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

`

`Case 3:17-cv-05659-WHA Document 634-5 Filed 11/30/20 Page 2 of 3
`
`Ingrid Petersen
`Associate
`
`840 Newport Center Drive
`Suite 400
`Newport Beach, CA 92660-6324
`t: +1.949.760.5122 | f: +1.949.717.6359 | ipetersen@irell.com
`
`Practice Areas
`Intellectual Property
`Litigation
`
`Litigation
`
`Education
`University of California,
`Irvine School of Law (J.D.,
`2016), summa cum laude;
`Research editor, UC Irvine
`Law Review; Faculty Award
`(highest performance in a
`course); Dean’s Award
`(second highest
`performance in a course)
`
`University of California,
`Irvine (B.A., Political
`Science and Drama, 2012)
`magna cum laude and
`cum laude, respectively;
`Phi Beta Kappa; School of
`Social Sciences Order of
`Merit Recognition;
`Department of Political
`Science Honors Program
`
`Admissions
`California
`
`U.S. District Court for the
`Northern District of
`California
`
`Clerkships
`Hon. Karen Nelson Moore,
`U.S. Court of Appeals for
`the Sixth Circuit
`
`Hon. James V. Selna, U.S.
`
`Ingrid Petersen’s practice focuses on intellectual property litigation, with an
`emphasis on high-stakes patent infringement suits involving complex
`technology and biotech disputes.
`
`Before joining Irell, Ingrid clerked for the Hon. Karen Nelson Moore of the U.S.
`Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit and for the Hon. James V. Selna of the
`U.S. District Court for the Central District of California.
`
`During law school at University of California, Irvine School of Law, Ingrid was a
`research editor for the UC Irvine Law Review, and she received the Faculty
`Award (highest performance in a course) for her work in Constitutional
`Analysis, Evidence, and Advanced Domestic Violence Clinic. She also earned
`the Dean’s Award (second highest performance in a course) for her work in
`Employment Discrimination, Torts, International Legal Analysis, Criminal
`Procedure, and Domestic Violence Clinic.
`
`Experience
`
`● Juno Therapeutics, Inc. et al. v. Kite Pharma, Inc. (C.D. Cal.). Served as part of
`the team that scored a $752 million jury award for Sloan Kettering Institute
`for Cancer Research and Juno Therapeutics in a patent suit against Kite
`Pharma. The jury also found that Kite willfully infringed the patent for
`cancer immunotherapy. The court subsequently enhanced the award to
`$1.2 billion.
`
`● Optis Wireless Technology LLC et al. v. Apple Inc.(E.D. Tex.). Served as part of
`the team that secured a $506.2 million jury verdict for PanOptis in a patent
`trial against Apple involving 4G LTE technology. The jury found Apple
`infringed claims of the five patents at issue, determined all asserted claims
`were valid, and found Apple’s infringement was willful. The case was the
`first in-person patent jury trial in the nation since the pandemic began.
`
`● Continental Automotive Systems Inc. v. Avanci LLC et al. (N.D. Tex.).
`Representing PanOptis, served as part of the team that persuaded a judge
`to dismiss with prejudice an antitrust and unfair competition suit filed by
`Continental Automotive Systems involving licensing practices for patents
`covering cellular technology.
`
`www.irell.com
`
`Page 1
`
`

`

`Case 3:17-cv-05659-WHA Document 634-5 Filed 11/30/20 Page 3 of 3
`
`Ingrid Petersen
`
`
`District Court for the
`Central District of California
`
`● 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
`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.
`
`Honors & Awards
`
`● Recognized on the list of Best Lawyers: Ones to Watch (2021)
`
`www.irell.com
`
`Page 2
`
`