3rd Pacer--DECLARATION OF MAC LECKRON IN SUPPORT OF TECHNOLOGY
PROPERTIES LIMITED’S AND ALLIACENSE LIMITED’S ADMINISTRATIVE MOTION TO FILE CONFIDENTIAL EXHIBITS UNDER SEAL

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
SAN FRANCISCO DIVISION
BARCO, N.V.,
Plaintiff,
vs.
TECHNOLOGY PROPERTIES LTD.,
PATRIOT SCIENTIFIC CORP., and
ALLIACENSE LTD.,
Defendants.

DECLARATION OF MAC LECKRONE IN SUPPORT OF TECHNOLOGY
PROPERTIES LIMITED’S AND ALLIACENSE LIMITED’S ADMINISTRATIVE MOTION TO FILE
CONFIDENTIAL EXHIBITS UNDER SEAL

I, Mac Leckrone, declare as follows:

1. I am the President and Chief Operating Officer of defendant Alliacense Limited
(“Alliacense”). I have held this position for approximately five years. I am a member in good
standing of the California State Bar, although I do not operate in a legal capacity in my position at
Alliacense, and have never represented Alliacense, its parent Technology Properties Limited
(“TPL”), or any related entities. I have personal knowledge of the matters set forth below, and if
called and sworn as a witness, I could and would competently testify to the facts set forth herein.
2. Alliacense is the corporate entity responsible for licensing and enforcing the
Moore Microprocessor Patent (“MMP”) Portfolio, which includes the patents-in-suit. As
President and Chief Operating Officer of Alliacense, I am primarily responsible for directing
Alliacense’s MMP Portfolio licensing program as well as the analysis involved in creating reverse
engineering product reports regarding potential infringement of the MMP Portfolio. To date, over
80 companies have entered into license agreements as part of Alliacense’s licensing program for
the MMP Portfolio.
3. Currently, Alliacense is in discussion with companies in various industries
regarding participation in the MMP Portfolio licensing program, in which prospective licensees
compete within their industry segment for “tiered” pricing, which rewards early movers with
lower royalty rates. Because of this competitive environment, Alliacense conducts all of its
negotiations confidentially to prevent information that is competitively sensitive to Alliacense and
TPL from being disseminated to other prospective licensees or third parties. Negotiations are
conducted between Alliacense and the prospective licensee, and despite frequent requests,
exclude third parties such as components vendors and other third parties.
4. As a part of Alliacense’s licensing negotiations, Alliacense typically provides to
the prospective licensee confidential “Product Reports” and other information relating to the
MMP Portfolio. These Product Reports depict the confidential technical analyses, including
significant reverse engineering efforts, conducted by Alliacense engineers, which demonstrate
how a prospective licensee’s strategically significant product lines utilize the MMP Portfolio.
Alliacense’s approach to the licensing of technology like the MMP Portfolio is unique in its
volume, detail, breadth, and organization, and is the subject of frequent compliment by
prospective licensees. Alliacense invests extremely significant financial and human resources in
the development of its highly detailed Product Reports.
5. Product Reports are disseminated only to the prospective licensee and are treated
as confidential material. The Product Reports all include a “confidential” stamp on every page
and are proprietary to Alliacense. The Product Reports are solely intended to advance licensing
negotiations by assisting a prospective licensee with evaluating Alliacense’s licensing program.
6. If third party companies obtained the confidential information communicated
between Alliacense and a prospective licensee, including the Product Reports, the information
could be used to competitively harm Alliacense as well as the prospective licensee. Such
competitively sensitive information includes the careful business analysis and selection of
strategically significant products, the compilations of technical references and data used in
supporting the analytical work, the reverse engineering reports purchased and conducted by
Alliacense, and the technical analysis conducted by Alliacense engineers. Unintended third party
access to this competitively sensitive information would likely be used to negotiate lower royalty
rates with Alliacense and delay, obstruct, and harm negotiations with Alliacense by taking actions
and sharing data pertaining to another company’s potential license scope or the technical analysis
conducted by Alliacense. Alliacense invests significant financial and human resources in the long
sales cycles associated with its business model, which is built on education rather than litigation.
If multiple prospective licensees, or third parties connected to multiple licensees, were given
access to the competitively sensitive information, companies would likely coordinate their
responses and strategies in an effort collectively to refuse to deal with Alliacense.
7. The Infringement Contentions served in this case incorporate or have attached to
them confidential, detailed Product Reports containing confidential technical analyses of the type
described above, including Alliacense’s Reverse Engineering Reports. These detailed Product
Reports cover the product lines of plaintiff Barco, N.V. (“Barco”). If the Alliacense Product
Reports, which were marked as confidential and treated by all parties as confidential when
provided, are suddenly not treated as confidential information, Barco and other companies would
be free to share the content of the Product Reports with any number of companies, some of whom
are known to be prospective licensees themselves, and known to be supporting the efforts of their
customers who are also known to be prospective licensees. Without the confidentiality
designation, this information that is confidential to Alliacense may even end up on the Internet.
These prospective licensees could use the content of the Product Reports to coordinate their
responses and strategies in an effort to block and harm Alliacense’s licensing program, including
a coordinated refusal to deal with Alliacense. The companies to which Barco could give
Alliacense’s proprietary information would otherwise pay substantial consideration to develop or
purchase comparable information. Thus, the Product Reports, including the ones provided to
Barco as part of the ongoing negotiations, and as a helpful supplement to the Infringement
Contentions served in these cases, derive economic value by virtue of their being confidential. If
the information from these Product Reports were deemed non-confidential, the information could
be widely disseminated and cause significant, irreparable competitive harm to Alliacense.
8. The excerpts of infringement contentions constituting Exhibits A-1 through A-11,
B-1 through B-5, and C-1 through C-5 to the Discovery Dispute Joint Report #2 (Docket No.
209) are excerpts of Alliacense’s Infringement Contentions and contain reproductions of Product
Reports and reverse engineering reports belonging to Alliacense that relate to Barco’s accused
products in this litigation. These Product Reports and Reverse Engineering Reports were created
by Alliacense and contain highly confidential proprietary information, and their public disclosure
would cause substantial harm to Alliacense’s competitive and financial position as discussed
herein.
9. When similar Alliacense Product Reports were attached as exhibits to the
Declaration of Jeffrey M. Ratinoff in Support of Plaintiffs’ Opposition to Defendants’ Motion for
Leave to Amend Infringement Contentions Pursuant to Patent L.R. 3-7, and to Barco’s Motion for
Summary Judgment of Non-Infringement as to U.S. Patent No. 5,809,336, the Court granted the
requests to seal those Product Reports. See Docket No. 188, Case No. 5:08-cv-08877; Docket
No. 128, Case No. 5:08-cv-05398.
I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the United States of America that the
foregoing is true and correct. Executed on September 13, 2011, at Tokyo, Japan.

Mac Leckrone