Settlement Agreement)(Glassey, Case:Case: 3:14-cv-03629-WHA 15-1326 Document: As of: 1-2 02/09/2015 Page: 56 10:06 Filed: AM PST02/11/2015 16 of 19 (58 of 72)

Todd) (Filed on 11/30/2014) (Entered: 11/30/2014) 12/01/2014 Set/Reset Deadlines as to 138 Motion Appoint 3 Judge Panel. Responses due by 12/15/2014. Replies due by 12/22/2014. Motion Hearing set for 1/15/2015 08:00 AM in Courtroom 8, 19th Floor, San Francisco before Hon. William Alsup. (dtmS, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 12/1/2014) (Entered: 12/01/2014) 12/01/2014 Set/Reset Deadlines as to 118 MOTION for Hearing for ORDER Voiding SETTLEMENT AGREEMENTS. Responses due by 12/5/2014. Replies due by 12/12/2014. Motion Hearing set for 12/19/2014 08:00 AM in Courtroom 8, 19th Floor, San Francisco before Hon. William Alsup. (dtmS, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 12/1/2014) (Entered: 12/01/2014) 12/01/2014 142 MOTION to Dismiss Second Amended Complaint filed by Internet Engineering Task Force, Internet Society, The. Motion Hearing set for 1/8/2015 08:00 AM in Courtroom 8, 19th Floor, San Francisco before Hon. William Alsup. Responses due by 12/15/2014. Replies due by 12/22/2014. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order)(Russell, Jason) (Filed on 12/1/2014) (Entered: 12/01/2014) 12/05/2014 143 RESPONSE (re 118 First MOTION for Hearing re 6 Amended Complaint,,, for ORDER Voiding SETTLEMENT AGREEMENTS ) filed byUnited States Government. (Metlitzky, Warren) (Filed on 12/5/2014) (Entered: 12/05/2014) 12/05/2014 144 Certificate of Interested Entities by Microsemi Inc Defendant Microsemi Corporation's Fed. R. Civ. P. 7.1 Corporate Disclosure Statement and Civ. L.R. 3−16 Certification of Interested Parties (Hahm, Eugene) (Filed on 12/5/2014) (Entered: 12/05/2014) 12/05/2014 145 RESPONSE (re 118 First MOTION for Hearing ) filed byMicrosemi Inc. (Hahm, Eugene) (Filed on 12/5/2014) Modified on 12/8/2014 (dtmS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 12/05/2014) 12/05/2014 146 Request for Judicial Notice re 145 Opposition/Response to Motion, filed byMicrosemi Inc. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 1, # 2 Exhibit 2)(Related document(s) 145 ) (Hahm, Eugene) (Filed on 12/5/2014) Modified on 12/8/2014 (dtmS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 12/05/2014) 12/08/2014 147 CLERK'S NOTICE Confirming Rescheduling. Motion Talbot/Gellman Review of DDI and TTI Settlements and Order Voiding Them previously set for hearing on 12/19/2014 has been rescheduled to 1/15/2015. This is a text only docket entry, there is no document associated with this notice. (dt, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 12/8/2014) (Entered: 12/08/2014) 12/08/2014 148 RESPONSE (re 123 First MOTION for Partial Summary Judgment for ORDER Voiding SETTLEMENT AGREEMENTS ) filed byMicrosemi Inc. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A, # 2 Exhibit B part 1, # 3 Exhibit B part 2)(Hahm, Eugene) (Filed on 12/8/2014) (Entered: 12/08/2014) 12/08/2014 149 RESPONSE (re 122 First MOTION for Judgment on Partial Findings for IRC165 Fraud Loss Filings ) filed byUnited States Government. (Metlitzky, Warren) (Filed on 12/8/2014) (Entered: 12/08/2014) 12/09/2014 150 STIPULATION EXTENDING TIME FOR DEFENDANT ORACLE CORPORATION TO RESPOND TO THE SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT [DKT. 112] filed by Oracle Corp.. (Chin, Lisa) (Filed on 12/9/2014) (Entered: 12/09/2014) 12/09/2014 151 STIPULATION EXTENDING TIME FOR DEFENDANT MICROSOFT CORPORATION TO RESPOND TO THE SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT [DKT. 112] filed by Microsoft Corporation. (Chin, Lisa) (Filed on 12/9/2014) (Entered: 12/09/2014) 12/11/2014 152 ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE. Show Cause Response due by 12/19/2014 at noon.. Signed by Judge Alsup on December 11, 2014. (whalc1, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 12/11/2014) (Additional attachment(s) added on 12/12/2014: # 1 Certificate/Proof of Service) (dt, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 12/11/2014) 12/11/2014 153 MOTION to Dismiss Second Amended Complaint [Dkt 112] filed by Microsemi Inc. Motion Hearing set for 1/15/2014 08:00 AM in Courtroom 8, 19th Floor, San Case:Case: 3:14-cv-03629-WHA 15-1326 Document: As of: 1-2 02/09/2015 Page: 57 10:06 Filed: AM PST02/11/2015 17 of 19 (59 of 72)

Francisco before Hon. William Alsup. Responses due by 12/26/2014. Replies due by 1/2/2015. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order)(Hahm, Eugene) (Filed on 12/11/2014) (Entered: 12/11/2014) 12/14/2014 154 RESPONSE (re 142 MOTION to Dismiss Second Amended Complaint, 139 First MOTION for Partial Summary Judgment Performance Rights award ) filed byTodd S. Glassey. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit sampling of just 20 infringing protocols)(Glassey, Todd) (Filed on 12/14/2014) (Entered: 12/14/2014) 12/15/2014 155 RESPONSE (re 139 First MOTION for Partial Summary Judgment Performance Rights award ) in Opposition filed byInternet Engineering Task Force, Internet Society, The. (Russell, Jason) (Filed on 12/15/2014) (Entered: 12/15/2014) 12/15/2014 156 RESPONSE (re 141 First MOTION for Partial Summary Judgment correct inventorship on us6393126 ) in Opposition filed byMicrosemi Inc. (Attachments: # 1 Request for Judicial Notice)(Hahm, Eugene) (Filed on 12/15/2014) (Entered: 12/15/2014) 12/15/2014 157 RESPONSE (re 138 First MOTION for Hearing re 112 Amended Complaint For Appointment of Three Judge Panel ) IN OPPOSITION filed byApple Corp.. (Parker, Alexander) (Filed on 12/15/2014) (Entered: 12/15/2014) 12/15/2014 158 RESPONSE (re 137 First MOTION to Quash FISA or related Intel Warrant ) filed byUnited States Government. (Metlitzky, Warren) (Filed on 12/15/2014) (Entered: 12/15/2014) 12/18/2014 159 Response to Order to Show Cause 152 Order,, Set Deadlines, byTodd S. Glassey. (Glassey, Todd) (Filed on 12/18/2014) (Entered: 12/18/2014) 12/19/2014 160 RESPONSE TO ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE by United States Government . (Metlitzky, Warren) (Filed on 12/19/2014) (Entered: 12/19/2014) 12/19/2014 161 RESPONSE TO ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE by Cisco Corp. [DKT. 152] WHY PLAINTIFFS' SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT [DKT. 112] SHOULD BE STRICKEN. (Lin, James) (Filed on 12/19/2014) (Entered: 12/19/2014) 12/22/2014 162 REPLY (re 142 MOTION to Dismiss Second Amended Complaint ) filed byInternet Engineering Task Force, Internet Society, The. (Russell, Jason) (Filed on 12/22/2014) (Entered: 12/22/2014) 12/22/2014 163 REPLY (re 138 First MOTION for Hearing re 112 Amended Complaint For Appointment of Three Judge Panel ) filed byTodd S. Glassey. (Glassey, Todd) (Filed on 12/22/2014) (Entered: 12/22/2014) 12/22/2014 164 Error, See Entry 168 REPLY (re 141 First MOTION for Partial Summary Judgment correct inventorship on us6393126 ) filed byTodd S. Glassey. (Glassey, Todd) (Filed on 12/22/2014) Modified on 12/23/2014 (dtmS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 12/22/2014) 12/22/2014 165 REPLY (re 123 First MOTION for Partial Summary Judgment for ORDER Voiding SETTLEMENT AGREEMENTS ) filed byTodd S. Glassey. (Glassey, Todd) (Filed on 12/22/2014) (Entered: 12/22/2014) 12/22/2014 166 REPLY (re 139 First MOTION for Partial Summary Judgment Performance Rights award ) filed byTodd S. Glassey. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit USPTO Program copyright program)(Glassey, Todd) (Filed on 12/22/2014) (Entered: 12/22/2014) 12/22/2014 167 RESPONSE (re 142 MOTION to Dismiss Second Amended Complaint ) filed byTodd S. Glassey. (Glassey, Todd) (Filed on 12/22/2014) (Entered: 12/22/2014) 12/23/2014 168 REPLY (re 141 First MOTION for Partial Summary Judgment correct inventorship on us6393126 ) CORRECTION FOR PACER 164 filed byTodd S. Glassey. (Glassey, Todd) (Filed on 12/23/2014) (Entered: 12/23/2014) 12/24/2014 169 ADR Certification (ADR L.R. 3−5 b) of discussion of ADR options (Eberhart, David) (Filed on 12/24/2014) (Entered: 12/24/2014) 12/24/2014 170 NOTICE of need for ADR Phone Conference (ADR L.R. 3−5 d) (Parker, Alexander) (Filed on 12/24/2014) (Entered: 12/24/2014) Case:Case: 3:14-cv-03629-WHA 15-1326 Document: As of: 1-2 02/09/2015 Page: 58 10:06 Filed: AM PST02/11/2015 18 of 19 (60 of 72) 12/24/2014 171 ADR Certification (ADR L.R. 3−5 b) of discussion of ADR options Plaintiffs ADR Certification (Glassey, Todd) (Filed on 12/24/2014) (Entered: 12/24/2014) 12/24/2014 172 ADR Certification (ADR L.R. 3−5 b) of discussion of ADR options by United States (Metlitzky, Warren) (Filed on 12/24/2014) (Entered: 12/24/2014) 12/24/2014 173 NOTICE of Appearance by Jonathan S Kagan (Kagan, Jonathan) (Filed on 12/24/2014) (Entered: 12/24/2014) 12/24/2014 174 ADR Certification (ADR L.R. 3−5 b) of discussion of ADR options by Juniper Networks, Inc. (Kagan, Jonathan) (Filed on 12/24/2014) (Entered: 12/24/2014) 12/24/2014 175 Certificate of Interested Entities by Juniper Networks (Kagan, Jonathan) (Filed on 12/24/2014) (Entered: 12/24/2014) 12/24/2014 176 ADR Certification (ADR L.R. 3−5 b) of discussion of ADR options by Microsemi Corporation (Auyang, Heather) (Filed on 12/24/2014) (Entered: 12/24/2014) 12/24/2014 177 ADR Certification (ADR L.R. 3−5 b) of discussion of ADR options by Microsoft Corporation (Auyang, Heather) (Filed on 12/24/2014) (Entered: 12/24/2014) 12/24/2014 178 ADR Certification (ADR L.R. 3−5 b) of discussion of ADR options by Oracle Corporation (Auyang, Heather) (Filed on 12/24/2014) (Entered: 12/24/2014) 12/24/2014 179 ADR Certification (ADR L.R. 3−5 b) of discussion of ADR options by Cisco Corp. (Lin, James) (Filed on 12/24/2014) (Entered: 12/24/2014) 12/24/2014 180 ADR Certification (ADR L.R. 3−5 b) of discussion of ADR options (Russell, Jason) (Filed on 12/24/2014) (Entered: 12/24/2014) 12/26/2014 181 ADR Certification (ADR L.R. 3−5 b) of discussion of ADR options by Google Inc. (Marder, Eugene) (Filed on 12/26/2014) (Entered: 12/26/2014) 12/26/2014 182 ADR Certification (ADR L.R. 3−5 b) of discussion of ADR options by Netflix, Inc. (Marder, Eugene) (Filed on 12/26/2014) (Entered: 12/26/2014) 12/26/2014 183 RESPONSE (re 153 MOTION to Dismiss Second Amended Complaint [Dkt 112] ) filed byTodd S. Glassey. (Glassey, Todd) (Filed on 12/26/2014) (Entered: 12/26/2014) 12/26/2014 184 EXHIBITS re 120 Request for Judicial Notice,,, 112 Amended Complaint Supporting Patent filing info from Brazil, EU and Canadian Patent Offices filed byTodd S. Glassey. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Canada Patent Prosecution History, # 2 Exhibit EP0997808A3 File Wrapper − uncertified, # 3 Exhibit Brazil Correspondence file, # 4 Exhibit Brazil Administrative processing wrapper)(Related document(s) 120 , 112 ) (Glassey, Todd) (Filed on 12/26/2014) (Entered: 12/26/2014) 12/29/2014 185 ORDER GRANTING MOTIONS TO DISMISS, STRIKING SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT, DENYING ALL PENDING MOTIONS FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT, AND VACATING ALL HEARINGS by Judge Alsup re 118 Motion ; 122 Motion for Judgment ; 123 Motion for Partial Summary Judgment; 137 Motion to Quash; 138 Motion ; 139 Motion for Partial Summary Judgment; 141 Motion for Partial Summary Judgment; 142 Motion to Dismiss; 153 Motion to Dismiss. (whalc1, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 12/29/2014) (Entered: 12/29/2014) 12/29/2014 186 JUDGMENT. Signed by Judge Alsup on December 29, 2014. (whalc1, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 12/29/2014) (Entered: 12/29/2014) 12/29/2014 187 NOTICE OF APPEAL to the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals filed by Todd S. Glassey. (Appeal fee FEE NOT PAID.) (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Order Denying Motions, # 2 Exhibit Dismissal)(Glassey, Todd) (Filed on 12/29/2014) (Entered: 12/29/2014) 12/29/2014 (Court only) ***Civil Case Terminated. (dtmS, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 12/29/2014) (Entered: 12/30/2014) 12/30/2014 188 Request for payment of docket fee to appellant (cc to USCA) (dtmS, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 12/30/2014) (Entered: 12/30/2014) 12/30/2014 189 REPORT on the determination of an action regarding Patent (cc: form mailed to register). (dtmS, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 12/30/2014) (Entered: 12/30/2014) Case:Case: 3:14-cv-03629-WHA 15-1326 Document: As of: 1-2 02/09/2015 Page: 59 10:06 Filed: AM PST02/11/2015 19 of 19 (61 of 72) 12/31/2014 USCA Appeal Fees received $ 505 receipt number 34611101794 re 187 Notice of Appeal filed by Todd S. Glassey (dtmS, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 12/31/2014) (Entered: 01/02/2015) 01/07/2015 190 USCA Case Number 14−17574 for 187 Notice of Appeal filed by Todd S. Glassey. (dtmS, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 1/7/2015) (Entered: 01/07/2015) 01/07/2015 191 AMENDED NOTICE OF APPEAL by Todd S. Glassey Motion to fix improper filing in Ninth Circuit − this is a DC Circuit case. Appeal Record due by 2/6/2015. (Attachments: # 1 Improperly filed Notice of Appeal, # 2 Motion to Appellate Court to correct Filing, # 3 Declartation in support, # 4 Memorandum in re Tax Matters where NO RETURN WAS FILED (automatic DC Circuit only standing), # 5 ECF POS notice)(Glassey, Todd) (Filed on 1/7/2015) (Entered: 01/07/2015) 02/07/2015 192 AMENDED NOTICE OF APPEAL by Todd S. Glassey as to 186 Judgment, Terminate Deadlines and Hearings, 185 Order on Motion for Hearing,, Order on Motion for Judgment on Partial Findings,, Order on Motion for Partial Summary Judgment,, Order on Motion to Quash,,,,,,,, Order on Motion to Dismiss,,, . Appeal Record due by 3/9/2015. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Webpage showing only link on CAND Site points to Ninth Circuit Appeal form, # 2 Exhibit Only Appeal form available from Website requires appeal to Ninth Circuit, # 3 Exhibit USDC Dismissal being appealed, # 4 Exhibit Original form we tried to file and were told by clerks that this was wrong form.)(Glassey, Todd) (Filed on 2/7/2015) (Entered: 02/07/2015) 02/09/2015 193 Corrected NOTICE OF APPEAL to the Federal Circuit as to 70 Order on Motion to Transfer Case, 185 Order on Motion for Hearing, Order on Motion for Judgment on Partial Findings, Order on Motion for Partial Summary Judgment, Order on Motion to Quash, Order on Motion to Dismiss, 186 Judgment by Todd S. Glassey, Michael Edward McNeil. Appeal Record due by 3/11/2015. Fee $505 Previously Paid on 12/31/14. (Attachments: # 1 Previous Notice of Appeal filed 1−7−15)(dtmS, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 2/9/2015) (Entered: 02/09/2015) United States District Court For the Northern District of California 28 27 26 25 24 23 22 21 20 19 18 17 16 15 14 13 12 11 10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 The motions todismiss are rules asfollows.Forthe reasonsstatedherein,allclaims are assign themselves patentrightstheyadmit theydonotown. motions, includingamotion totakeamulti-trillion dollar lossontheir2014taxesandamotion to their rights“controlmost onlinecommerce intheUStoday.” intellectual propertyrightsto“apartofvirtually allnetworkingsystems inuseglobally” andthat have suedmore thantwentydefendants, including loss inhistory”basedonallegationstheysay“soundedLooneyoriginally.”Nevertheless, and “UNSERVED”DOES, ERIK VANDERKAAY,ANDTHALESGROUP, NETFLIX INC.,ORACLEMARKHASTINGS, JUNIPER NETWORKS, MICROSOFTCORP., PAYPAL INC.,GOOGLE APPLE INC.,CISCOEBAY THE IETFANDINTERNETSOCIETY, STATE OFCALIFORNIA,GOVERNORBROWN, PRESIDENT OFTHEUNITEDSTATES, MICROSEMI INC,USGOVERNMENT, v. TODD S.GLASSEYandMICHAELE.MCNEIL, Case3:14-cv-03629-WHA Document185Filed12/29/14Page1of8 Case: 15-1326Document:1-2Page:60Filed:02/11/2015 Having reviewedthemore than1,000 pages lardedintherecordbyplaintiffs,thisorder A weekafterfilingtheirsecondamended complaint, plaintiffs filedsix“dispositive” Two pro se Defendants. Plaintiffs, plaintiffs seektoobtainmillions of dollarsindamages for the“largestfraud FOR THENORTHERNDISTRICTOFCALIFORNIA IN THEUNITEDSTATESDISTRICTCOURT * * * G RANTED . Allofplaintiffs’motions are the UnitedStates.Plaintiffsclaim toownthe / VACATING HEARINGS SUMMARY JUDGMENT,AND PENDING MOTIONSFOR COMPLAINT, DENYINGALL SECOND AMENDED TO DISMISS,STRIKING ORDER GRANTINGMOTIONS No. C14-03629WHA D ISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE D ENIED . . (62 of72) United States District Court For the Northern District of California 28 27 26 25 24 23 22 21 20 19 18 17 16 15 14 13 12 11 10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 No. 3:13-cv-04662-NC(N.D. Cal.)(JudgeNatCousins). No. 4:06-cv-06128-PJH(N.D. Cal.)(JudgePhyllisHamilton); al. Technologies, etal. No. 04-05142(N.D.Cal.Bankr.) (JudgeMarilynMorgan); dismissal withprejudice(Dkt.No.109).Theinitialcasemanagement conferencewasvacated. plausible case.Theywerewarnedthatfailureto curetheidentifieddeficienciescouldresultin complaint wasstricken. Plaintiffsweregivenonemore chancetopleadtheirbestandmost denied. Sixdefendantsthenmoved todismiss andinanOctober2014order,thefirstamended was issued. voluntarily dismissed aswell,after anordertoshowcauseregardingsubject-matter jurisdiction Symmetricom, Inc. Ct.). dismissed thelawsuit. contract, andotherclaims arisingfrom thesettlement agreements. Plaintiffs thenvoluntarily plaintiffs commenced alawsuit inSantaCruzSuperiorCourt,allegingmalpractice, breachof patents referencedinthesecondamended complaint. 1999 viatwosettlement agreements. DefendantMicrosemi Corp.isnowtheassigneeof alleged thatplaintiffs assignedtheirintellectualpropertyrightstoanentitycalledDatum Inc.in least sevenlawfirms wereretainedfor thismatter. Corp., NetflixInc.,OraclePayPala Apple Inc.,CiscoeBayGoogleJuniperNetworksMicrosemi Inc.,Microsoft States, the“StateofCalifornia,”individuals,andmany technologycompanies —including, , No. 5:05-cv-01604-RMW (N.D. Cal.) (Judge Ronald Whyte); (N.D.Cal.)(JudgeRonaldWhyte); , No.5:05-cv-01604-RMW Case3:14-cv-03629-WHA Document185Filed12/29/14Page2of8 Case: 15-1326Document:1-2Page:61Filed:02/11/2015 * Pro se Plaintiffs subsequentlycommenced anewlawsuitinfederalcourt. After thesettlement agreements weresigned—approximately sevenyearslater— In essence,totheextentcomprehensible, theeighty-pagesecondamended complaint Pro se Mr. Glasseyhascommenced severalactionsinour district. plaintiffslatercommenced thisaction.Their motion fora“three-judgepanel”was plaintiffsareToddGlasseyandMichaelMcNeil. , No. 5:04-cv-02522-JW (N.D.Cal.)(JudgeJames , No.5:04-cv-02522-JW Ware); , No.3:13-cv-04662-NC(N.D.Cal.)(JudgeNatCousins).Thatactionwas McNeil, etal.v.Symmetricom,Inc. nd more. The UnitedStateshasappearedandat 2 Glassey v.NationalInstitute of Standards& Glassey,etal.v.Symmetricom, Inc. Glassey v.D-LinkCorporation See, e.g. , No.CV-165643(SantaCruzSup. * Glassey v.AmanoCorporation, et DefendantsincludetheUnited , Glassey v.AmanoCorp.,etal. Glassey, etal.v. , , (63 of72) , United States District Court For the Northern District of California 28 27 26 25 24 23 22 21 20 19 18 17 16 15 14 13 12 11 10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 that offends theConstitutionisrejected. exist) wereissuedtoanunidentified “attorney”whichthencouldcreatea“conflict of interest” Their contentionthatitispossibleFISAwarrants may existandthatthosewarrants(ifthey —, 133S.Ct.1138,1150(2013).Plaintiffs’theory, totheextentcomprehensible, isfarfetched. three-judge panelisrequired. panel (Dkt.No.70).Now,plaintiffsmove again “abandoned” patentapplications allegedlyfiledin their 2014taxesbasedon “lossofaccess”totheir“intellectualpropertyrights” basedon does notsufficetoestablishArticleIIIstanding. The Supreme CourthasstatedintheFISAcontextthatamere speculative chainof possibilities attorney-client relationships.TheUnitedStatesfiledanoppositionbrief(Dkt.No.158). to refuseopenfraudinvestigations,andthatthere“could”beinterferencewithpotential “treason” hasoccurredandthatthereisa“seditiousconspiracy”byvariousforeigngovernments Plaintiffs donotknowifanywarrantsexist,they Internationally issuedFISAorIntelligenceWarrants” concerningvarious“intellectualproperty.” defendants (whohaveappeared)eachfiledbriefs.Thisorderrulesasfollows. stricken. DefendantMicrosemi, Inc.thenfiledamotion todismiss. to showcauseregardingwhetherthesecondamended complaint should(ornot)be six motions. Defendant InternetSocietyfiledamo Case3:14-cv-03629-WHA Document185Filed12/29/14Page3of8 Case: 15-1326Document:1-2Page:62Filed:02/11/2015 Plaintiffs’ motion is .M 3. M Plaintiffs’ motion is 2. No motion toquash“FISAorrelatedwarrants”couldpossiblybejustifiedonthisrecord. R Plaintiffs’ motion is 1. In responsetotheordershowcause,plaintiffs,UnitedStates,andother An eighty-pagesecondamended complaint wasthenfiled.Aweeklater,plaintiffsfiled ENEWED OTION TO OTION OTION FOR M Q D D D OTION FOR P UASH ENIED ENIED ENIED ARTIAL FISA . Apriororderdeniedtheoriginalmotion forathree-judge . Plaintiffs move totakeamulti-trillion dollar“fraud loss”on . Plaintiffs move toquash“anyexistingIntelligenceor S T UMMARY OR OR HREE R ELATED -J 3 for athree-judgepanel.Asstatedbefore,no forthrightly admit. Theyinsteadspeculatethat Clapper v.AmnestyInternationalUSA UDGE foreigncountries.Plaintiffs pointtoonline J tion todismiss. Bothsidesweretheninvited UDGMENT W P ANEL ARRANTS R . E “F . RAUD L OSS .” , —U.S. (64 of72) United States District Court For the Northern District of California 28 27 26 25 24 23 22 21 20 19 18 17 16 15 14 13 12 11 10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 104 F.2d967,969(3dCir. 1939).Plaintiffs’relianceon Telular Corp. 121-2). to the“ProtectedTechnology,”aterm definedatlengthinthesettlement agreement (Dkt.No. royalties fortheyears2000through2002,plaintiffs agr thereof” withrightstosublicense(Dkt.No.121-3). Inthe“TTIsettlement,” in exchange for a non-exclusive,irrevocableworldwidelicenseto the“PhaseIITechnologyandderivative “Controlling AccessPatent”andpatentapplicationto in exchangefor$300,000,plaintiffsagreedtoassignallrights,title,andinterestthe (based ontheunauthenticatedsettlement agreements filed byplaintiffs), inthe“DDIsettlement,” moving to“void” thesettlement agreements theysignedmore thanfifteenyearsago.Inshort briefs havebeenread. appropriate. Plaintiffs’motion totakea“fraudloss”ontheir2014taxes is plaintiffs’ filingsandthisordertotheInternalRevenueServiceanyotheragenciesas it willnotbereferredtotheiroffice.TheUnitedStatesAttorneymay forwardacopyof “tax” matter plaintiffsbrought.SincetheUnitedStatesAttorneyisalreadyawareofthismotion, the complaint; and(4)thebaremotion lackedanyswornandauthenticatedsupport. plaintiffs’ motion wasprocedurallyimproper becauseitwasfiledbeforeanydefendantanswered jurisdiction; (2)thereisnoevidencetheUnitedStateswaiveditssovereignimmunity; (3) D Australia. Plaintiffs’requestsforjudicialno “printouts” from patentofficesinEurope,S ENIED Case3:14-cv-03629-WHA Document185Filed12/29/14Page4of8 Case: 15-1326Document:1-2Page:63Filed:02/11/2015 To “void”thesetwosettlement agreements, plaintiffs reference twodecisions: Plaintiffs move toawardthemselves “fullcustody” oftwoUnitedStatespatentsby Plaintiffs statethatdocketnumber 123“replaces”docketnumber 118.Nevertheless,both None ofthereliefdemandedbyplaintiffsisgranted The UnitedStatesrespondsthatplaintiffs’motion shouldbedeniedbecause(1)thereisno .M 4. . , 449F.App’x941,945 (Fed. Cir.2011)and OTION TO OTION V OID THE DDI AND outh Africa,Japan,Brazil,Korea,Canada,and tice, whichwerenotproperlyauthenticated,are 4 TTI

S Datum, Inc.Plaintiffsalsogranted Datum ETTLEMENTS eed todisclaim anyownershipinorrights Gellman . ThisCourtlacksjurisdictionoverthe Talbot v.Quaker-StateOil Ref.Co. and . Talbot D ENIED ismisplaced. . Gellman v. (65 of72) , United States District Court For the Northern District of California 28 27 26 25 24 23 22 21 20 19 18 17 16 15 14 13 12 11 10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 passed. years,” plaintiffssuedtoenforcethoseagreements backin2009. Thestatuteoflimitations has if plaintiffsneverreceiveda“countersignedcopy” provided inthesecondamended complaint andnoneofplaintiffsarguments ispersuasive.Even should be“voided”basedontherecordpresented.Indeed,nonoticeofthis“claim forrelief”was answered thecomplaint andbeforetheinitialcasemanagement conference(Dkt.No.148). and (4)plaintiffs’motion wasprocedurallyimproper becauseitwasfiledbeforeanydefendant plaintiffs nowseekto“void;”(3)norescissionclaim waspledinthesecondamended complaint; (2) thesecondamended complaint reliedonthevalidityoftwosettlement agreements should bedeniedbecause(1)plaintiffs’claims arebarredbythefour-yearstatuteoflimitations; party permitted toenforcethetwopatentsatissue”(Opp.1).Itarguesthatplaintiffs’motion Talbot co-owner. Thatjudgment wasbindinginthelater-filedfederallawsuit.Neither owner ofapatenthadthepowertograntlicense because of standing toassertpatentinfringement. (Moreonthisbelow.) sole ownershipwas“thinandunsupportive,”dismi the legalownersofassertedpatentwerenotpartiestoactionandplaintiff’sevidence standing. Plaintiff’slatehusbandwasanamed co-i patent andto“reassign” that patentand“allpublishedinstancesofit”to themselves. As “proof,” requests forjudicialnoticeare Case3:14-cv-03629-WHA Document185Filed12/29/14Page5of8 Case: 15-1326Document:1-2Page:64Filed:02/11/2015 support“voiding”thetwosettlement agreements here. Plaintiffs’ motion is Accordingly, plaintiffs’motion is No reasonablejurorcouldfindthatthesettlement agreements plaintiffssignedin1999 Defendant Microsemi statesthatitisthecurrentassignee,“soleownerandonly In .M 5. In Talbot Gellman res judicata (anon-bindingdecisionfrom 1939),theThirdCircuitaffirmed dismissal OTION FOR (anunpublisheddecision),theFederalCircuitaffirmed dismissal forlackof . TheSupreme CourtofPennsylvaniahadpreviouslyheldthatonejoint D P ENIED ARTIAL D ENIED AS . Plaintiffsmove toaddthemselves asnamed inventors toa S UMMARY D M ENIED OOT 5 . tothepatentwithoutconsentofother . Totheextentnotreliedupon,Microsemi’s J ofthesettlement agreements for“12and3/4 ssal wasproper.Heretoo,plaintiffslack nventor oftheassertedpatent.Becauseall UDGMENT OF P ATENT I NVENTORSHIP Gellman nor . (66 of72) United States District Court For the Northern District of California 28 27 26 25 24 23 22 21 20 19 18 17 16 15 14 13 12 11 10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 Microsemi’s requestsforjudicialnoticeare Society alsoarguesthat plaintiffs shouldbe plaintiffs lardedintothe record innowaysupportthereliefdemanded, saysdefendant.Internet to identifyanyspecificpublicationorstandardpromulgated by defendant.The“narratives” complaint failedtoallegeownershipinany identifiablecopyrightedworkand(2)plaintiffsfailed specific swornfacts.Inpertinentpart,InternetSociety arguesthat(1)thesecondamended argues thatnoreliefcanbeprovidedforpl activity” withinit—notalegalentitydefendant clarifies. Inanyevent,Internet Society Plaintiffs seekcopyrightprotectionovertheIETF’spublications. companies, includingApple,Google, Cisco,Micros Engineering TaskForce(“IETF”)isa“rogue IETF StandardcontainingPlaintiffs’PHASE-IIIPs” PERFORMANCE RIGHTSSTANDINGagainsttheex relief demanded byplaintiffs.Plaintiffs’motion is before theinitialcasemanagement conference(Dkt.No.156). was procedurallyimproper becauseitwasfiledbeforeanydefendantansweredthecomplaint and “all publishedinstances”ofthepatentshouldbe“reassigned”tothem; and(4)plaintiffs’motion plaintiffs contributedtoconceptionoftheclaime since therelevantpatentissuedin2002;(2)thereisnoclearandconvincingevidencethat plaintiffs thesoleinventors. they soughtto“void”above)purportedlysuppor plaintiffs arguethatthe“existence”oftheirsettlement agreements (theverysame agreements Case3:14-cv-03629-WHA Document185Filed12/29/14Page6of8 Case: 15-1326Document:1-2Page:65Filed:02/11/2015 .M 6. Defendant InternetSocietyisanon-profitcorporationandtheIETFan“organized Plaintiffs’ Motionis There isnoevidenceintherecord,letaloneclearandconvincingevidence,supporting Defendant Microsemi arguesthat(1)plaintiffs’inventorshipclaim isbarredbylaches OTION FOR D P ENIED ARTIAL . Totheextentcomprehensible, plaintiffsseek“full S UMMARY aintiffs’ baremotion, whichwasunsupportedby D ordered toshowcausewhy theyshouldnotbe state,” whopublishedstandardsusedbytechnology ENIED AS 6 ts removing thenamed inventorsandmaking d invention;(3)plaintiffsprovidednoproofthat J D UDGMENT RE oft, Oracle,JuniperNetworks,andsoforth. (Br.2).PlaintiffsarguethattheInternet ENIED ecution ofanyprogram derivedfrom an M OOT . Totheextentnotreliedupon, . “P ERFORMANCE R IGHTS (67 of72) .” United States District Court For the Northern District of California 28 27 26 25 24 23 22 21 20 19 18 17 16 15 14 13 12 11 10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 556 U.S.662,678(2009)and plausible claim. Noneofplaintiffs’ amended complaint are utterly frivolouslawsuit. Accordingly,defendant States, andsevenlawfirms shouldnotbedragged intoincurringtheexpenseofthishopelessand to dismiss andthepriororderstrikingcomplaint. Twentydefendants,including theUnited previously identified,despitehavinghadanopportunity toreviewthethen-pendingsixmotions granting leavetoamend wouldbefutile. Plaintiffs havefailed tocurethemultitude of defects motions todismiss, andplaintiffs’responsetotheorder showcause,thisorderfindsthat antitrust injury. statute oflimitations haslongpassed. time-barred. Most, ifnotall,ofplaintiffs’claims datebacktothe1990sandearly2000s.The for eventheyconcedethatdonotowntheassertedpatents. standing tosuetheUnitedStates. failed toestablishthattheUnitedStateshaswaiveditssovereignimmunity, orthattheyhave problems with plaintiffs’ pleadingsoonlya few willbecalledoutnow. plausible casecouldresultindismissal withprejudice(Dkt.No.109). multitude of defects. Atthattime, plaintiffs werewarnedthatfailure topleadtheirbestandmost Plaintiffs arenowontheirsecondamended complaint, aftertheirpriorpleadingwasstrickenfora Plaintiffs’ motion is shown anyspecificswornevidencethatthey“own”theInternetSociety’spublications. brought.) declared avexatiouslitigant.(Nomotion todeclareplaintiffs avexatiouslitiganthasbeen Case3:14-cv-03629-WHA Document185Filed12/29/14Page7of8 Case: 15-1326Document:1-2Page:66Filed:02/11/2015 .D Months havepassedandplaintiffsutte 7. Having consideredplaintiffs’secondamended complaint, plaintiffs’oppositionstothe It isnowhopelesstocontinuewiththislawsuit.Therearetoomany fundamental None ofthereliefdemanded byplaintiffsiswa ISMISSAL OFTHE D ENIED G RANTED . Bell AtlanticCorp.v.Twombly . Second S ECOND pleadings (Dkt.Nos.1,6,112)satisfied Fourth , plaintiffslackstandingtoassertpatentinfringement A , thesecondamended complaint failedtoallege MENDED 7 s’ motions todismiss and tostrikethesecond rly failedtofileapleadingthatstates rranted bythisrecord.Plaintiffshavenot C OMPLAINT , 550U.S.544,555(2007). Third . , plaintiffs’claims are First Ashcroft v.Iqbal , plaintiffshave (68 of72) , United States District Court For the Northern District of California 28 27 26 25 24 23 22 21 20 19 18 17 16 15 14 13 12 11 10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 herein ( ae: Dcme 9 04 Dated: December 29,2014. order. complaint ishereby relied upon,allofplaintiffs’requestsforjudicialnoticeare Case3:14-cv-03629-WHA Document185Filed12/29/14Page8of8 Case: 15-1326Document:1-2Page:67Filed:02/11/2015 IT ISSOORDERED. For thereasonsstatedherein,allofplaintiffs’motions are i.e. , January8,15,and29)arehereby

S TRICKEN . Theentireactionis CONCLUSION V ACATED 8 U W D NITED ILLIAM ISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE . Judgment shallbeenteredinaseparate D S ENIED TATES A LSUP D ENIED . Thesecondamended D ISTRICT . Totheextentnot J . Allhearings UDGE (69 of72) United States District Court For the Northern District of California 28 27 26 25 24 23 22 21 20 19 18 17 16 15 14 13 12 11 10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 ae: Spebr2,21. Dated: September 25,2014. an October14hearingdate.The ishereby panel pursuanttoSection2284(a).Accordingly, thismotion is The issuesraisedinthecomplaint, totheextentcomprehensible, donotrequireathree-judge 2284 ofTitle28theUnitedStatesCode.Section2284(a)states: “NAMED DOES,” HASTINGS ANDERIKVANDERKAAY)AS CHEN ESQ.,ANDTWO INDIVIDUALS(MARK NETFLIX, ANDORACLE),USPTOALJPETER JUNIPER NETWORKS, MICROSOFT, TO APPLE,CISCO,EBAY/PAYPAL,GOOGLE, PARTNERS (INCLUDINGBUTNOTLIMITED THE USGOVERNMENTANDINDUSTRY MICROSEMI INC,THEIETFANDISOC, v. TODD S.GLASSEYandMICHAELE.MCNEIL, Case3:14-cv-03629-WHA Document70Filed09/25/14Page1of1 Case: 15-1326Document:1-2Page:68Filed:02/11/2015 IT ISSOORDERED. Pro se plaintiffToddGlasseyfileda“motion forthreejudgepanel,”invoking Section or theapportionment ofanystatewidelegislativebody. the constitutionalityofapportionment of congressionaldistricts required byActofCongress,orwhenanactionis filedchallenging A districtcourtofthreejudgesshallbeconvened whenotherwise Defendants. Plaintiffs, FOR THENORTHERNDISTRICTOFCALIFORNIA IN THEUNITEDSTATESDISTRICTCOURT / U W NITED ILLIAM AND VACATINGHEARING FOR THREE-JUDGEPANEL ORDER DENYINGMOTION No. C14-03629WHA S TATES A V D ACATED LSUP ENIED D . Themotion identifies ISTRICT . J UDGE (70 of72) Case3:14-cv-03629-WHACase: 15-1326 Document: Document70-1 1-2 Page: Filed09/25/14 69 Filed: 02/11/2015 Page1 of 1 (71 of 72)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

TODD S GLASSEY et al, Case Number: CV14-03629 WHA Plaintiff, CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE v. MICROSEMI INC et al, Defendant. /

I, the undersigned, hereby certify that I am an employee in the Office of the Clerk, U.S. District Court, Northern District of California. That on September 25, 2014, I SERVED a true and correct copy(ies) of the attached, by placing said copy(ies) in a postage paid envelope addressed to the person(s) hereinafter listed, by depositing said envelope in the U.S. Mail, or by placing said copy(ies) into an inter-office delivery receptacle located in the Clerk's office.

Michael E. McNeil P.O. Box 604 Felton, CA 95018-0640 Todd S. Glassey 305 McGaffigan Mill Road Boulder Creek, CA 95006 Dated: September 25, 2014 Richard W. Wieking, Clerk By: Dawn Toland, Deputy Clerk United States District Court For the Northern District of California 28 27 26 25 24 23 22 21 20 19 18 17 16 15 14 13 12 11 10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 ae: Dcme 9 04 Dated: December 29,2014. striking secondamended complaint, and “UNSERVED”DOES, ERIK VANDERKAAY,ANDTHALESGROUP, NETFLIX INC.,ORACLEMARKHASTINGS, JUNIPER NETWORKS, MICROSOFTCORP., PAYPAL INC.,GOOGLE APPLE INC.,CISCOEBAY THE IETFANDINTERNETSOCIETY, STATE OFCALIFORNIA,GOVERNORBROWN, PRESIDENT OFTHEUNITEDSTATES, MICROSEMI INC,USGOVERNMENT, v. TODD S.GLASSEYandMICHAELE.MCNEIL, defendants andagainstplaintiffs.TheClerk Case3:14-cv-03629-WHA Document186Filed12/29/14Page1of1 Case: 15-1326Document:1-2Page:70Filed:02/11/2015 IT ISSOORDERED. For thereasonsstatedinaccompanying ordergrantingmotions todismiss and Defendants. Plaintiffs, FOR THENORTHERNDISTRICTOFCALIFORNIA IN THEUNITEDSTATESDISTRICTCOURT F INAL J UDGMENT IS S HALL C U W / LOSE THE NITED ILLIAM H JUDGMENT No. C14-03629WHA EREBY S TATES A F ILE LSUP E NTERED . D ISTRICT in favorof J UDGE (72 of72)