Case 3:17-cv-05659-WHA Document 634-4 Filed 11/30/20 Page 1 of 5
`
`Exhibit 3
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 3:17-cv-05659-WHA Document 634-4 Filed 11/30/20 Page 2 of 5
`
`Practice Areas
`Litigation
`
`Intellectual Property
`Litigation
`
`Appellate
`
`Education
`University of Virginia
`School of Law (J.D., 2007);
`Articles review board
`member, Journal of Social
`Policy and the Law; Semi-
`finalist, Lile Moot Court
`Competition; Selected as
`one of the best oral
`advocates of her first-year
`class
`
`University of San Diego
`(B.A., Psychology and
`Communication Studies,
`2004), summa cum laude;
`Phi Beta Kappa
`
`Admissions
`California, 2007
`
`U.S. District Court for the
`Central, Northern and
`Southern Districts of
`California
`
`U.S. Court of Appeals for
`the Ninth and Federal
`Circuits
`
`Rebecca Carson
`Partner
`
`840 Newport Center Drive
`Suite 400
`Newport Beach, CA 92660-6324
`t: +1.949.760.5222 | f: +1.949.760.5200 | rcarson@irell.com
`
`Rebecca Carson’s practice encompasses a wide range of complex
`commercial litigation matters, including patent infringement, trademarks,
`contractual issues, employment matters and business torts. Rebecca has
`gained significant trial experience at the firm, including recent trials in federal
`court and at the U.S. International Trade Commission (ITC), one of which was
`selected as a Top Verdict by the Daily Journal. Rebecca also has experience
`arguing before the Federal Circuit and the Patent Trial and Appeal Board
`(PTAB). The Daily Journal named Rebecca one of the Top 40 Lawyers Under 40
`in 2018 and one of the 75 Top IP Lawyers in California in 2019. She was also
`recognized nationally in 2018 as a “Rising Star” in technology by Law360.
`
`Rebecca is co-hiring partner for Irell & Manella LLP’s Newport Beach office
`and an active member of the firm’s Pro Bono Committee. In addition, she has
`devoted a significant amount of time to the community. The Laguna Beach
`City Council has appointed Rebecca to various advisory committees since
`2011. She currently serves as the elected vice chairperson on the city’s View
`Restoration Committee, which adjudicates view claims submitted by property
`owners to restore pre-existing views that are alleged to be significantly
`impaired by vegetation.
`
`Experience
`
`● Finjan Inc. v. Juniper Networks, Inc. (N.D. Cal.). Successfully defended Juniper
`against a patent infringement lawsuit, convincing a jury in the U.S. District
`Court for the Northern District of California that Juniper did not infringe a
`malware detection patent held by Finjan Inc. Finjan asserted seven
`computer security patents against Juniper. The judge ordered each party to
`select the patent claim it felt was the strongest and move for early
`summary judgment on that claim in a proceeding the judge called a
`“Patent Showdown.” Juniper prevailed on summary judgment for the claim
`it selected, and defeated Finjan’s summary judgment motion – setting up
`the trial on what Finjan had selected as its strongest claim. During the trial,
`Irell persuaded the court that Finjan, which sought $60 million in damages,
`had not presented sufficient evidence to support a damages claim. The
`eight-member jury also delivered a unanimous finding of non-infringement
`
`www.irell.com
`
`Page 1
`
`

`

`Case 3:17-cv-05659-WHA Document 634-4 Filed 11/30/20 Page 3 of 5
`
`Rebecca Carson
`
`
`for Juniper. After the trial, the judge ordered a second round of the “Patent Showdown.” Once again, Juniper
`obtained summary judgment on the claim it selected. Not only did Juniper defeat Finjan’s motion, but it also
`convinced the court to enter summary judgment in Juniper’s favor on that claim. Shortly after the ruling, Finjan
`voluntarily dismissed its remaining claims against Juniper. The Federal Circuit issued a summary affirmance on
`appeal.
`
`● Juno Therapeutics Inc. et al. v. Kite Pharma Inc. (C.D. Cal.). Served as part of the team that convinced a jury in the
`U.S. District Court for the Central District of California to award Sloan Kettering Institute for Cancer Research and
`Juno Therapeutics, Inc. $752 million in a patent infringement suit against Kite Pharma Inc. The jury also found that
`Kite willfully infringed the patent for cancer immunotherapy. The court subsequently enhanced the award to $1.2
`billion.
`
`● Mobile Telecommunication, LLC (M Tel) v. Juniper Networks, Inc. (E.D. Tex./D. Del.). Represented Juniper in a
`multidistrict patent litigation in which MTel asserted three patents relating to Wi-Fi technology. Prior to suing
`Juniper, MTel had obtained a multimillion-dollar jury verdict on some of the same patents against a different
`defendant. MTel originally brought its claims against Juniper in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of
`Texas, but the case was transferred to the U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware after Juniper and several
`other defendants successfully petitioned to have the cases consolidated in a multidistrict litigation in Delaware.
`After being transferred to Delaware, Juniper secured a favorable claim construction order, which prompted MTel
`to agree to dismiss one of the patents with prejudice and stipulate to noninfringement and invalidity of the two
`remaining patents. Rebecca argued before the MDL Panel and at the claim construction hearing. The case
`settled while on appeal.
`
`●
`
`Immersion v. Apple (ITC). Represented Immersion in a multi-patent action pending before the International Trade
`Commission, U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware and the PTAB. The dispute involved several Immersion
`patents relating to tactile feedback technologies that were asserted against Apple devices. The ITC case went to
`trial before the chief administrative law judge. The dispute settled when Immersion entered into settlement and
`license agreements with Apple, the terms of which are confidential.
`
`● Koninklijke Philips N.V. et al. v. ZOLL Medical Corp. (D. Mass.). Part of the Irell team that defeated a $217 million
`damages claim for ZOLL’s infringement of defibrillator technology patents and secured a jury verdict of no willful
`infringement. Irell was retained for the damages phase after ZOLL was found to infringe in an earlier liability trial
`handled by another law firm. Irell initially secured multiple appellate victories for ZOLL on the liability verdict,
`including overturning the jury verdict that several asserted patent claims were not invalid as anticipated. On
`remand, Philips sought $217 million on its infringement claims against ZOLL, and ZOLL sought $3.3 million on its
`infringement counterclaims against Philips. The jury awarded $10.4 million to Philips and $3.3 million to ZOLL,
`resulting in a net verdict of only $7.1 million to Philips. The case settled shortly after the jury trial.
`
`● Koninklijke Philips N.V. et al. v. ZOLL Lifecor Corp. (W.D. Penn.). Represented ZOLL Lifecor in a patent infringement
`case in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania involving external defibrillator technology.
`The case settled shortly after Irell won an important Daubert motion excluding critical parts of the opinion of
`Philips’s damages expert and also defeated a $217 million damages claim against ZOLL Lifecor’s parent
`company at a jury trial.
`
`● Brixham Solutions LTD v. Juniper Networks, Inc. (N.D. Cal.). Represented Juniper in a patent lawsuit in which
`Brixham asserted a number of patents relating to router technologies. Juniper convinced the PTAB to institute
`inter partes review proceedings on all asserted claims. The PTAB ultimately found that the patents were invalid,
`
`www.irell.com
`
`Page 2
`
`

`

`Case 3:17-cv-05659-WHA Document 634-4 Filed 11/30/20 Page 4 of 5
`
`Rebecca Carson
`
`
`and the Federal Circuit upheld that decision. Rebecca handled the arguments before both the PTAB and the
`Federal Circuit.
`
`● Nipro Corporation v. NxStage, Inc. (PTAB). Represented NxStage in an inter parte review (IPR) proceeding on a
`patent relating to dialysis technology brought by a competitor. The Irell team secured complete denial of the IPR
`petition as to all challenged claims on claim construction grounds.
`
`● Unite Here Local 11 v. Anaheim Arena (O.C. Superior Ct.). Represented Anaheim Arena in a lawsuit brought by a
`union to enforce various provisions of the Janitor Displacement Opportunity Act, which the union had lobbied to
`make temporarily applicable to food service employees of entertainment venues. The union voluntarily
`dismissed the action shortly after Anaheim Arena defeated the union’s request for a preliminary injunction.
`Rebecca also represented Anaheim Arena in a related class action that was dismissed at the pleading stage.
`
`● GraphOn Corporation v. Juniper Networks, Inc. (E.D. Tex./N.D. Cal.). Represented Juniper in two separate patent
`infringement cases brought by GraphOn involving several firewall-related patents. Juniper successfully moved to
`transfer the cases from the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Texas to the U.S. District Court for the
`Northern District of California. Subsequently, both cases were stayed pending reexamination of the patents-in-
`suit by the USPTO. After the USPTO canceled all of the claims asserted against Juniper, the case settled on
`mutually satisfactory terms.
`
`● Enhanced Security Research/Altitude Capital v. Juniper Networks, Inc. (E.D. Tex./D. Del.). Represented Juniper in a
`series of cases involving a patent dispute with Enhanced Security Research (ESR) and Altitude Capital and
`secured a successful settlement for Juniper. Under the terms of the public settlement agreement, ESR and
`Altitude received no monetary payment from Juniper, which was granted a full release, a covenant not to sue
`and a license to ESR’s and Altitude’s entire patent portfolios (including the patents-in-suit) in exchange for
`Juniper’s agreement to walk away from the nearly five-year litigation without continuing to seek attorneys’ fees
`and to discontinue its participation in the appeal of the pending reexamination proceedings.
`
`● United States v. Mr. and Mrs. V. Provided pro bono representation for an immigrant family in Los Angeles
`Immigration Court on an application for cancellation of removal. After an evidentiary hearing that included
`testimony from the couple and their two children, the judge issued a positive final ruling that allowed the entire
`family to remain in the United States after three appeals and 10 years of litigation in the immigration courts.
`
`● RRLH, Inc. v. Barto (C.D. Cal.). Counseled RRLH on a number of trademark issues, including the enforcement of a
`consent judgment that prohibited Barto from infringing RRLH’s trademarks. In response to RRLH’s motion, the
`court ruled that Barto was in contempt of the consent judgment order and awarded RRLH monetary damages
`and attorneys’ fees. The damages award—including the award of attorneys’ fees—was upheld by the U.S. Court of
`Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.
`
`Honors & Awards
`
`● Recognized as one of the “25 Up-and-Coming Orange County Rising Stars” (2019-2020)
`
`● Recognized as one of the “50 Up-and-Coming Women Southern California Rising Stars” (2019-2020)
`
`● Recognized as one of the Top IP Lawyers in California, Daily Journal (2019)
`
`● Recognized as one of the Top 40 Under 40 Lawyers in California, Daily Journal (2018)
`
`www.irell.com
`
`Page 3
`
`

`

`Case 3:17-cv-05659-WHA Document 634-4 Filed 11/30/20 Page 5 of 5
`
`Rebecca Carson
`
`
`● Named a “Rising Star” and one of three technology lawyers under 40 in the country to watch, Law360 (2018)
`
`● Named to Benchmark Litigation’s “Under 40 Hot List” (2016-2019)
`
`● Named to the Southern California Rising Stars list (2013-present)
`
`Publications
`
`●
`
`●
`
`●
`
`●
`
`“Patent (Win) Pending,” Best Lawyers (December 19, 2019)
`
`“Equitable Estoppel Case Out of Touch With Reality,” Daily Journal (April 17, 2013)
`
`“Ethically Speaking: Rule 502 and Clawback Agreements,” 54 Orange County Lawyer (2012)
`
`“Ethically Speaking: The Rules of 'Friending,” 53 Orange County Lawyer (2011)
`
`Speaking Engagements
`
`●
`
`"Encoding Conditions and Personality Effects on a Recognition Task," poster presentation at the 84th Annual
`meeting of the Western Psychological Association in Phoenix, Arizona (2004)
`
`Professional Activities
`
`● PLC Advocates (2014-2015)
`
`● Howard T. Markey Inn of Court
`
`Community Involvement
`
`● View Restoration Committee, Laguna Beach City Council (2017-2018)
`
`● Leadership Laguna (2016)
`
`● Parking, Transportation and Circulation Committee, Laguna Beach City Council (2012-2015)
`
`www.irell.com
`
`Page 4
`
`