1 

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS 

EASTERN DIVISION

MOULDTEC, INC, ) 

 ) Civil Action No.: 12-cv-4249 

 Plaintiff, ) 

) 

v. ) 

 ) Judge: Virginia M. Kendall 

PAGTER & PARTNERS INTERNATIONAL ) 

B.V., and PAGTER INNOVATIONS, INC., ) 

) 

 Defendants. ) 

 ) 

 ) 

PAGTER & PARTNERS INTERNATIONAL, ) 

B.V., ) 

 ) 

 Defendant/Counter-Plaintiff, ) 

 ) 

 v. ) 

 ) 

MOULDTEC, INC. ) 

 ) 

 Plaintiff/Counter-Defendant. ) 

DECLARATION IN SUPPORT OF MOULDTEC’S BILL OF COSTS 

I, Matthew P. Becker, state as follows: 

1. I am a shareholder of the law firm of Banner & Witcoff, Ltd., counsel for Plaintiff 

Mouldtec, Inc. (“MOULDTEC”). I make this affidavit in support of MOULDTEC’s Bill of 

Costs, which is filed concurrently with this affidavit. Unless otherwise stated herein, I have 

personal knowledge of the facts set forth below and, if called as a witness, could and would 

competently testify thereto. 

2. On September 30, 2015, the Court granted MOULDTEC’s motion for summary 

judgment of noninfringement of a United States Patent, dismissed MOULDTEC’s motion for 

summary judgment as moot, terminated the case, and entered judgment in favor of 

Case: 1:12-cv-04249 Document #: 150 Filed: 10/29/15 Page 1 of 5 PageID #:2771
2 

MOULDTEC. Thus, MOULDTEC’s declaratory judgment claim of noninfringement and 

Defendants’ counterclaims of infringement were disposed in MOULDTEC’s favor, and 

MOULDTEC is the “prevailing party” entitled to the costs of this action under Federal Rule of 

Civil Procedure 54(d)(1). 

3. In support of its rejected assertion that MOULDTEC’s flower buckets infringed the 

patent-in-suit and that the patent-in-suit was not invalid, Defendants submitted the opinions of its 

retained expert, Dr. David Owen Kazmer. MOULDTEC deposed Dr. Kazmer on December 8, 

2014, and Dr. Kazmer’s testimony was cited in the summary judgment papers, including 

MOULDTEC’s supporting memorandum of noninfringement and invalidity and replies, as well 

as Defendants’ responses. The transcript and deposition of Dr. Kazmer was, therefore, 

“necessarily obtained for use in the case,” within the meaning of 28 U.S.C. §1920(2). 

4. To support its noninfringement and invalidity defenses and rebut the testimony of 

Defendants expert, MOULDTEC retained its own expert witness, John Von Holdt. Mr. Von 

Holdt was deposed by Defendants on December 18, 2014, and the transcript from his deposition 

was cited in the summary judgment of noninfringement papers, including Defendants response 

and MOULDTEC’s reply. The transcript and deposition of Mr. Von Holdt was, therefore, 

“necessarily obtained for use in the case,” within the meaning of 28 U.S.C. §1920(2). 

5. The transcript from the deposition MOULDTEC employee, Richard Del Olmo, was cited 

in the parties’ briefs related to Kimberly-Clark’s motion for summary judgment of 

noninfringement. This transcripts were, therefore, “necessarily obtained for use in the case,” 

within the meaning of 28 U.S.C. § 1920(2). 

6. To prosecute its declaratory judgment claims of noninfringement and invalidity, 

Mouldtec noticed and took the Rule 30(b)(6) deposition on September 26 and 27, 2013 of the 

Case: 1:12-cv-04249 Document #: 150 Filed: 10/29/15 Page 2 of 5 PageID #:2772
3 

Defendants on numerous topics, including topics related to Defendants’ infringement and 

invalidity positions, as well as issues related to damages. Defendants designated the following 

witnesses for the Rule 30(b)(6) deposition: Loes Van Der Toolen (Rule 30(b)(6)) and Ruud Van 

Den Heijkant. Ms. Van Der Toolen and Mr. Van Den Hiejkant were also identified in 

Defendants’ Rule 26(a)(1) disclosure as individuals likely to have discoverable information that 

Defendants may use to supports its claims or defenses. Although the transcripts from the 

deposition of Ms. Van Der Toolen and Mr. Van Den Hiejkant were not cited in either party’s 

briefs filed in connection with MOULDTEC’s summary judgment papers, MOULDTEC took 

these depositions on issues resolved by, or rendered moot, by the Court’s grant of summary 

judgment. These transcripts were, therefore, “necessarily obtained for use in the case,” within 

the meaning of 28 U.S.C. § 1920(2). 

7. MOULDTEC incurred the following fees for the deposition transcripts necessarily 

obtained for use in the case: 

Defendants Witnesses: 

Deposition Court Reporter 

Fees1

Transcript2 Total Cost 

David Kazmer, Ph. D. 

(12/8/2014) 

$220 Expedited (7 day) 143 

pages @ $4.85 per 

page = $693.55 

Copy 143 pages 

@$0.90 per page = 

$128.70 

$1042.25 

Loes Van Der Toolen 

(9/26/2013) 

$220 Original 183 pages @ 

$3.65 per page = 

$667.95 

$887.95 

 

1

 Court reporter fees reflect the lesser of the maximum rate allowed under LR54.1(b) or the actual invoiced fee. 

2

 Transcript costs reflect the lesser of the maximum transcripts rates posted by the Clerk of Court for the United 

States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois 

(http://www.ilnd.uscourts.gov/home/clerksoffice/CLERKS_OFFICE/CrtReporter/trnscrpt.htm) or the actual 

invoiced transcript costs. 

Case: 1:12-cv-04249 Document #: 150 Filed: 10/29/15 Page 3 of 5 PageID #:2773
4 

Deposition Court Reporter 

Fees1

Transcript2 Total Cost 

Ruud Van Den 

Heijkant (9/26/2013) 

$110 Original 63 pages @ 

$3.65 per page = 

$229.95 

$339.95 

Ruud Van Den 

Heijkant (9/27/2013) 

$110 Original 146 pages @ 

$3.65 per page = 

$532.90 

$642.90 

MOULDTEC’s Witnesses: 

Deposition Court Reporter 

Fees3

Transcript4 Total Cost 

Richard Del Olmo Copy 190 pages @ 

$0.90 per page = 

$171.00 

$171.00 

John Von Holdt Copy 99 pages @ 

$0.90 per page = 

$89.10 

$89.10 

Thus, the total amount incurred for court reporter fees and deposition transcripts listed in the 

table above is $3173.15. True and correct copies of invoices showing the associated costs are 

attached hereto as Exhibit A. 

8. MOULDTEC incurred a $350 filing fee for bringing this declaratory judgment action as 

reflected in the docket for this case ECF#1 (“Filing Fee $350, receipt number 0752-7205175”) 

9. All the expenses itemized above were actually and necessarily incurred in this case. 

I declare under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct. Executed this 29th day of 

October, 2015, in Chicago, Illinois. 

/s/ Matthew P. Becker

 

3

 Court reporter fees reflect the lesser of the maximum rate allowed under LR54.1(b) or the actual invoiced fee. 

4

 Transcript costs reflect the lesser of the maximum transcripts rates posted by the Clerk of Court for the United 

States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois or the actual invoiced fee. 

(http://www.ilnd.uscourts.gov/home/clerksoffice/CLERKS_OFFICE/CrtReporter/trnscrpt.htm) or the actual 

invoiced transcript costs. 

Case: 1:12-cv-04249 Document #: 150 Filed: 10/29/15 Page 4 of 5 PageID #:2774
5 

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE 

The undersigned hereby certifies that the foregoing was filed using the Court’s CM/ECF 

system on October 29, 2015. All counsel of record are deemed to have consented to electronic 

service are being served with a copy of this document via the Court’s Electronic Case Filing System, 

which, pursuant to LR5.9, constitutes service under Fed. R. Civ. P. 5(b)(2)(D). 

Patrick Arnold Jr. 

David Z. Petty 

McAndrews, Held & Malloy, Ltd. 

500 West Madison Street, 34th Floor 

Chicago, IL 60661 

parnold@mcandrews-ip.com

dpetty@mcandrews-ip.com

Attorneys for Defendants 

Pagter & Partners Int’l, B.V. and Pagter Innovations, Inc. 

/s/ Matthew P. Becker 

Banner& Witcoff, Ltd. 

10 S. Wacker Dr., Suite 3000 

Chicago, IL 60606 

T: (312) 463-5000 

F: (312) 463-5001 

mbecker@bannerwitcoff.com

 

Attorney for Plaintiff/Counter-Defendant Mouldtec, 

Inc. 

Case: 1:12-cv-04249 Document #: 150 Filed: 10/29/15 Page 5 of 5 PageID #:2775