Request Restraining OrderCal. Super. - 6th Dist.February 1, 2021CH 100 Request for Civil Harassment Restraining Orders Read ( km a ( 'I'x'l/ Ilknuunu'nl Rusn'uining ()n/ur IIu/p .\Iu.‘ I/“rm ('ll-IUU- I.\'F()/ before completing this form. Also fill oul ('nntiz/cnliu/ ( 'IffTS Information (/nrm ( 1.1571810!!!) uith as much intbrmaliun as )ou know. G) Person Seeking Protection a. Y rhlllN' 1c: Afléfls «Cash‘ Agt‘i 3, Your La“) cr (i/_mu hurc unufin- this cuxc/ Name: {d F » kuflwld Stale Bur No.2 .. I hrm Ndnu. Sdp- Rani)“ b. Your Address II/Lmu haw a lum'cr. giw yum‘ luu'yur 's infin'muliun. [fynu do nu! haw u luuj'ur and u'unl m kccpynur Izumc mlzlruss private, you may give u difltrcm mailing uddrcxs inslcud. )vnll (In HUI IILII'L’ I0 givc IclUP/mm’. VfLIX. Ur c-mui/J Address: [Ml kihg K} Suik 3’04 Clerk stamps date here when form is filed. FILED FEB - 1 2021 Clerk of Court Superior Court I C o ty of Santa Clara BY DEP TY K, YE“ Fi/I in coun name and street address Superior Court of California. County ofWm Clam Ml N ~_\;\'(‘sr 5M6? \‘u U- nmr SW6 T (\Vfl WWi " D r3 Court fills In case number when form is filed. Cit): Sunnyvnlc Stale: LA Zip: ?&odg Telephone: {d 5fg'7f6’ 7‘ I8 Fax: Case Number: 210H009837 E-Mail Address: ® Person From Whom Protection ls Soufht Full Name: Kr; 3(ng 4-5; g 1 Mn/ A Addressli/ known): 6 '{Q em}, WML ()n;+ I” r I Age: SJ 01y; gw‘ jaw State: ( d Zip: qgl?‘f ® Additional Protected Persons a. Arc you asking for protection for any olhcr family 0r household members? D Yes H N0 [/11'cs. list them: Full Name m Age Liveg “ith V911? Hg)“ ar9 [hgy rglaggd IQ yQu‘,’ D Yes D No D Yes D N0 D Yes D N0 D Yes D No D ('lzcck lwrc [I Ihcrc urc mnrc pclix'unx. .-llIuc'/1 u xhccl u/ paper um! write “Altac'hmcnl 3u~Aclditianal Protected Persons "fur u IiI/L'. Mm muy uxc form M( '-()35. AIIuL'IImunI, b. Why do thcsc people need protection? (livpluin helm"): D ('hcc'k hcrc if'I/Icrc 1's m)! enough xpuccfhryuur unsuwi l’I/I yuur complete answer (m the ulluchcd sheet (gf paper m“ form ‘1l( '-()."5 um/ u‘rilc ".-lIIuc/Imcnl 3/3 H 'Iu' ()I/Icrs Nucd Prulucliun "fin‘ u lillc. This is not a Court Order. "mflmmcama m”mm“ Request for Civil Harassment Restraining Orders °“"°°v Page 1 0'6Roma January 1 2018 Mandalay Form 0°09 O'CM' Procedure §§ 527 6W 527 9 (Civil Harassment Prevention) -> Case Number: 218H009837 Relationship of Parties , Ho“ d0 _\0u kmm the pelson m ®. (L.\plum hlemL Formgf 8J5 m“! Pw-Jrnr/Ddgr‘m+[(J émF/v7“D ('lzcck hcrc [/‘Ilwrc is m)! enough spucqfin’your unsn'wa I’m your complete answer (m I/w ulluclzed sheet (3f paper ur/Orm M( '-()25 una’ u'rilc “.'l!!clc'/1171elzt 4~~Rululiunxlzip (gfl’urties "for a IiIlc. Venue Why are you filing in this county? I(‘lm'k ull Ilzul apply): a. KTIIC person in® lives in this county. b. gl \x as harassed by the person in® in this county. c. D OIher/xpcciti'): Other Court Cases a. Have you 0r any of‘the persons named in @been involved in another court case with the person in ®? D Yes N0 1171\‘85. check cuc'lz kind at'cuse um] imliwtc where um] when cuch wusfiled.) Kind ofCase Filed in (( 'mmry'SIarez Year Filed Case Number (it‘knomu (l) D Civil Harassment (2) D Domestic Violence (3) D Divorce. Nullity. Legal Separation (4) D Paternity. Parentage. Child Custody (5) D Elder 0r Dependent Adult Abuse (6) D Eviction (7) D Guardianship (8) D Workplace Violence (9) D Small Claims (10) D Criminal (l I ) D Other (.vpvc‘ifj‘): b. Are there mm any protective 0r restraining orders in effect relating lo you 0r any 0fthc persons in© and the person in®‘.’ m No D Yes (lffi's. utluch u copy ifyuu huve one.) Description of Harassment Harassment means violence 0r threats ()fviolence against )‘ou. 0r a course 0f conduct that seriously alarmed. annoyed. 0r harassed you and caused you substantial emotional distress. A course Ofconducl is more than one act. a. Tell Ihe court about the last time Ihc person in® harassed you. , , (l) When did it happen? (provide (lulu (1r csfimulud(lulu): 1/ MM Al “a Prdm+ (2) Who clsc \\ as there? Kg“ 25/53.“.51 £4.92 +1 E11540? lellkr. (aurLir DaLoflLn This is not a Court Order. Request for Civil Harassment Restraining Orders CH'WO’ P3962 0‘6 (Civil Harassment Prevention) 9 Remsed January 1 2018 Case Nu?1r:c H 00 98 3 7 ® a. (3) How did the person in ®harass you? (Explain below): Chuck lzcrc [f'I/Icrc 1's nul clmugll spuc‘cfin'yum' answer. l’utyour complete answer (m (he attached sheer (gf'paper m'fhrm 1110-025 and write “AIIuc/nnenl 7al3liDescribe Harassment "for a title. AM“; 7o» [3,) "" Uglnkc Hal‘fijflhm; (4) Did the person in® use or threaten Io use a gun 0r any other weapon? D Yes fl N0 ([f‘yes. explain below): D ('Izeck here if'I/Iere is no! enough symcefhryour answer. Pu! your complete answer 0n the attached sheet ofpaper Urfier MC-U25 and write ”Attachment 7a(4)-Use Q/‘Weapons "fbr a title. (5) Were you harmed 0r injured because ot‘the harassment? fi Yes D N0 (1/)‘cs. explain below).- D ('lwck here ('fI/wrc is m)! enough .s‘puc'vfbryour urmwr. Pulyuur complete answer 0n (he attached 3'12ch (gf‘pupcr ()I'fm'm M('-(l25 and H'I'irc ”.-lIluc/7menl r'u/5)7Hurm 0r Injury "fbr u title. (6) Did the police come? D Yes fl N0 Ifyes. did they give you 0r the person in® an Emergency Protective Order? D Yes D No lf yes. the order protects (check ull Ilzur apply): D Me D The person in® D The persons in @. (Attach u copy (gfllze order [flwm have ()nc.) b. Has the person in® harassed you at other times? m Yes D N0 (lflvcs. dexcrihc prior I'I'u'ia'ems und provide dates tharassmcnt below): D Check here if'lhere is m)! enough spacefbrynu' answer. Pulyour complete answer 0n the attached sheet 0f paper (”1/2)le M( '-()25 um! wrile “.4tluc'l1mcn! "hil’rcrious Huruxsmem "fbr a title. ‘ This is not a Court Order. Request for Civil Harassment Restraining Orders CH-100. Page 3 0f6 (Civil Harassment Prevention) 9 Revused January 1‘ 2018 caé’e1NEWU 9 8 37 Check the orders you want. 0 E Personal Conduct Orders l ask the court Io order the person in ® not to d0 any Ofthe following things Io me or to any person t0 be protected listed in®z a. E Harass. intimidate. molest. attack. strike. stalk. threaten. assault (sexually or otherwise). hit. abuse. destroy personal property 0f. 0r disturb the peace ofthe person. b. D Contact the person. either directly 0r indirectly. in any way. including. but not limited t0. in person. by telephone. in writing. by public 0r private mail. by interoffice mail. by e-mail. by text message. by fax. 0r by other electronic means. C. D Other (specifi'): D Check here [flhcre 1's m)! enough .vpucefin'your answer. Putyour cumplete answer (m the attached sheet prapcr nrfin‘m MC-(IZJ' and write "Alluclnnem 8c#01/1cr Personal Conduct Orders. "fbr a title. The person in ® will be ordered m)! to lake any action I0 ge! the addresses 0r locations ofany protected person unless the courlfinds' good cause not ta make the order. Stay-Away Orders a. l ask the court IO order the person in® t0 stay a1 leastfl yards away from (check all (hat apply): (l)fl Me. (8) E My vehicle. (2) D The other persons listed in ®. (9) D Other (specify): (3) E My home. (4)fl My job 0r workplace. (5) D My school. (6) D My children‘s school. (7) D My children's place ofchild care. b. lfthe coun orders the person in ® to stay away from all the places listed above‘ will he or she still be able to get to his or her home. school. orjob‘? E Yes D N0 (Ifm). explain below): D Check here if'l/zere is m)! enough spacefbryour answer. Putyuur complete ansur’er 0n the attached sheet Qf paper ()rfbrm MC-025 um] write "A(Iuchmenl 9hiSIuy-Aqu Orders. "jbr a title. Guns or Other Firearms and Ammunition Does the person in ® own or possess any guns 0r other firearms? D Yes D N0 M l don't know [fibejudge grunts u protective order. the persun in® will be pmlzihiredfi'om owning, possessing. purchasing. receiving. 0r attempting Io purchase 0r receive a gun. nllmfifirearm. and ammunition while Ilze protective order is in efféct. The person in ® will ulm he ordered m [urn in In law embrc'emem. m' sell t0 0r store wirh a licensed gun dealer, any gum m-firvurmx n’i/llin /Ii.\ ur hcr immediate pos’x‘csxsinn or control. This is not a Court Order. Remmm’“ 2°” Request for Civil Harassment Restraining Orders CH-100. Page 4 °f6 (Civil Harassment Prevention) -> °‘“”“2‘TEH00 98 37 ® fl Temporary Restraining Order l request that a Temporary Restraining Order ('I‘RO) be issued against the person in® t0 last until the hearing. l am presenting form CH-I IO. Temporary Restraining ()rdcr, for the coun‘s signature together with this Request. Has the person in®been told Ihal you were going I0 g0 t0 court t0 seek a TRO against him/her? D Yes D No ((fyuu answered no. explain why belmr): D Check here if‘I/zere is no! enough spucefbrwour answer. Put your complete answer 0n t/ze attached sheet (1/. paper ()I'fbrm MC-025 um! write "Atluchmem I l-Tempm'ary Restraining Order "fbr u Iitlel ® D Request to Give Less Than Five Days' Notice of Hearing You must have yuur papers persona/b’ served (m [he persun in® a1 leustfive days before Ilze hearing. unless the court orders u shorter timefbr service. (Farm ('H-2()()-I;\"F() explains What ls "Proofof Personal Service”? Form (711-200, Proofof Personal Service. may be used Io show Ihe court that the papers have been served.) Ifyou want there Io be fewer than five days between service and the hearing. explain why below: D Check here [fillere is m)! emmg/z s,mccfl)l'_wmr anxu‘er. Pu! your complele answer (m the attached sheet 0f paper ()rfén'm M("-025 and wrilc “AIIuc/zmenl 127chuesl (0 Give Less T/zun Five Days ' Notice "for a title. D No Fee for Filing or Service a. D There should be n0 filing fee because the person in ® has used 0r threatened to use violence against me. has stalked me. or has acted 0r spoken in some other way that makes me reasonably fear violence. b. D The sheriffor marshal should serve (notify) the person in® about the orders for free because my request for orders is based 0n unlszul violence. a credible threat ofviolence. or stalking. c. D There should be no filing fee and the sherit‘for marshal should serve the person in ®for free because l am entitled I0 a fee waiver. (You mus! complere andfi/e/brm FW-()()1. Application for Waiver 0f Court Fees and Cosls .) y Lawyer's Fees and Costs l ask the court t0 order payment ofmy D lawyer's fees m Court costs. The amounts requested are: Item Amount lte Amount Ft Ln) Ft( $ q Z J $ I $ $ $ $ D Check here t_‘fI/wre urc more ileum: Pu! I/Ic items um/ unmums rm the ullached Sheet praper orform AIC-025 andwrilc "AIIuclzmcm H l.un'_\'cr\ Fads um/les "for u lille. This is not a Court Order. ““59”"“a'ym‘8 Request for Civil Harassment Restraining Orders CH-100. Page 5 °f6 (Civil Harassment Prevention) 9 Case Number: 210H009837 ® D Possession and Protection of Animals l ask the court Io order the following: a. D That I be given the sole possession. care. and control 0fthe animals listed below, which l own. possess, lease. keep. 0r hold. or which reside in my household. (Identifi' animals by. e.g.. type. breed. name. color. sex.) l request sole possession 0fthe animals because (specijfi' gnod caz‘tsefbr grunting order): D Check here (/‘r/wre is not enough spacefhr your answer. Putyour complete answer 0n the attached sheet praper mfi/imn MC-OZJ' and wrilc "AIIuc-lzmcnl I5u-APosscssi0n Q/‘Anima/s "fbr a rifle. b. D That the person in ®must stay at least yards away from. and not take. sell. transfer. encumber. conceal. molest. attack. strike. threaten. harm. or otherwise dispose of. the animals listed above. D Additional Orders Requested | ask the coun 10 make the following additional orders (spewfi): D Check here [f'llzere is nu! enough .s'paccfingmm' answer. Putyour complete answer 0n the attached sheet Qf paper orfin'm M('-()25 and wrile "Alluclzmenr 16* .-1ddi1i0nal Orders Requested, "fbr a title. ® Number ofpages attached to this form. ifany: Date: b Lawyer 's name (ifum’) Lawyer 's Signature l declare under penalty 0f perjury under the laws ofthe State of Califomia that the information above and on all attachments is true and correct. ‘ I Date: 1/30/11 A(LKIS paler,“ ’%&fiV Type 0r print your name Sigfi)mfnume This is not a Court Order. Request for Civil Harassment Restraining Orders CH-100. Pa9e6 of6 (Civil Harassment Prevention) Revcsed January 1‘ 2018 MC-025 SHORT TITLE: CASE NUMBER_ Attachment 721(3) - Describe Harassment 2 1 c H 00 98 3 7 ATTACHMENT (Number): (This Attachment may be used with any Judicial Council form.) Teleport Mobility has a disgruntled employee. Krzysztof Sywula. On December 23. 2020, Alexis DaCosta was scheduled lo prcscnl Tclcport Mobility and the software l0 a prospective investor. who had already contributed S l 00.000 lo thc company. This investor had never seen the software in person. which was the reason for lhc pitch. This cvcm was well known t0 the Tclcport Mobility board. including Sywula. Although DaCosla confirmed hc still had access 10 the software and that the software was properly functioning in the days and wccks leading up 10 lhc event. such was not the case when it came lime for the presentation. The software. in fact. was disabled. which DaCosIa discovered the morning 0f the investor pitch. DaCosla immediately contacted Sywula about lhc issue. but Sywula casually dismissed the malfunction as insignificant and beyond your control. Unable l0 reschedule and understandany embarrassed. DaCosla went ahead with the meeting. even though hc could not demonstrate the software. The presentation bombed. On December 30. you informed DaCosta of your decision 10 no longer work with Telepon Mobility. Nevertheless. you emailed DaCosta an ultimatum to rcsumc work. the very next day. Throughout January 202! . Sywula became increasingly hostile and belligerent Io DaCosta and Attorney Musick. wrongfully claiming that Sywula was the sole im'entor. Sywulu's interactions with them devolved further into threats; DaCosta would “ g0 IOjaiI” and you would report Attorney Musick to the California Slate Bar. On January 12. 202] . DaCosta received multiple messages at his personal Gmail account from RamNode, LLC, who provides cloud-based computer services for Tclcport Mobility.3 At 3: l 8am. RamNode informed DaCosla as follows: Dear Alexis Da(‘osta ('Teleport). This email is to confirm that we have received your cancellation request for the service listed below. Product/Scrvicc: 256MB SVZ Domain: tulip. The service will be terminated within the next 24 hours. Regards. RamNodc When Dufosla attempted t0 log in t0 the RamNodc server. hc could not. When tried t0 reset his RamNode password using both his Tcleport Mobility and personal. (Email addresses. he could not. DaCosta had never given Sywula permission 0r authorization Io usc 0r access his Gmail account. nor did Sywula have authorization I0 access. use. alter. 0r terminate Ihc RamNodc cloud services. On January l4. 202l . Sywula emailed: "I'm stepping down. I'm quitting Teleporl. I'm taking with mc all 0f my inventions, intellectual property, diagrams. trade secrets. internet domains. software. and everything that I conceived before Teleport incorporated. Effective immediately. l will be in [ouch with investors." Ex. 7. January l4. 2021 email. You then disabled Du(‘osla’s company email account, but eventually restored access t0 il 0n January 20, only after DaCosla's l‘alhcr personally requested you d0 so. Such access was shorl-Iived; you deleted the email account altogether on January 29. Unfortunately. [here is more... (If the item that this Attachment concerns is made under penalty of perjury. al/ statements in this Page of A h l f ' , ‘ttac ment are made under pena ty o perjury) (Add pages as reqwred) Fotm Approved 'or Optuona| Use ATTACHMENT www coumnlo ca 90v Jud-cual Councuovcalvornna . . .mcozsmev Julw 20091 to JudICIaI Councul Form Frederic G. Ludwig III, Esq l I FOUNDER _J IUdWIgAPC 12463 Rancho Bernardo Road, No. 532, San Diego, CA 92128 An muuu mu wm e um . ”w 619-929-0873 | www.ludWIglglaw‘Com January 31, 2021 Via Electronic Mail and FedEx Krzysztof Sywula 640 Epic Way, Unit 111 San Jose, California 95134-2787 krzysztof.m.sywula@intel.com krz@telegortnow.io krzysztof.sywu|a@gmai|.com Re: Teleport Mobility, Inc. and Northern Lights, LLC Dear Mr. Sywula: | write on behalf of Teleport Mobility, Inc. and Northern Lights, LLC, regarding your unlawful seizure of my clients‘ business and your misappropriation and infringement of their intellectual property. Specifically, since at least early as January 12, 2021, you have been engaged in a comprehensive campaign of vicious criminal conduct, resulting in the taking of Teleport Mobility property and the destruction of its business. Teleport Mobility has already reported your activities to law enforcement, but to avoid further repercussions, you must immediately cease and desist and agree to the demands listed below. Background. Based in San Diego and Sunnyvale, and founded by Alexis DaCosta and Vince Coletti in 2016, Teleport Mobility is an industry-leading innovator in real-time intelligent dispatching technology in the mobility industry. The company creates unique, proprietary maps and logistics, providing different software and software~as-a-service (SaaS) solutions for various perspectives within relevant sectors. Teleport Mobility connects the demand for transportation with the mobility supply to optimize vehicle utilization and efficiently transport people and products. With Teleport Mobility, consumers make informed decisions when purchasing mobility services, drivers/client can select a preferred route, and shipping companies maximize efficiencies when transporting goods, all while simultaneously providing users up-to-the-minute vehicle location and tracking data, aggregated among disparate platforms. Krzysztof Sywula LL Iudwigm A~ m‘ruuM-A; D-w The company enjoys a robust portfolio of intellectual property rights. DaCosta, himself, along with Northern Lights, LLC,1 owns the entire right, title, and interest in and to the inventions claimed in United States Application Nos. PCT/USl8/043363; 16/222,817; 15/680,439; PCT/USl8/043359; 16/038,487; 15/675,757; 62/539,706; 62/482,306; 62/426,549; 62/375,491; and 17/124,833, in addition to related PCT foreign applications in both national and regional phases (the "patents”). Teleport Mobility licenses rights to the patents from Northern Lights and DaCosta. In addition, the company owns the entire right, title, and interest in and to all copyright material embodied in certain software programs, including without limitation those entitled ”BlueKiwi (Version A),” "BlueKiwi (Version B), Black Lotus, Xelerate,” and ”Xelerate Demo” (collectively, the ”software” or the "works"). Finally, Teleport Mobility also owns valuable trade secret rights, in the form of the confidential programs, methods, techniques, processes, UMLs, diagrams, software and data it developed since its inception. II u H M More than five years ago, DaCosta and Coletti first conceived the idea of building a business that offered users a single, simple, comprehensive way to facilitate and obtain ride-share services, among multiple vendors. In late February 2016, DaCosta and Coletti constructed the initial business plan. The idea grew and matured over the next several months with guidance and input from legal and subject-matter experts. The founders sought intellectual property counsel with Attorney David Preston in March 2016. Soon thereafter, DaCosta and Coletti approached you for purposes of gauging your interest in advising on the project. From this initial contact in May 2016, DaCosta and Coletti eventually engaged your services as a consultant, pursuant to that certain Consulting Agreement, dated August 22, 2016. Under the terms of this contract, you were to receive small share of equity in whatever entity DaCosta and Coletti established for the business, in exchange for your assistance with technical support and developing software code. Exhibit 1; Consulting Agreement, 1H] 1, 2(a)-(c). On top of bilateral confidentiality obligations contained in the contract, you also agreed not to compete with the company and that ”[a]ny intellectual property, including patents, copyrights, trademarks or trade secrets arising under this Agreement shall be assigned to [DaCosta and Colettil.” ld., 1] 6. Nearly two years later, you, DaCosta, and Coletti formed the Xelerate Partnership, pursuant to an April 7, 2018 agreement of the same name. See Exhibit 2; Xelerate Partnership Agreement, 111. The objective of Xelerate Partnership was to ”develop and sell or monetize intellectual property /d., 1] 3. Your specific responsibilities to Xelerate mirrored those of the Consulting Agreement; assisting in the drafting of patent applications and developing software code. ld., 1] S(C). In November 2018, Coletti resigned from active participation in Xelerate and became a limited partner. See Exhibit 3; Xelerate Amendment to Partnership, 1H] 1-4. Your role with Xelerate remained the same. Id. Concurrent with Coletti’s exit, he and DaCosta assigned their 1 Northern Lights, LLC is a subsidiary of Teleport Mobility. Ludwig,APC | 619-929-0873 l www,|udwigiplaw.com Krzysztof Sywula LL ludwigw Page 3 Aw vu‘LIn v q» entire right, title, and interest in and to their pending patent applications to DaCosta and Xelerate. See Exhibit 4; November 1, 2018 Assignments of Applications. As the business grew, you and DaCosta transitioned from partners in Xelerate to shareholders of Teleport Mobility, Inc. On or about July 12, 2019, the two of you formed the company under the laws of Nevada, with its headquarters in San Diego. Xelerate and DaCosta then assigned their entire right, title, and interest in and to their pending patent applications to DaCosta and Teleport Mobility. See Exhibit 5; November 19, 2019 Assignments of Applications. You then assumed the role of secretary ancl treasurer for Teleport Mobility and became a company employee, signing the Teleport Mobility, Inc. Employee Proprietary Information and Inventions Agreement on November 19, 2019. See Exhibit 6; Employee Proprietary Info and Inventions Agreement. As with the 2016 Consulting Agreement, the Employee Agreement imposed strict confidentiality, non-disclosure, and invention and copyright assignment obligations upon you. ld., 1H] 1-2. Excluded from the invention assignment provisions were any ”Prior Inventions” you conceived, for which you listed none; ld., 1| 2.2, Exhibit B. Through subsequent third-party investments, your equity stake in Teleport Mobility was (and stiIl is) approximately 45% and DaCosta’s was (and still is) between 49% - 50.8%. Even before you executed the Consulting Agreement, DaCosta provided you with detailed schematics, flowcharts, and other materials directed to the development and implementation of the ideas that would become Teleport Mobility’s software and attendant inventions. Indeed, at least as early as May 2016 and continuing regularly thereafter, you were privy to the myriad iterations and developments of Teleport Mobility’s emerging, confidential, proprietary technology and components thereof, as evidenced by the countless email and text message communications from and among DaCosta, Coletti, Attorney Preston, and yourself. While your engagement pursuant to the Consulting Agreement required you to assist in the drafting of the applications for the patents and code the software, your contributions did not rise to the level of conception in a significant manner of any aspect of the inventions claimed in the patents. Rather, your work entailed following instructions from DaCosta and Coletti on an ad hoc basis, offering technical support, and suggesting end results. The question of inventorship became a point of contention in late 2020, ultimately leading to the present dispute. During a series of meetings between November 17 - 19, 2020, you and DaCosta sat down with Attorney Eleanor Musick, for purposes of discussing the pending applications for the patents. When DaCosta explained the nature and extent of Coletti’s contributions to the inventions claimed in the patents in comparison to your own, you became visibly upset. Specifically, DaCosta informed Attorney Musick that he and Coletti were the original inventors. In response, you challenged DaCosta and Attorney Musick and insisted all such inventions were yours. You demanded that Attorney Musick list you as the sole inventor on all pending applications for the patents and refused to accept an accommodation that would name you, DaCosta, and Coletti as joint inventors. Ludwig,APC | 619-929-0873 | www.ludwigiplaw.com VI I Krzysztof Sywula E. ludvvlgm Page 4 A~ mHLLuqu. Mun. Your relationship with Teleport Mobility and DaCosta quickly deteriorated. DaCosta met with you on December 9, in an unsuccessful effort to ease tensions. Days later, after DaCosta requested you take time away from work, you apparently removed your personal belongings from company offices sometime priorto December 14 and without contacting anyone at Teleport Mobility. Subsequent discussions throughout December between you, Attorney Musick, and DaCosta, wherein DaCosta and Musick offered to list you as a joint inventor on at least one of the pending applications, failed to appease you. On December 23, DaCosta was scheduled to present Teleport Mobility, its business model, and the software to a prospective investor, who had already contributed $100,000 to the company. This event was well known to the Teleport Mobility board, including yourself. Although DaCosta confirmed he still had access to the software and that the software was properly functioning in the days and weeks leading up to the event, such was not the case when it came time for the presentation. The software, in fact, was disabled, which DaCosta discovered the morning of the investor pitch. He immediately contacted you about the issue, but you casually dismissed the malfunction as insignificant and beyond your control. Unable to reschedule and understandably embarrassed, DaCosta went ahead with the meeting, even though he could not demonstrate the software. The presentation bombed? The investor pitch debacle made clear your intent to hijack and destroy Teleport Mobility. On December 30, you informed DaCosta of your decision to no longer work with Teleport Mobility. Nevertheless, you emailed DaCosta an ultimatum to resume work, the very next day. Throughout January 2021, you became increasingly hostile and belligerent to DaCosta and Attorney Musick, wrongfully claiming you not only invented all the technology described in the patents, but you ”invented” company trademarks, too. Your interactions with them devolved further into threats; DaCosta would ”go to jail" and you would report Attorney Musick to the California State Bar. In the early morning hours of January 12, 2021, DaCosta received multiple messages at his personal Gmail account from RamNode, LLC, who provides cloud-based computer services for Teleport Mobility? At 3:18am, RamNode informed DaCosta as follows: 2 Teleport Mobility believes the fact the software coincidentally and mysteriously malfunctioned the morning of December 23, prior to an important investor pitch, is your doing. Throughout the five-year developmental history of the software, it has been consistently reliable and relatively error-free. Your access to and control over the software on December 23, coupled with the growing animosity you exhibited toward DaCosta and Teleport Mobility, leads us to suspect you purposefully disabled the software in an act of retribution against my clients. 3 DaCosta previously subscribed to the cloud services for Teleport Mobility years earlier, using his personal Gmail in the process, since the company did yet have email accounts or an Internet domain name of its own. Ludwig,APC | 619-929-0873 | www.ludwigiplaw.com Krzysztof Sywula Ll) 'Udng Page 5A Mi, A~ muuulon Hour. x n. Dear Alexis DaCosta (Teleport), This email is to confirm that we have received your cancellation request for the service listed below. Product/Service: 256MB SVZ Domain: tulip. The service will be terminated within the next 24 hours. Regards, RamNode When DaCosta attempted to log in to the RamNode server, he could not. When he tried to reset his RamNode password using both his Teleport Mobility and personal, Gmail addresses, he could not. DaCosta had never given you permission or authorization to use or access his Gmail account, nor did you have authorization to access, use, alter, or terminate the RamNode cloud services. RamNode wasjust the beginning. Two days after terminating that cloud server account, you sent DaCosta an email on January 14, stating: I’m stepping down, I’m quitting Teleport. I’m taking with me all of my inventions, intellectual property, diagrams, trade secrets, internet domains, software, and everything that | conceived before Teleport incorporated. Effective immediately. l will be in touch with investors. Ex. 7, January 14, 2021 email. You then disabled DaCosta’s company email account, but eventually restored access to it on January 20, only after DaCosta’s father personally requested you do so. Such access was short-Iived; you deleted the email account altogether on January 29. That’s not all. You also accessed and made yourself the sole administrator for Teleport Mobility's internal network, switch, access point, on-site servers, and multiple cloud-based server accounts. You took similar actions to grant yourself exclusive access to and control of Teleport Mobility's ”G Suite/Google Workspace" productivity software, which hosts the entirety of Teleport Mobility’s software, intellectual property materials, business documents, financial data, personnel files, books, records, and other confidential, proprietary information. You even went so far as to take down and block access to company domain names and websites teleportnow.io and xelerate.io. Teleport Mobility cannot maintain operations without these data, systems, and services, but you refused multiple demands by DaCosta to relinquish control. As recently as Ludwig,APC | 619-929-0873 | www.ludwigiplaw.com Krzysztof Sywula LLIJ IUdWIg‘M Page 6 Aw :nvluuvxu January 27, 2021, you scoffed at DaCosta’s latest plea to hand over control of the business, saying "You have a very poor understanding of what 'belongs to’ means.” On January 28, you threatened to file a crime report with the police, against DaCosta. No Inventorship and No Ownership of Intellectual Property. You are not an inventor with respect to any of the claimed inventions in the applications for patents licensed to or owned by Teleport Mobility or Northern Lights. “lnventorship is a question of law with factual underpinnings.” Hess v. Advanced Cardiovascular $ys., lnc., 106 F.3d 976, 980 (Fed. Cir. 1997). Section 116 of Title 35 is the statutory locus of the joint inventorship doctrine. See 35 U.S.C. § 116. Ironically, section 116 "sets no explicit lower limit on the quantum or quality of inventive contribution required for a person to qualify as a joint inventor.” Fina Oil & Chem. Co. v. Ewen, 123 F.3d 1466, 1473 (Fed. Cir. 1997). "However, a long line of decisions in this court holds that a person is a joint inventor only if he contributes to the conception of the claimed invention. E/i Lilly & Co. v. Aradigm Corp., 376 F.3d 1352, 1358-59 (Fed. Cir. 2004) (citing CR. Bard, Inc. v. M3 $ys., 157 F.3d 1340, 1352 (Fed. Cir. 1998); Fina Oil, 123 F.3d at 1473 ("The case law thus indicates that to be a joint inventor, an individual must make a contribution to the conception of the claimed invention that is not insignificant in quality, when that contribution is measured against the dimension of the full invention"); Sewa/l v. Walters, 21 F.3d 411, 415 (Fed. Cir. 1994); see also Burroughs Wellcome Co. v. Barr Labs., lnc., 40 F.3d 1223, 1227-28 (Fed. Cir. 1994) ("Conception is the touchstone of inventorship, the completion of the mental part of invention.”)). ”The line between actual contributions to conception and the remaining, more prosaic contributions to the inventive process that do not render the contributor a co-inventor is sometimes a difficult one to draw.” Eli Lilly & Co., 376 F.3d at p. 1359. Such is not the case with you; the line is not the least bit difficult to draw. Your de minimis involvement as company tech support during the creation of the inventions claimed in the patents does not rise to the level of joint inventorship. Developing methods that allow an invention conceived by another to come to fruition does not lead to joint inventorship. Bd. ofEduc. v. Am. Bioscience, 333 F.3d 1330 (Fed. Cir. 2003). Conducting research to aid in the development of an invention conceived by another is not enough to establish joint inventorship. Stern v. Trustees of Columbia University, 434 F.3d 1375 (Fed. Cir. 2006), cert. denied, 127 S. Ct. 83 (2006). A person does not become an inventor merely by suggesting a desired end or result, with no suggestion of means. Union Paper Collar Co. v. Van Deusen, 90 U.S. 530 (1875); Nartron Corp. v. Schukra U.S.A., Inc., 558 F.3d 1352, 1359 (Fed. Cir. 2009). A person does not become an inventor merely by following the instructions of the person or persons who conceive the solution. Minerals Separation, Ltd. v. Hyde, 242 U.S. 261, 270 (1916). A person who merely acts to reduce an inventor’s complete conception to practice is not a joint inventor. StoneEagle Servs. v. Gil/man, 746 F.3d 1059, 1063 (Fed. Cir. 2014) ("assistance in reducing an invention to practice generally does not contribute to inventorship”); E.g., Ethicon, Inc. v. U.5. Surgical Corp., 135 F.3d 1456, 1460, 1465 (Fed. Cir. 1998). Applied here, this authority establishes you are not an Ludwig,APC | 619-929-0873 | www.ludwigiplaw.com I _ Krzysztof Sywula |__J IUdWIgW. Page 7 A1 :h'lul(1uA_ no! inventor, as a matter of law. Company documents and records, including email communications with Attorney Preston and Attorney Musick, as well as their notes and interviews with you, Coletti, and DaCosta indicate you did not conceive of any of the claimed inventions; DaCosta and Coletti did. Your assistance in coding the software, taking direction from DaCosta and Coletti, and reducing to practice the ideas they first conceived is insufficient for joint inventorship. We are confident a U.S. federal district judge will reach the same conclusion. Neither are you an owner of any intellectual property created by or for the benefit of Teleport Mobility. Federal law provides for ownership and assignment of patents. 35 U.S.C. § 261. Patents are subject to general legal rules on the ownership and transfer of property. 8 Chisum on Patents § 22.01 (2020) (citing Florida Prepaid Postsecondary Education Expense Board v. College Savings Bank, 527 U.S. 627, 642, 653 (1999)). "The inventor or inventors may then transfer ownership interests by written assignment to anyone (including a corporation or other entity) and may in fact be under a legal duty to do so by virtue of a contractual or other obligation, as in the case of an employee who has signed a contract requiring that he/she assign inventions made during the course of employment.” 8 Chisum on Patents § 22.01 (2020). Federal law also governs ownership of copyright. 17 U.S.C. § 201(a) (”Copyright in a work protected under this title vests initially in the author or authors of the work."). ”In the case of a work made for hire, the employer or other person for whom the work was prepared is considered the author for purposes of this title, and, unless the parties have expressly agreed otherwise in a written instrument signed by them, owns all of the rights comprised in the copyright." 17 U.S.C. § 201(b).“ Other than transfers by operation of law, copyright assignments must be ”in writing and signed by the owner of the rights conveyed or such owner’s duly authorized agent.” 17 U.S.C. § 201(b); 3 Nimmer on Copyright § 10.03 (2020). Federal and state common law control trademark rights, which arise through use in commerce. B&B Hardware, Inc. v. Hargis lndus., 135 S. Ct. 1293, 1300 (2015) (”One who first uses a distinct mark in commerce thus acquires rights to that mark”); 1 Gilson on Trademarks § 3.02 (2020). Thus, ”[t]o acquire ownership of a trademark it is not enough to have invented the mark first or even to have registered it first; the party claiming ownership must have been the first to actually use the mark in the sale of goods or services.” Sengoku Works Ltd. v. RMC Int’l, Ltd., 96 F.3d 1217, 1219 (9th Cir. 1996). When it comes to trade secrets, they are like any other property right: an owners may sell or assignment, his property to others. 1 Milgrim on Trade Secrets § 2.02 (2020). By this measure, you have absolutely no rights whatsoever in Teleport Mobility’s intellectual property. Any patentable invention you conceived (which there is none), any copyright material you authored, any trademark term you coined, and any trade secret you cultivated is the property of Teleport Mobility, either through operation of law or written assignment. Beginning with the Consulting Agreement and continuing with the Employee Proprietary Information and Inventions 4 ”A 'work made for hire’ is--(1) a work prepared by an employee within the scope of his or her employment...” 17 U.S.C. § 101. Ludwig,APC | 619-929-0873 | www.ludwiglplaw.com I i Krzysztof Sywula L: lUdWIgM Page8 A-cuu ‘ u Agreement, controlling documents show you assigned any rights you may have had, in any intellectual property you developed, first to DaCosta and Coletti, then to Xelerate, and finally to Teleport Mobility. More importantly, a written contract is not even necessary to vest Teleport Mobility with title to the copyright you contributed to the software while working for the company, because such contributions are works made for hire. Lastly, since you never used any Teleport Mobility trademark or service mark in commerce, you cannot claim an ownership interest in any mark. There is no legal or factual basis for you to claim any form of ownership of Teleport Mobility’s intellectual property. Were you to challenge my clients' rights, you would lose. Cease and Desist. Your actions constitute multiple violations of federal and state civil and criminal law, starting with California’s Computer Crimes statute. Penal Code section 502 imposes both criminal and civil liability on a person who commits certain ”acts” that amount to a public offense. Cal. Penal Code § 502(c), (e). Among other things, such public offenses occur when a person: (1) Knowingly accesses and without permission alters, damages, deletes, destroys, or otherwise uses any data, computer, computer system, or computer network in order to either (A) devise or execute any scheme or artifice to defraud, deceive, or extort, or (B) wrongfully control or obtain money, property, or data. (2) Knowingly accesses and without permission takes, copies, or makes use of any data from a computer, computer system, or computer network, or takes or copies any supporting documentation, whether existing or residing internal or external to a computer, computer system, or computer network. Cal. Penal Code § 502(c)(1)-(2). This law "does not require unauthorized access. It merely requires knowing access. What makes that access unlawful is that the person ’without permission takes, copies or makes use of’ data on the computer." United States v. Christensen, 828 F.3d 763, 789 (9th Cir. 2015) (quoting Cal. Penal Code § 502(c)(2)); accord Facebook, Inc. v. Power Ventures, lnc., 844 F.3d 1058, 1069 (9th Cir. 2016). Thus, using valid iogin credentials to commandeer company networks and systems, or misuse information obtained therein qualifies as "knowing access" under Section 502. See Christensen, 828 F.3d at 789; see also People v. Hawkins, 98 Cal. App. 4th 1428, 1442-43 (2002) (finding that the defendant ”accessed” information when he made a copy of his employer’s proprietary source code to which he had control over as a technical support engineer). Such is the case here, with your knowing, unlawful Ludwig,APC I 619-929-0873 I www.ludwigiplaw.com Krzysztof Sywula I41 lUdWigm Page9 Au muunvun nonun- access and seizure of Teleport Mobility’s computer systems and networks.5 That you so proudly admit to it in yourJanuary 14 email is astoundingly arrogant and foolish. No doubt, this admission will haunt you. You are also in violation of the Economic Espionage Act, for stealing Teleport Mobility’s trade secrets. The EEA punishes both (1) "[e]conomic espionage,” which involves trade secret misappropriation intended to or done with the knowledge that it will ”benefit any foreign government, foreign instrumentality, or foreign agent,” 18 U.S.C. § 1831; and (2) ”[tlheft of trade secrets,” where the trade secret “is related to a product or service used in or intended for use in interstate or foreign commerce" and is knowingly converted “to the economic benefit of anyone other than the owner” with the intent or knowledge that the conversion "wi||[] injure any owner of that trade secret.” 18 U.S.C. § 1832; See United States v. Liew, 856 F.3d 585, 597 (9th Cir. 2017). Like California Penal Code section 502, the EEA allows for both criminal and civil penalties, including a private right of action by the victim. 18 U.S.C. § 1836(b). Here, you actually admit to knowingly and purposefully misappropriating Teleport Mobility’s trade secrets, for your own personal financial gain. Securing a criminal conviction and a civil verdict for liability under the EEA will not be difficult. The list of additional claims Teleport Mobility can levy against you is almost without end. Misappropriating Teleport Mobility’s trade secrets is not just a violation of federal law, but California law, too. Cal. Civ. Code § 3426, et seq. Taking and using the software without permission is copyright infringement. See 17 U.S.C. § 501; Feist Publications, Inc. v. Rural Tel. Serv. Co., 499 U.S. 340 (1991). Using Teleport Mobility’s trademarks and service marks in commerce is trademark infringement and unfair competition, as proscribed by the Lanham Act. 5 Using DaCosta’s personal and work email addresses, accounts, and passwords to carry out your illegal activities qualifies as identity theft. Cal. Penal Code § 530.5. 5 The EEA defines "trade secret” as follows: all forms and types of financial, business, scientific, technical, economic, or engineering information, including patterns, plans, compilations, program devices, formulas, designs, prototypes, methods, techniques, processes, procedures, programs, or codes, whether tangible or intangible, and whether or how stored, compiled, or memorialized physically, electronically, graphically, photographically, or in writing if- (A) the owner thereof has taken reasonable measures to keep such information secret; and (B)the information derives independent economic value, actual or potential, from not being generally known to, and not being readily ascertainable through proper means by, another person who can obtain economic value from the disclosure or use of the information. 18 USCS § 1839. Ludwag,APC | 619-929-0873 l www.ludwiglplaw.com ' _ Krzysztof Sywula L: IUdWIQM Page 10 An Invnucvun non-n 15 U.S.C. § 1125(a); Wal-Mart Stores v. Samara Bros., 529 U.S. 205, 209 (2000). Intruding into DaCosta’s private affairs, including hacking into his personal Gmail account, is an invasion of privacy. Hill v. National Collegiate Athletic Assn., 7 Cal. 4th 1, 24 (1994). Taking and blocking access to Teleport Mobility’s systems and networks gives rise to the tort of conversion. Lee v. Hanley, 61 Cal. 4th 1225, 1240 (2015). Disrupting Teleport Mobility's contractual relationships with third~parties and interfering with current and potential investors produces additional tort liability. Pacific Gas & Electric Co. v. Bear Stearns & Co., 50 Cal. 3d 1118, 1126 (1990). Your myriad violations of the law are unfair and unlawful business practices. Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code § 17200. Lastly, you are in breach of contract with Teleport Mobility. Richman v. Hartley (2014) 224 Cal. App. 4th 1182, 1186. This is not an exhaustive list. For all violations of the law, Teleport Mobility will seek - and a court will impose - the maximum available remedy under the law. By now you must realize Teleport Mobility takes its legal rights seriously and we hope you do, as well. To avoid any unnecessary escalation of this dispute, we demand that you do the following: 1. Stop accessing any and all Teleport Mobility and DaCosta computers, networks, systems, and services; 2. Immediately return, restore, and relinquish control of any and all Teleport Mobility and DaCosta computers, networks, systems, and services; 3. Stop accessing, copying, or using the any and all Teleport Mobility intellectual property, including the patents, company trademarks and service marks, company trade secrets, and all software protected by copyright; 4. Immediately return, restore and relinquish control of any and all Teleport Mobility intellectual property, including the patents, company trademarks and service marks, company trade secrets, and all software protected by copyright; 5. Preserve the status of existing files, systems, records, communications, data, and online accounts in your possession, custody, or control, including those of any of your employees, agents or those working in concert with you (i.e., no modifying, canceling or otherwise changing those online records) and preserve all documents, emails, texts, notes, and all other records relating to this matter; 6. Provide Teleport Mobility with an accounting of all Teleport Mobility and DaCosta computers, networks, systems, and services you accessed, used, deleted, or destroyed, after January 12, 2021; 7. Provide Teleport Mobility with an accounting of all Teleport Mobility and DaCosta intellectual property, including the patents, company trademarks and service Ludwig,APC l 619929-0873 | www.ludwigiplaw.com Krzysztof Sywula L11 IUdWigAW Page 11 AumuulH-n ‘uu marks, company trade secrets, and all software protected by copyright you accessed, used, deleted, or destroyed after January 12, 2021; 8. Pay Teleport Mobility damages for willfully violating the law, as described herein; and 9. Agree to pay Teleport Mobility’s attorneys’ fees and expenses (to be provided once agreed) relating to the conduct detailed above. We demand acknowledgement of receipt of this letter (to my email address above) by Monday, February 1, 2021 at 5:00pm. We must receive a substantive acceptance of our demands no later than Wednesday, February 3, 2021 at 5:00pm. To be clear, any delays in either response deadline will result in Teleport Mobility’s immediate pursuit of legal action. Thank you, in advance, for your cooperation. Regards,fl/éwfi Frederic G. Ludwig, III, of LUDWIG, APC Ludwig,APC I 619-929-0873 | www.ludwigiplaw.com