1
`
`SAMSUNG 1040
`Samsung Electronics v. SmartFlash
`CBM2014-00190
`
`

`
`Proceeding No.2 CBM20l4-00190
`Attorney Docket: 39843-OO03CPl
`
`AFFIDAVIT/DECLARATION OF MR. RALPH
`
`PHILLIPS IN SUPPORT OF PETITIONER’S MOTION
`
`FOR PRO HAC VICE ADMISSION
`
`I, Ralph A. Phillips, being duly sworn and upon oath, hereby attest
`
`to/declare the following:
`
`1.
`
`I am a member in good standing of the state Bars of Commonwealth of
`
`Pennsylvania and the District of Columbia.
`
`2.
`
`I have not been suspended or disbarred from practice before any court or
`
`administrative body.
`
`3.
`
`I have never had an application for admission to practice before any court or
`
`administrative body denied.
`
`4.
`
`No sanction or contempt citation has been imposed against me by any court
`
`or administrative body.
`
`5.
`
`I have read and will comply with the Office Patent Trial Practice Guide and
`
`the Board’s Rules of Practice for Trials set forth in part 42 of the Code of Federal
`
`Regulations.
`
`6.
`
`I will be subject to the USPTO Rules of Professional Conduct set forth in 37
`
`C.F.R. §§ ll.lOl et seq. and disciplinaryjurisdiction under 37 C.F.R. § ll.l9(a).
`
`7.
`
`I have applied to appear pro hac vice before the Office in August 2014 for to
`
`represent Alarm.com in Patent Interference Proceeding No. 106,001 (HHB).
`
`

`
`Proceeding No.: CBM2014-00190
`Attorney Docket: 39843-0003CP1
`
`8.
`
`I am an experienced litigation attorney with more than 15 years of
`
`experience representing clients in cases involving consumer electronics, computer
`
`hardware and software, mobile devices and networking technologies.
`
`I regularly
`
`litigate patent cases before various federal district courts and the International
`
`Trade Commission. Through my practice in such cases, I have gained substantial
`
`experience in jury trials, bench trials, discovery, Markman hearings, and appeals.
`
`More particularly, as part of my practice, I have conducted numerous depositions
`
`and cross examinations of technical witnesses, including experts who rendered
`
`opinions on technical issues.
`
`9.
`
`I am familiar with the substantive and technical issues involved in this
`
`proceeding.
`
`I have reviewed and considered the Petition and supporting Exhibits
`
`filed by Samsung, Patent Owner’s Preliminary Response, the Institution Decision,
`
`transcript of the Scheduling Conference call, and U.S. Patent No. 7,334,720. My
`
`biography is attached hereto as Exhibit A.
`
`I hereby declare that all statements made herein of my own knowledge are true and
`
`that all statements made on information and belief are believed to be true; and
`
`further that these statements were made with the knowledge that willful false
`
`statements and the like so made are punishable by fine or imprisonment, or both,
`
`under Section 1001 of Title 18 of the United States Code and that such willful false
`
`

`
`statements may jeopardize the Validity of the application or any patents issued
`
`thereon.
`
`Proceeding No.: CBM2014-00190
`Attorney Docket: 39843-0003CP1
`
`Respectfully submitted,
`
` . hilips
`
`Fish & Richardson P.C.
`
`1425 K Street, N.W.
`11th Floor
`
`Washington, D.C. 20005
`T: 202-783-5070
`
`F: 202-783-2331
`
`Sworn to and subscribed before me,
`
`this \L1yhday of
`
`,ao|§’
`
`
`
`MVS€§)‘;;""':}’;:’§a*§’5l315;e5
`
`My Co
`
`ission Expires:
`
`

`
`EXHIBIT A
`
`5
`
`

`
`Services
`
`Litigation
`
`Patent Litigation
`
`Sectors
`Software
`
`Hardware
`
`Medical Devices
`
`Semiconductors
`
`Education
`
`BS, Pennsylvania State
`University 1993
`Aerospace Engineering
`with distinction
`
`MS, North Carolina State
`University 1995
`Mechanical Engineering
`
`JD, University of Pennsylvania
`Law School 2000
`
`Ralph A. Phillips
`
`Principal
`
`Email rpizii%%;3s@f'm:<>rn
`
`ilkif
`‘i‘\!a5;§"i§ng;ton,
`202-783-5070
`
`Ralph Phillips is a Principal in Fish & Richardson's Washington, D.C.
`office. Mr. Phillips is a trial attorney experienced in all phases of
`litigation, and has appeared and argued in federal district court and
`before the United States International Trade Commission in Section
`
`337 proceedings. In his practice, Mr. Phillips has handled cases
`involving diverse technologies, including LCD and plasma displays,
`digital televisions, computer hardware and software, semiconductor
`fabrication, medical devices, and turbochargers.
`
`Before beginning his legal career, Mr. Phillips worked as a process
`control engineer for the International Paper Company, where he
`implemented supervisory control systems to automate and optimize
`manufacturing processes. Mr. Phi|lips’s work required him to
`understand the operation of various systems, including power
`generation, chemical and mechanical systems, as well as the
`electronics used to control them. Also, as part of his work, Mr. Phillips
`instructed operators on how to use the systems he designed. As a
`patent litigator, Mr. Phillips uses his diverse technical background and
`expertise, as well as his experience as an instructor, to explain
`technical and legal concepts in a clear and persuasive manner.
`
`Experience
`
`A.
`
`Litigation Examples
`
`DISTRICT COURT ACTIONS
`
`Zenith Electronics LLC v. Sony Corporation, et al. (E.D. Tex.) ~
`Representing Zenith in enforcing certain patents related to digital
`televisions in infringement action. Case pending.
`
`LG Electronics, Inc. v. Hitachi, Ltd. (S.D. Cal.) — Representing LGE in
`enforcing certain patents related to digital televisions in infringement
`action. Case pending.
`
`BorgWarner, Inc. v. Honeywell Int’/, Inc. (W.D.N.C.) — Representing
`Borgwarner in asserting three of its patents regarding the design and
`manufacture of turbocharger components. Case pending. Hitachi
`Plasma Patent Licensing Co. v. LG Electronics, Inc. (E.D. Tex.) —
`Defended LGE in a patent infringement action involving plasma
`televisions. Case settled favorably.
`
`6
`
`

`
`LG Electronics, Inc. v. Hitachi, Ltd. (E.D. Tex.) — Represented LGE in
`asserting certain patents related to plasma televisions in infringement
`action. Case settled favorably.
`
`Cheetah Omn/', LLC v. Level 3Commun/‘cations, Inc. & Infinera
`Corporation (E.D. Tex.) — Representing defendants Infinera and Level
`3 Communications in a patent infringement action involving optical
`networking technology. Case is pending.
`
`Toshiba Corporation v. Juniper Networks, Inc et al. (D. Del.) —
`Defended Juniper in a patent case relating to router technology.
`Judgment of non—infringement entered after favorable Markman ruling.
`Affirmed on appeal.
`
`3Com Corp. v. D-Link Systems Inc. (N.D. Cal.) - Defended D—Link in a
`patent infringement case brought by 3Com in the Northern District of
`California involving network interface controller products. Case settled
`favorably.
`
`LG Philips LCD C0,, Ltd. v. Tatung Co. ofAmerica, et al. (C.D. Ca.) —
`Represented LG Philips in asserting certain patents related to LCD
`televisions in infringement action. Case resulted in a $50M verdict for
`LG Philips.
`
`LG Electronics, Inc. v. Bizcom Electronics, Inc. et al. (N.D. Cal.) —
`Represented LGE in asserting certain patents related to PCs in
`infringement action. Case settled favorably.
`
`Central Sprinkler Co. v. Reliable Automatic Sprinkler Co. (S.D.N.Y.) —
`Represented Central Sprinkler in asserting certain patents related to
`automatic sprinkler systems. Case settled favorably.
`
`SECTION 337 PROCEEDINGS BEFORE THE INTERNATIONAL TRADE
`COMMISSION
`
`Certain Video Displays, Components Thereof and Products Containing
`the Same (ITC Inv. 337-TA-687) — Represented complainant LG
`Electronics in investigation enforcing patents related to digital televisions.
`The ALJ found in LGE’s favor after a full evidentiary hearing on the
`merits, and the investigation was terminated due to settlement prior to
`issuance of a final determination by the Commission.
`
`Certain Electronic Devices Having a Digital Television Receiver and
`Components Thereof (ITC Inv. 337—TA—774) — Represented complainant
`Zenith Electronics in investigation enforcing patents related to digital
`televisions. The investigation was terminated after settlement.
`
`Electronic Devices with Communication Capabilities, Components
`Thereof and Related Software (ITC Inv. 337—TA-808) ~— Represented
`respondent Apple in investigation regarding patents asserted against
`various computer products and mobile devices. The investigation was
`terminated after a full evidentiary hearing on the merits but prior to
`issuance of an Initial Determination due to settlement.
`Ad m issio re s
`
`7
`
`

`
`District of Columbia 2001
`
`Pennsylvania 2000
`
`Gther Distinctiens
`
`Publications
`
`Law360, ITC Judge Finds V/zio, AmTran Infringed LG Patent
`(September 17, 2010) available at
`http://www.|aw360.com/web/articles/194807
`
`8