Case 3:17-cv-05659-WHA Document 634-3 Filed 11/30/20 Page 1 of 4
`
`Exhibit 2
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 3:17-cv-05659-WHA Document 634-3 Filed 11/30/20 Page 2 of 4
`
`Alan J. Heinrich
`Partner
`
`1800 Avenue of the Stars
`Suite 900
`Los Angeles, CA 90067-4276
`t: +1.310.203.7958 | f: +1.310.203.7199 | aheinrich@irell.com
`
`Practice Areas
`Appellate
`
`Intellectual Property
`Litigation
`
`Litigation
`
`Patent Office Trials
`
`Education
`Loyola Law School (J.D.,
`2000), summa cum laude;
`Valedictorian
`
`State University of New
`York at Buffalo (Ph.D., 1996)
`
`Washington and Lee
`University (B.A., 1990),
`magna cum laude; Phi
`Beta Kappa
`
`Admissions
`California, 2001
`
`U.S. Court of Appeals for
`the Federal Circuit
`
`U.S. District Court for the
`Central and Northern
`Districts of California
`
`U.S. Court of Appeals for
`the Ninth Circuit
`
`Clerkships
`Hon. Diarmuid F.
`O'Scannlain, U.S. Court of
`Appeals for the Ninth
`Circuit
`
`Alan Heinrich’s practice focuses on intellectual property litigation. He has
`extensive experience litigating patents in the fields of biotechnology, medical
`devices and high tech. He has been a member of trial teams that have
`obtained multi-hundred million-dollar judgments on behalf of patent owners
`and have also successfully defended against multi-hundred million-dollar
`damages claims on behalf of accused infringers.
`
`Alan previously served on Irell & Manella LLP’s Executive Committee and as
`chair of the firm's Hiring Committee. He is an adjunct faculty member at the
`University of California, Los Angeles, where he teaches Patent Intensive, an
`advanced patent law seminar, and has also taught Patent Law and Federal
`Courts at Loyola Law School.
`
`Experience
`
`● Koninklijke Philips N.V. et al. v. ZOLL Medical Corp. (D. Mass.). Represented
`ZOLL Medical Corp. in a patent infringement lawsuit brought by its
`competitor Philips relating to external defibrillator technology. Irell took
`over the case from other counsel in 2014 after a loss at the liability phase.
`Philips initially sought over $900 million in damages. After Irell succeeded
`in knocking out some claims on appeal of the liability judgment, Philips
`reduced its damages claim to $217 million. In August 2017, after a seven-
`day jury trial, the jury returned a verdict in which it rejected Philips’s claim
`for lost profits damages, found that ZOLL did not willfully infringe and
`awarded Philips a net of $7.1 million in damages, less than four percent of
`Philips’s claimed damages.
`
`● Kite Pharma v. Sloan Kettering Institute for Cancer Research (PTAB).
`Represented Sloan Kettering Institute for Cancer Research, an affiliate of
`Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, and its exclusive licensee, Juno
`Therapeutics, a clinical-stage biotechnology company developing cellular
`immunotherapies for the treatment of cancer, in an inter partes review (IPR)
`proceeding before the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB). Juno’s
`competitor Kite sought to invalidate all claims of U.S. Patent No. 7,446,190,
`which covers, among other things, a construct for a chimeric T cell receptor
`that includes a specific CD28 co-stimulatory domain and targets the
`
`www.irell.com
`
`Page 1
`
`

`

`Case 3:17-cv-05659-WHA Document 634-3 Filed 11/30/20 Page 3 of 4
`
`Alan J. Heinrich
`
`
`antigen CD-19 for the treatment of B cell cancers, such as leukemia and lymphomas. The PTAB upheld the
`validity of all claims of the patent in a final written decision, which the Federal Circuit summarily affirmed in June
`2018.
`
`● Alnylam Pharmaceuticals, et al. v. Whitehead Institute for Biomedical Research, et al (D. Mass.). Represented
`Alnylam and the Max Planck Institute in a complex patent dispute concerning rights to fundamental technology
`covered in two families of patent applications in the field of RNA interference (gene silencing). The case was
`successfully resolved on favorable terms through a creative settlement that used co-ownership rights and other
`cooperative mechanisms to overcome U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) rejections in both patent
`application families, leading to a robust estate of issued patents.
`
`● University of Utah v. Alnylam Pharmaceuticals, et al. (D. Mass.). Represented Alnylam, Max Planck Institute,
`Whitehead and Massachusetts Institute of Technology in a dispute over inventorship rights to fundamental
`patents in the RNA interference (gene silencing) field co-owned by the defendants. In this case, Irell represented
`all of the parties involved in the lawsuit listed above, including parties who were adverse to Alnylam and Max
`Planck Institute in that lawsuit. The district court granted summary judgment against the University of Utah and in
`favor of the defendants on all claims. University of Utah did not appeal the district court's ruling.
`
`● University of Pennsylvania, et al. vs. St. Jude Children’s Research Hospital, et al. (E.D. Pa.). Represented Juno
`Therapeutics in a lawsuit against the University of Pennsylvania and Novartis Corporation. The lawsuit involved
`patent and contract claims concerning a novel cancer immunotherapy treatment developed by St. Jude
`Children’s Research Hospital and exclusively licensed to Juno. The treatment uses a “chimeric antigen receptor”
`that re-programs a patient’s own immune cells to identify and destroy cancerous B cells to treat diseases such
`as leukemia and lymphoma. The case settled favorably after several years of litigation, with Juno receiving
`upfront and milestone payments from Novartis as well as ongoing royalties.
`
`● Wisconsin Alumni Research Foundation v. Intel Corp. (W.D. Wis.). Represented WARF in litigation against Intel.
`WARF alleged that Intel's flagship Core Microarchitecture infringed a patent that arose from research at the
`University of Wisconsin, Madison. Three days before trial, Intel and WARF settled the case for a $110 million
`payment to WARF.
`
`● St. Jude Medical v. Access Closure, Inc. (W.D. Ark.). Represented St. Jude Medical in a patent case alleging
`infringement of St. Jude's patents relating to vascular closure devices. In December 2010, the jury returned a
`verdict of willful patent infringement and awarded St. Jude $27.1 million in damages, reportedly the largest jury
`verdict in any area of law in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Arkansas. The Federal Circuit
`affirmed the damages judgment on appeal.
`
`● Unwired Planet (f/k/a Openwave Systems) v. BlackBerry (ITC and D. Del.). Represented BlackBerry in patent
`litigation regarding mobile internet technology. Unwired Planet initially instituted proceedings in the U.S.
`International Trade Commission (ITC) against Blackberry. Unwired Planet stipulated to noninfringement and
`withdrew its complaint on the eve of trial, after the ITC issued a claim construction order under which Unwired
`Planet admitted that there was no infringement. In subsequent proceedings in the U.S. District Court for the
`District of Delaware, the district court entered the identical claim construction, and Unwired Planet again
`stipulated to judgment of noninfringement. The Federal Circuit affirmed the district court's judgment of
`noninfringement.
`
`● Represented BlackBerry on intellectual property issues in connection with its $777 million investment in a
`consortium that acquired a substantial majority of the former Nortel Networks patent portfolio for $4.5 billion. The
`
`www.irell.com
`
`Page 2
`
`

`

`Case 3:17-cv-05659-WHA Document 634-3 Filed 11/30/20 Page 4 of 4
`
`Alan J. Heinrich
`
`
`portfolio consisted of approximately 4,000 patent assets related to a broad array of networking, communications
`and internet technologies. The deal was one of the largest public sales of intellectual property assets in history
`and was the recipient of the 2012 International Financial Law Review “M&A Deal of the Year Award.”
`
`●
`
`Immersion Corp. v. Sony Computer Entertainment (N.D. Cal.). Represented Immersion Corporation, a leading
`developer of "haptic" technologies that allow people to interact with computers using their sense of touch, in a
`patent infringement lawsuit alleging that various PlayStation game products infringe two Immersion patents
`relating to computer-controlled vibrotactile technologies. In September 2004, after a five-week trial, the jury
`returned a verdict in favor of Immersion, finding all asserted patent claims valid and infringed and awarding $82
`million in damages. In February 2007, after Immersion prevailed in a series of post-trial proceedings, Sony paid
`Immersion more than $150 million, which included Sony's satisfaction in full of the judgment, as well as payment
`of interest, compulsory license fee and future royalties. Also represented Immersion in patent litigation against
`Microsoft Corporation, which settled in July 2003.
`
`● Peer Communications v. eBay and Skype (E.D. Tex.). Represented defendants eBay and Skype in a patent
`infringement suit related to internet communications, including what is known as VoIP (voice over internet
`protocol). The plaintiff was a subsidiary of Acacia Research Corp. After claim construction, the district court
`entered judgment for eBay and Skype based on patent invalidity and dismissed the case with prejudice. The
`judgment was affirmed by the Federal Circuit.
`
`● Net2Phone v. eBay and Skype (D.N.J.); eBay v. IDT and Net2Phone (W.D. Ark.). Represented eBay and Skype in
`several patent infringement lawsuits related to internet communications, including VoIP (voice over internet
`protocol) and calling card technology. Net2Phone first filed suit in New Jersey. eBay subsequently filed suit in
`Arkansas against Net2Phone and its parent IDT. Although filed two years later, eBay's case in Arkansas was
`scheduled for trial well before Net2Phone's case in New Jersey. Both cases settled successfully shortly before
`trial.
`
`● Avago Technologies Ltd. v. PixArt Imaging, Inc. (N.D. Cal.). Represented Avago Technologies in a patent
`infringement case involving optical navigation technology for optical computer mouse applications. The accused
`products were PixArt's CMOS optical mouse sensors. The case settled successfully for Avago, with PixArt
`agreeing to take a worldwide license to certain Avago intellectual property.
`
`Honors & Awards
`
`● Selected to the Southern California Super Lawyers list in the area of intellectual property litigation (2013-2020)
`
`● Selected to the Southern California Rising Stars list in the area of intellectual property litigation (2006-2011)
`
`Publications
`
`●
`
`“The Myriad Reasons to Hit ‘Reset’ on Patent-Eligibility Jurisprudence,” 47 Loyola of Los Angeles Law Review 117
`(2013)
`
`www.irell.com
`
`Page 3
`
`