UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`STARBUCKS CORPORATION,
`
`Petitioner,
`
`AMERANTH, INC,
`Patent Owner.
`
`Case CBM2015-00091
`
`Patent 6,3 84,850 Bl
`
`AFFIDAVIT OF MATTHEW C. BERNSTEIN IN SUPPORT OF
`
`PETITIONER STARBUCKS CORPORATION’S MOTION FOR PRO HAC
`
`VICE ADMISSION UNDER 37 C.F.R. §42.10(c)
`
`Starbucks V. Ameranth, CBM2015-00091
`
`Starbucks, EX. 1052
`
`Starbucks, Ex. 1052
`Starbucks v. Ameranth, CBM2015-00091
`
`

`

`Affidavit of Matthew C. Bernstein
`
`1, Matthew C. Bernstein, being duly sworn and upon oath, hereby apply to
`
`appear pro hac vice before the Office in covered business method review
`
`proceedings under PTAB Case Nos. CBM2015-00091 on US. Patent No.
`
`6,384,850 and CBM2015-00099 on US. Patent No. 6,871,325 and hereby attest to
`
`the following:
`
`1.
`
`1 am a member in good standing of the state Bar of California, the
`
`Southern, Central, and Northern Districts of California, the Eastern
`
`District of Texas, as. well as the United States Court of Appeals for the
`
`Federal Circuit.
`
`is.)
`
`1 have never been suspended or disbarred from practice before any court
`
`or administrative body.
`
`.
`
`I have never had an application for admission to practice before any court
`
`or administrative body denied.
`
`No sanction or contempt citation has been imposed against me by any
`
`court or administrative body.
`
`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 37 CPR. Part 42.
`
`I will be subject to the USPTO Rules of Professional Conduct set forth in
`
`37 CPR. §§ 11.10} et seq. and disciplinaryjurisdiction under 37
`
`CPR. § i1.19(a).
`
`[\3)
`
`Starbucks V. Ameranth, CBM2015-00091
`
`Starbucks, EX. 1052
`
`Starbucks, Ex. 1052
`Starbucks v. Ameranth, CBM2015-00091
`
`

`

`Affidavit of Matthew C. Bernstein
`
`7.
`
`I have applied, and have been admitted by the Office, to appear pro hac
`
`vice before the Office in the last three (3) years.
`
`I am applying to appear
`
`before the PTAB in the in the following PTAB proceedings:
`
`i. HTC Corporation. at oi. 12. Advanced Audio Devices, LLC
`Cases:
`IPR2014-01 154 (Patent 6,587,403 131)
`IPR2014—01155 (Patent 7,289,393 132)
`IPR2014-01156 (Patent 7,817,502 32)
`IPR2014—01 157 (Patent 7,933,171 132)
`IPR2014-01 158 (Patent 8,400,888 132)
`
`ii. HTC Corporation 91‘ al. 'v. NFC Technology, LLC
`Cases:
`lPR2014—01 198 (Patent 6,700,551 B2)
`lPR2014—01199 (Patent 7,665,664 B2)
`IPR2015-003 84 (Patent 7,665,664 132)
`
`iii.
`
`Starbucks Corporation v. Ameranth, Inc.
`Cases:
`CBM2015-0009i (Patent 6,384,850)
`CBM2015-00099 (Patent 6,871,325)
`
`8.
`
`1 am an experienced litigation attorney with more than 16 years of
`
`experience representing clients in patent cases involving computer
`
`hardware and software, semiconductors, lnternet and e—commerce, hand
`
`held computers, and other mobile devices.
`
`I regularly litigate patent
`
`cases in various forums including United States Court of Appeals for the
`
`Federal Circuit, various federal district courts, and the International
`
`Trade Commission. Through my experience in patent litigation matters, 1
`
`have represented clients in many phases of litigation including discovery,
`
`Starbucks V. Ameranth, CBM2015-00091
`
`Starbucks, EX. 1052
`
`Starbucks, Ex. 1052
`Starbucks v. Ameranth, CBM2015-00091
`
`

`

`Affidavit of Matthew C. Bernstein
`
`Markman hearings, jury trials, and appeals. My biography is attached
`
`hereto as Exhibit A.
`
`9. On May 6, 2013, Patent Owner filed a lawsuit alleging that Petitioner
`
`Starbucks Corporation and other entities infringe several patents,
`
`including US. Patent No. 6,384,850 and 6,871,325, in Ameranth, Inc. v.
`
`Starbucks Corp, Case No. 3-13-cv-01072 filed in the Southern District
`
`of California and consolidated with Ameranth, Inc. v. Pizza Hat, Inc. et
`
`of, Case No. 3—1 l-cv~01810. That litigation led to the covered business
`
`method review proceedings under PTAB Case Nos. CBM2015—00091
`
`andCBM2015-00099.
`
`10. I am lead counsel for Petitioner Starbucks Corporation in the above
`
`litigation in which Ioversee and handle all phases of the litigation from
`
`discovery through trial, and will continue to be involved in the case as
`
`lead counsel.
`
`1 am familiar with the technologies and issued claims in the
`
`850 and 325 Patents in the above litigation.
`
`I am familiar with the prior
`
`art references cited in PTAB Case Nos. CBM2015~00091 and CBMZOlS-
`
`00099 and the associated invalidity grounds before the PTAB.
`
`Starbucks V. Ameranth, CBM2015-00091
`
`Starbucks, EX. 1052
`
`Starbucks, Ex. 1052
`Starbucks v. Ameranth, CBM2015-00091
`
`

`

`Affidavit of Matthew C. Bernstein
`
`I hereby declare that all statements made of my own knowledge are true and
`
`that all statements made on information and belief are believed to be true.
`
`I further
`
`declare 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 the Title 18 of the United States Code.
`
`Respectfully submitted,
`f
`
`Dated:
`
`Z
`
`_
`
`.
`
`,.
`
`/[ flfi /5
`
`g
`
`Ma
`
`-
`
`/ /
`r
`
`q
`
`'-
`
`/_
`
`C L
`
`ew C. Bernstein
`
`Perkins Coie LLP
`
`11988 El Camino Real, Suite 350
`San Diego, CA 92130
`
`Swornr to and subscribed before me,
`
`this in“
`day oprril, 2015.
`
`f i ~1-
` , fit 'i'
`
`N tary Public
`
`My Commission Expires:
`
`J. MICHELLE BAXTEE
`Commission 4! 1942057
`
`Rom Public - Gallium:
`
`Starbucks V. Ameranth, CBM2015-00091
`
`Starbucks, EX. 1052
`
`Starbucks, Ex. 1052
`Starbucks v. Ameranth, CBM2015-00091
`
`

`

`EXHIBIT A
`
`PeRKINscoie
`
`Professional Biography
`
`
`
`MATTHEW BEFIHSTEIN I PARTNER
`
`San Diego (335cc Managing Partner
`
`SAN DIEGO
`
`TAIPEI
`
`11988 El Camino Real. Suite 350
`San Diego, CA
`+1.858.720.5700
`
`Taipei 101 Tower, Suite F, 45th Floor, No.
`7, Sec. 5. Xinyi Road
`+886.2.8101.2031
`
`MBernstein@perkinscoie.com
`
`MBEinslein@perkinscoie.com
`
`Matthew is the managing partner for the San Diego office and is a partner in the firm's Patent Litigation group. His
`practice focuses on patent iitigation and patent trial work. He has represented both plaintiffs and defendants extensively,
`
`in district courts throughout the country and before the lntemational Trade Commission. Matthew receme tried five
`patent jury cases in district ocurt and a patent case at the ITC.
`
`Some of Matthew’s recent patent litigation successes include:
`
`- Successfully defended a software company in the second-largest patent infringement case in U.S. history.
`
`0 Successfully defended Taiwanese handset manufacturer in ITC action, including obtaining a finding of no liability at
`hearing i trial and at the Federal Circuit.
`
`- Obtained a jury verdict of infringement, willful infringement, significant damages and validity against a maior
`semiconductor company, and then obtained a permanent injunction, enhanced damages, and attorneys’ fees from
`the district court.
`
`- Obtained a jury verdict on liabifity and significant damages for a computer hardware company, and then obtained
`injunction, enhanced damages, and attorneys' fees from the district court.
`
`He has litigated and counseled clients in a wide variety of technologies and industries, including computer software and
`hardware, mobile, electronics, e-commerce, medical devices, media, automotive systems, weapons systems,
`biotechnology, and others. In addition to his patent infringement work, Matthew also represents clients in trademark,
`trade secret, trade dress, copyright, and govemment contract matters.
`
`Matthew recently spoke at the American Intellectual Property Law Association’s annual meeting, before the Association
`of Corporate Counsel, and to GcmmNexus. He also was recently published in the Nationai Law Journal, by the American
`Intellectual Property Law Association, and in the San Diego Dairy Transcript.
`
`In 2007, 2008, 2009, 2010, 2011, 2012 and 2013, Matthewwas recognized for his IP litigation successes by being
`voted by his peers as a Top Attorney in IP Litigation in San Diego. Matthew was also a 2014 Super Lawyer in
`intellectual property.
`
`PROFESSIONAL HECOGNmON
`
`o Named in Best Lawyers, San Diego, Practicing in: Litigation - Intellectual Property, 2015
`
`0 San Diego Business Journal's. Best of the Bar, 2014 - 2015
`
`. Super Lawyer (Intellectual Property), 2013 « 2015
`
`o Named a "Top Attorney“ (Intellectual Property Litigation) in San Diego by the San Diego Daiiy Transcript, 2007 -
`2013
`
`Starbucks V. Amaranth, CBM2015-OOO91
`
`Starbucks, EX. 1052
`
`Starbucks, Ex. 1052
`Starbucks v. Ameranth, CBM2015-00091
`
`

`

`0 Recipient oi the Wiley W. Manual award for Pro Bono Service
`
`EXHIBIT A
`
`PROFESSIONAL LEADERSHIP
`
`0 State Bar of California
`
`0 San Diego County Bar Association
`
`a American Bar Association
`
`a American Intellectual Property Law Association
`
`0
`
`Intellectual Property Owners Association
`
`RELATED EMPLOYMENT
`
`0 Fish 8. Richardson P.C., San Diego, CA, Partner
`
`0 DLA Piper {formally Gray Cary Ware 8: Freidenrich), San Diego, CA, Associate
`
`0 United States Agency for International Development, Washington, D.C.. Law Clerk
`
`EXPERIENCE
`
`PATENT LITIGATION
`
`CLOUD'NG'PLLCVM'CROSOHCOREQRAWN
`U. 3. District Court for the District of Delaware
`
`Lead counsel for Microsoit in 15 patent case related to cloud computing.
`
`AMEHANT”'NCVSTAF‘BUCKSCORP
`U 3. District Court for the Southern District of California
`
`Lead counsel for Starbucks in patent litigation related to online menu generation and mobile payment.
`
`STARBUCKSCOHPVNEOMED'ATECHNOLQG'ESINC
`U. 8. District Court for the Western District of Washington
`Lead counsel for Starbucks in patent litigation related to OR codes.
`
`NFCTECHNOLOGYLLCVWHTCANER'CAIN£METAL
`U 3. District Court for the Eastern District of Texas
`
`Lead counsel for HTC America in patent litigation related to near field communications.
`
`AUDIO EVICES LLc v. HTC AMERICA, INC.
`
`rthe Northern District of Illinois
`Lead counsel for HTC America in patent litigation related to audio playlists
`
`fitflfilgfljflfi.....ETALVAfipLE'NCETAL
`U. S. District Court for the Eastern District of Texas
`
`Lead counsel for HTC America and HTC Corp. in patent litigation related to mobile image systems.
`
`CH'NOOKUCENS'NGDELECVHULULLC
`U. 8. District Court for the District of Delaware
`
`Lead counsel for Hulu in patent litigation related to online recommendations.
`
`THANSV'DEOELECTHON'CSLTDVHULULLC
`U. 8. District Court for the District of Delaware
`
`Lead counsel for Hulu in patent litigation related to video distribution systems.
`
`TRANSVIDEO ELECTRONICS, LTD._.V NETFLIX. INC.
`
`Starbucks V. Ameranth, CBM2015-OOO91
`
`Starbucks, EX. 1052
`
`Starbucks, Ex. 1052
`Starbucks v. Ameranth, CBM2015-00091
`
`

`

`EXHIBIT A
`
`1.1.8. District Court for the District of Delaware
`
`Lead counsel for Netfiix in patent litigation related to video distribution systems.
`
`_ZIPLlNK, INC. V. MiCROSOF—FCORPORATION
`U. 8. District Court for the District of Connecticut
`
`Lead ocunsel tor Microsoft in patent iitigation related to anti-spoofing and antisspam technologies.
`
`INMOTION IMAGERY TECHNOLOGIES LLC V. CVBERLINK.COM CORP. DIBI’A TEXAS CYBERLINK CORP
`U 8. District Court for the Eastern District of Texas
`
`Lead counsel for Cyberlink in patent iitigation related to video indexing system.
`
`OVERLAND STORAGE, [NC., V OUALSTAFI CORPORATION
`U 8. District Court for the Southern District of California
`
`Lead counsel for Qualstar in patent litigation related to media libraries.
`
`ORIENTVIEW TECHNOLOGIES LLC, V. JUST FABULOUS INC.
`U 8. District Court for the District of Delaware
`
`Lead counsel for Just Fabulous in patent litigation related to online marketing.
`
`TIERRAVISION INC V. MICROSOFT CORPORATION
`U. 8 District Court for the Southern District of Caiiiornia
`
`Lead counsel for Microsoft in patent litigation reiated to mobile mapping functionality.
`
`TRANSCENICINC. V. GOOGLEINC., ETAL.
`U. 3. District Court for the District of Delaware
`
`Lead counsei for Microsoft in patent litigation reiated to street levei imagery.
`
`
`Lead counsel for Huluin patent litigation related to online reviews.
`
`HGAVHTCCORP
`
`U. 8. District Court for the District of Massachusetts
`Lead counsei for HTC in patent litigation related to cailer-id functionality on mobile phones.
`
`LBS‘NDIOVATIONSLLCVAAEONBHOTHERSINCFETAL
`U. 3. District Court for the Eastern District of Texas
`
`Lead counsel for Adams Goif in patent litigation related to online store locators.
`
`LBSINNOVWONSLLCVEMF-“55'0““.....ET“-
`U. 8. District Court for the Eastern District of Texas
`
`Lead counsel for McDonald's. Staibucks, Target. Costco, US. Bank and others in patent litigation related to ontine store
`locators.
`
`LBS'NNDVAVONSLLCVSALLVBEAUTYSUPPWLLCET“-
`U 8. District Court for the Eastern District of Texas
`
`Lead counsel for Sally Beauty in patent litigation related to online store locators.
`
`0035935930“TECHNOLOGYSOLUTIPNSLLCVCAINCET“—
`U. 8. District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri
`
`Lead counsel for Quest Software in patent litigation related to data compression.
`
`. TIME WAR
`
`
` . .
`of Co
`ecticut
`Lead counsel for Time Warner in patent litigation related to anti-spoofing and anti—spam technologies.
`
`_STYLEPATH, INC. V. JUST FABULOUS INC.
`U. 8. District Court for the Central District of Caiiiornia
`Lead counsel for Just Fabulous in patent litigation related to online marketing.
`
`EDIGITAL CORPORATION V. INTEL CORPORATION
`
`U. 8. District Court for the Southern District of Calitomia
`
`Starbucks V. Ameranth, CBM2015-00091
`
`Starbucks, EX. 1052
`
`Starbucks, Ex. 1052
`Starbucks v. Ameranth, CBM2015-00091
`
`

`

`EXHIBIT A
`
`Counsel for Intel in patent litigation related to flash memory.
`
`fLASHPOINTTECHNOLOGYINC. V. HTC CORPORATION, ETAL.
`U 8. District Court for the District of Delaware
`Counsel for HTC in patent litigation concerning to patents related to rnobiie technologies; pending.
`
`FLASHPOINTTECHNOLOGY INC V. HTC CORPORA‘HON, HTC AMERICA INC ETAL
`US.....liii;5323i;SitEr"'tiaiié‘fiéiiiifii'gé'ififi....................................................................................................................................
`Counsel for HTC in patent litigation consenting camera functionality in smart phones; win at trial and initial ID. lTC
`proceeding 337-TA-726
`
`FUJINON CORPORATION V. HTC CORP. AND HTC AMERICA INC.
`U. 5. District Court for the Southern District of Texas
`
`Counsel for HTC in patent litigation consenting optical lens structures found in cellular phones; pending.
`
`_LARGAN PRECISION, COMPANY LTD. V. FUJINON CORPORATION
`U. 8. District Court for the Northern District of California
`
`Counsel for Largan in patent litigation concerning opticai lens structures; dismissed.
`
`TREEFROG DEVELOPMENTS, INC. DI’BIA LIFEPFIOOF V. SEIDIO, INC.
`U. 8. District Court for the Southern District of California
`
`Counsel for LiteProof in patent litigation related to iPhone cases.
`
`TREEFROG DEVELOPMENTS, INC. DiBlA LIFEPROOF V. JOY FACTORY, INC.
`U. 8. District Court for the Southern District of California
`
`Counsel for LifeProof in patent litigation related to iPhone cases.
`
`TREEFROG DEVELOPMENTS, INC. DI'BI'A LIFEPROOF V. KLEAHKASE, LLC, ET AL.
`Li. S. District Court for the Southern District of California
`
`Counsei for LifeProof in patent litigation related to iPhone cas es.
`
`ATEN INTERNATIONAL COMPANY, LTD. V. BELKIN CORPORATION
`U 3. District Court for the Central District of California
`
`Counsel for ATEN in patent litigation related to KVM switches.
`
`
`
`Counsel tor Amazon in multiple patent case related to cloud computing.
`
`CLOUDWG‘PLLCVRACKSPACEH°3“NG‘NC.....ET“-
`U S. District Court for the District of Delaware
`
`Counsel for Backspace in multiple patent case rotated to cloud computing.
`
`CLOUDINGIPLLCVDROPBOX'NC
`U 8 District Court for the District of Deiaware
`
`Counsel for Dropbox in multiple patent case rotated to cloud computing.
`
`fiiflflififilflmflfi-.....VMEMSOFTCOHPORATIONETAL
`U 8. District Court for the Eastern District of Texas
`
`Counsel for HTC in two patent case related to remote notification technology for mobile devices; plaintiff voluntarily
`dismissed claims against HTC.
`
`LUCENTTECHNOLOGIESVMICROSOFTCORPORAWON
`U. 3. District Court for the Southern District of Catifornia
`
`Federal Circuit Coart of Appeals
`Defended Microsoft in patent litigation jury triai related to audio encoders and decoders.
`
`CORPORA‘HON AND AUTODESK INC.*
`
`
`Federal Circuit Court of Appeals
`Deiended Microsoft'In patent litigation jury trial related to software anti-piracy
`
`Starbucks V. Ameranth, CBM2015-00091
`
`Starbucks, EX. 1052
`
`Starbucks, Ex. 1052
`Starbucks v. Ameranth, CBM2015-00091
`
`

`

`EXHIBIT A
`
`MICROTUNE, LP. V. BROADCOM CORP.“
`U. 8. District Court for the Eastern District of Texas
`
`Represented Microtune in patent litigationJury trial related to integrated TV tuners.
`
`
` . ct Court for the Westem District of Texas
`
`Federal Circuit Court of Appeals
`Represented Crossroads Systems in patent litigation jury trial related to storage routers.
`
`CROSSROADS SYSTEMS, INC. V. PATHLIGHTTECHNOLOGY, INC.*
`U. 8. District Court for the Western District of Texas
`
`Represented Crossroads Systems in patent litigation jury trial related to storage routers.
`
`POLAROID CORP. V. HEWLEW-PACKARD CO.'
`U. S. District Court for the District of Delaware
`Defended Hewlett-Packard in patent litigation related to image enhancement algorithms.
`
`PRODUCT ACTWARON CORP. V. AUTODESK, INC."
`U 3 District Court for the Eastern District of Texas
`
`Deterrded Autodesk in patent litigation related to software anti-pi racy.
`
`HAKAN LANS AND UNIBOARD AKTIEBOLAG V. HEWLETT-PACKARD CO._"
`US.....DiElliEi"”<56[Iii‘i6?‘iiié“Biéi'fi'éi“iii"'63iiiiii‘bi£...............................................................................
`Federal Circuit Court of Appeals
`Defended Hewiett-Packard in patent litigation related to digital graphics.
`
`DIGITAL DEVELOPMENT CORP. V. HEWLETT-PACKARD CO.‘
`U. 8. District Court for the Northern District of California
`
`Defended Hewlett-Packard in patent litigation related to computer data integrity.
`
`TYPERIGH'I' KEYBOARD CORP. V. MICROSOFT CORPORATION’
`U. 5. District Court for the Southern District of California
`
`Defended Microsoft in patent litigation related to ergonomic keyboards.
`
`ORION IP LLC V. AMERICAN SUZUKI MOTOR CORP.*
`U. 3. District Court for the Eastern District of Texas
`Defended American Suzuki Motor Corp. in patent litigation related to online advertising and online parts ordering.
`
`ALPHATEC SPINE, INC. V. X-SPINE SYSTEMS, INC."
`U. 3. District Court for the Southern District of California
`Lead counsel for patent holder Alphatec Spine in patent litigati0n related to cenricai plate and fixation systems.
`
`ALPHATEC SPINE, INC. V. THEKEN SPINE LLC, ET AL.‘
`U. 8. District Court for the Southern District of California
`
`Lead counsel for patent holder Alphatec Spine in patent litigation related to cervical plate and fixation systems. The
`case favorably settled.
`
`SEOUAL TECHNOLOGIES, INC. V. INOGEN, INC."
`U. 8. District Court for the Southern District of California
`
`Represented patent holder Sequel in patent litigation related to portable oxygen concentrators. The case favorably
`settled.
`
`INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY LITIGATION
`
`&l. LIQU
`
`Distric of California
`
`Represented Loriilard Tobacco in litigation involving trademark and counterteit.
`
`LORILLARD TOBACCO CO. V. J&J LIOUOR'
`US. District Court for the Central District of California
`
`Represented Lorillard Tobacco in trademark and counterfeit litigation.
`
`Starbucks V. Ameranth, CBM2015-OOO91
`
`Starbucks, EX. 1052
`
`Starbucks, Ex. 1052
`Starbucks v. Ameranth, CBM2015-00091
`
`

`

`EXHIBIT A
`
`Rl3fifiyfifi.EfllfiflEfllfififiHut:§9§EIITIII§§§LEIEJ
`U. S District Court for the Southern District of California
`
`Represented Dr. Seuss Enterprises in trademark. trade dress and copyright litigation.
`
`METABOL'FELEIEHNA'I'IONAL'NEVONTHACKWELLNESSINC
`U. 8. District Court for the Southern District of California
`
`Represented Metabolife International in trademark and trade dress litigation.
`
`garages.seas“my.Is.streammasmusena:
`Superior Court of California, San Diego County
`Represented Orincon in trade secret and unfair competition litigation.
`
`M'CF'OTUNE'NCVBHOADCOM
`U. S. District Court for the Western District of Texas
`
`Represented Microtune in antitrust litigation.
`
`MICHOTUNEWCVSIUCONWAVE'NC
`
`Superior Court of California San Diego County
`Represented Microtune in breach of contract litigation.
`
`" Prior Experience
`
`N EWS
`
`08.18.2014
`
`Best Lawyers® 2015 Recognizes 221 Perkins Coie Attorneys
`Press Releases
`
`Perkins Coie is proud to announce that 221 of its attorneys were selected by their peers for inclusion in the 2015 edition
`of The Best Lawyers in America ®.
`the oldest and most respected peer-review publication in the legal profession.
`
`08.07.2013
`
`Perkins Coie Partners Named to The Daily Transcript 's 2013 Top Attorneys List
`Press Releases
`
`PeI1<ins Coie is pleased to announce that two partners in the tirm‘s San Diego office have been named by their peers to
`the Daily Tronscript's 2013 Top Attorneys list.
`
`08.02.2012
`
`Perkins Coie Attorneys Named to The Daily Transcript ’s 2012 Top Attorneys List
`Press Releases
`
`Perkins Coie is pleased to announce that four partners in the San Diego office have been named by their peers to The
`
`Dotty Tronso-r'pr‘s 2012 Top Attorneys list. The annual listing recognizes the best lawyers in 14 categories that cover the
`private, corporate, academic, and government practice in San Diego County.
`
`PUBLICATIONS
`
`5.112010
`
`"How has the change in pleading requirements, implemented by recent Supreme Court decisions, affected patent
`infi‘ingement cases? And how can companies overcome this strategyfor dismissal by patent infi‘ingers?"
`Attorney Publications
`Expert Insights: Intellectual Property
`
`Spring 2009
`
`”Mental Illness and Substance Abnse: Ethical Obligations for those Not Suffering the Impairment”
`General Publications
`AIPLA Course Materials
`
`02.25.2010
`
`Starbucks V. Ameranth, CBM2015-OOO91
`
`Starbucks, EX. 1052
`
`Starbucks, Ex. 1052
`Starbucks v. Ameranth, CBM2015-00091
`
`

`

`EXHIBIT A
`
`”Beware Patent Markers "
`Articles
`
`San Diego Daily Transcript
`
`PRESENTATIONS
`
`05.22.2014
`
`How to Deal with 11.5. Patent Lawsuits
`
`Speaking Engagements
`Taipei, Taiwan i Taichung, Taiwan
`
`01.29.2014
`
`2014 Advanced Complex Litigation Series
`Speaking Engagements
`San Diego, CA
`
`06.26.2013
`
`Patent Litigation Post AIA: Updated Statistics and Corresponding Strategies
`Speaking Engagements
`JICN & RBA i Tokyo. Japan
`
`06.21.2013
`
`JP Vaiue Seminar
`
`Speaking Engagements
`III Institute for Information Technology i Taipei. Taiwan
`
`06.14.2013
`
`Patent Litigation Er Inter Parties Review ("IPR"): IPR as Litigation Strategy
`Speaking Engagements
`Ji2 I Taipei. Taiwan
`
`AREAS OF FOCUS
`
`PRACHCES
`
`Patent Litigation
`
`Trademark & Copyright Litigation
`Taiwan Practice
`
`ITC Litigation
`Post-Grant Procedures
`
`Japan Practice
`
`INDUSTRIES
`
`Internet 8: E-Cornrnerce
`
`Communications
`
`Electronic Financial Services
`
`Food 8: Beverage
`Interactive Entertainment
`
`Media Law
`
`Medical Device
`
`Fietail & Consumer Products
`
`Semiconductor
`
`Starbucks V. Ameranth, CBM2015-OOO91
`
`Starbucks, EX. 1052
`
`Starbucks, Ex. 1052
`Starbucks v. Ameranth, CBM2015-00091
`
`

`

`EXHIBIT A
`
`BAHANDCOUHTADMBEONS
`
`- Calilornia
`
`o U.S. Court ot Appeals for the Federal Circuit
`o U.S. District Coon for the Central District of California
`
`0 U.S. District Court for the Northern District oi California
`
`1: U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Califomia
`
`o U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Texas
`
`EDUCAHON
`
`o The George Washington University Law School, JD, 1998
`
`c Tufts University, B.A., 1995
`
`
`
`® 2015 Perkins Coie LLP
`
`Starbucks V. Ameranth, CBM2015-OOO91
`
`Starbucks, EX. 1052
`
`Starbucks, Ex. 1052
`Starbucks v. Ameranth, CBM2015-00091
`
`