4th Pacer--DECLARATION OF DEEPAK GUPTA IN SUPPORT OF TECHNOLOGY
PROPERTIES LIMITED’S ANDALLIACENSE 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 DEEPAK GUPTA IN SUPPORT OF TECHNOLOGY
PROPERTIES LIMITED’S ANDALLIACENSE LIMITED’S ADMINISTRATIVE MOTION TO FILE
CONFIDENTIAL EXHIBITS UNDER SEAL

I, Deepak Gupta, declare as follows:

1. I am licensed to practice law in the State of California and am an associate at the
law firm of Farella Braun + Martel LLP, attorneys for TECHNOLOGY PROPERTIES LIMITED
and ALLIACENSE LIMITED (collectively, “TPL”). 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. I have reviewed the Declaration of Mac Leckrone in Support of TPL’s
Administrative Motion to File Confidential Exhibits Under Seal, filed concurrently herewith
(hereinafter “Leckrone Decl.”). The Product Reports that constitute Exhibits A-1 through A-11,
B-1 through B-5, and C-1 through C-5 to the Discovery Dispute Joint Report #2 (Dkt. 209)
contain what TPL considers to be “confidential proprietary information.” Leckrone Decl., ¶ 8.
As Mr. Leckrone states in his declaration, the product reports TPL prepares are disseminated only
to prospective licensees and are always treated as confidential material. Id., ¶ 5. If this
information was made public, it could harm TPL as well as the prospective licensees. Id., 6.
For the reasons cited in Mr. Leckrone’s declarations, therefore, TPL requests that the exhibits to
the Discovery Dispute Joint Report #2 be placed under seal.
3. Due to an inadvertent oversight, Defendants’ counsel did not file a declaration in
support of sealing earlier in response to Plaintiff Barco’s administrative motion and first became
aware of the need to file this declaration when it received Magistrate Lloyd’s order of September
12, 2011. (Dkt. 214). Defendants’ counsel regrets this error, which was not the error of its clients
and should not prejudice them. The exhibits submitted by Plaintiff and analogous documents
have been diligently kept confidential and have remained under seal for the duration of these
proceedings. Upon receipt of Judge Lloyd’s Order, lead counsel for TPL promptly asked
Barco’s attorneys to refrain from filing the Product Reports in the public record as a professional
courtesy pending TPL’s filing of a motion and declaration asking that the documents be sealed.
Barco agreed. On September 12 and 13, 2011, lead counsel John Cooper and I further conferred
with counsel for Barco, explained TPL’s inadvertence and sought Barco’s agreement not to
oppose this administrative request for a sealing order. Barco refused. I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the United States that the foregoing is true and correct and that this declaration was executed on September 13, 2011, at San Francisco,
California.

/s/ Deepak Gupta
Deepak Gupta