UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`STARBUCKS CORPORATION,
`
`Petitioner,
`
`AMERANTH, INC,
`
`Patent Owner.
`
`Case CBM2015—00099
`
`Patent 6,871,325
`
`AFFIDAVIT 0F MATTHEW C. BERNSTEIN IN SUPPORT OF
`
`PETITIONER STARBUCKS CORPORATIONS MOTION FOR PRO HAC
`
`VICE ADMISSION UNDER 37 C.F.R. §42.10(c)
`
`Starbucks V. Ameranth, CBM2015-00099
`
`Starbucks, EX. 1062
`
`Starbucks, Ex. 1062
`Starbucks v. Ameranth, CBM2015-00099
`
`

`

`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. CBM2015-0009i on US. Patent No.
`
`6,384,850 and CBM2015~00099 on US. Patent No. 6,871,325 and hereby attest to
`
`the following:
`
`i.
`
`i 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 Cowt of Appeals for the
`
`Federal Circuit.
`
`2.
`
`I have never 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 37 C.F.R. Part 42.
`
`6.
`
`i will be subject to the USPTO Rules of Professional Conduct set forth in
`
`37 CPR. §§ i 1.101 at seq. and disciplinary jurisdiction under 37
`
`C.P.R.§ ll.l9(a).
`
`Starbucks v. Ameranth, CBM2015-00099
`
`Starbucks, EX. 1062
`
`Starbucks, Ex. 1062
`Starbucks v. Ameranth, CBM2015-00099
`
`

`

`Affidavit of Matthew C. Bernstein
`
`7.
`
`l 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 a]. v. Advanced Audio Devices, LLC
`Cases:
`IPR2014—01 154 (Patent 6,587,403 B1)
`IPR'2014—01 155 (Patent 7,289,393 B2.)
`IPR2014—01156 (Patent 7,817,502 B2)
`1PR2014-01 157 (Patent 7,933,171 B2)
`lPR2014-01158 (Patent 8,400,888 B2)
`
`ii. HTC Corporation at a]. 12. NFC Technoiogy, LLC
`Cases:
`IPR20l4-01 198 (Patent 6,700,551 B2)
`IPR2014-01199 (Patent 7,665,664 B2)
`IPR2015-003 84 (Patent 7,665,664 BIZ)
`
`iii.
`
`Starbucks Corporation v. Amerom‘h, Inc.
`Cases:
`CBM2015—00091 (Patent 6,3 84,850)
`CBM2015-00099 (Patent 6,871,325)
`
`8.
`
`I am. an experienced litigation attorney with more than 16 years of
`
`experience representing clients in patent cases involving computer
`
`hardware and software, semiconductors, Internet and e—commerce, hand
`
`held computers, and other mobile devices.
`
`1 reguiarly 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, I
`
`have represented clients in many phases of litigation including discovery,
`
`Starbucks V. Ameranth, CBM2015-00099
`
`Starbucks, EX. 1062
`
`Starbucks, Ex. 1062
`Starbucks v. Ameranth, CBM2015-00099
`
`

`

`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 Amaranth, Inc. v.
`
`Starbucks Corp, Case No. 3—13—cv-01072 filed in the Southern District
`
`of California and consolidated with Amaranth, Inc. v. Pizza Hat, Inc. et
`
`of, Case No. 3—1 I-cv—Ol 810. That litigation led to the covered business
`
`method review proceedings under PTAB Case Nos. CBM2015—00091
`
`and CBM2015-00099.
`
`10. I am lead counsel for Petitioner Starbucks Corporation in the above
`
`litigation in which I oversee 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 CBM2015—
`
`00099 and the associated invalidity grounds before the PTAB.
`
`Starbucks V. Ameranth, CBM2015-00099
`
`Starbucks, EX. 1062
`
`Starbucks, Ex. 1062
`Starbucks v. Ameranth, CBM2015-00099
`
`

`

`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.
`
`Dated:
`
`/( Mg /5
`
`Ma
`
`T?
`
`,
`,/
`g C
`
`ReSpectfully submitted,
`_
`- r/
`
`2
`
`_.
`
`ew C. Bernstein
`
`Perkins Coie LLP
`
`11988 El Camino Real, Suite 350
`San Diego, CA 92130
`
`Swornqto and subscribed before me,
`
`this 16?:
`day of April, 2015.
`
` tary Public
`
`My Commission Expires:
`
`J. MICHELLE BAXTEH
`Commission {I 194205?
`
`Notary Public - canton“:
`
`Starbucks V. Ameranth, CBM2015-00099
`
`Starbucks, EX. 1062
`
`Starbucks, Ex. 1062
`Starbucks v. Ameranth, CBM2015-00099
`
`

`

`EXHIBIT A
`
`PeRKINSCOie
`
`Professional Biography
`
`
`
`MA'I'I'HEW BERNSTEIN I PARTNER
`
`San Diego Oficc Managing Partner
`
`SAN DIEGO
`
`TAIPEI
`
`11988 El Camino Fteal, Suite 350
`San Diego, CA
`+1.858.720.5700
`
`Taipei 101 Tower, Suite F, 45th Floor, No.
`7, Sec. 5,)(inyi Fioad
`+886.2.8101.2031
`
`MBernstein@perkinscoie.com
`
`MBernstein@perkinscoie.com
`
`Matthew is the managing partner for the San Diego office and is a partner in the tirm's Patent Litigation group. His
`practice tocuses on patent litigation and patent trial work. He has represented both plaintiffs and defendants extensively,
`in district courts throughout the country and before the International Trade Commission. Matthew recently tried five
`patent jury cases in district court and a patent case at the ITC.
`
`Some of Matthew’s recent patent litigation successes include:
`
`o Successfully defended a software company in the second-largest patent infringement case in US. history.
`
`0 Successfully defended Taiwanese handset manufacturer in ITC action, including obtaining a finding of no liability at
`hearing if trial and at the Federal Circuit.
`
`- Obtained ajury verdict of infringement, willful infringement, significant damages and validity against a major
`semiconductor company, and then obtained a permanent injunction, enhanced damages, and attomeys‘ fees from
`the district court.
`
`- Obtained a jury verdict on liability 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 government contract matters.
`
`Matthew recently spoke at the American Intetlectual Property Law Association’s annual meeting, before the Association
`of Corporate Counsel, and to CommNexus. He also was recently published in the Nations! Law Joumaf, by the American
`Intellectual Property Law Association, and in the San Diego Daffy Transcript.
`
`In 200?, 2008, 2009, 2010, 2011, 2012 and 2013, Matthew was 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 RECOGNITION
`
`I Named in Best Lawyers. San Diego, Practicing in: Litigation - Intellectual Property, 2015
`
`in San Diego Business Joumaf's, Best of the Bar, 2014 - 2015
`
`0 Super Lawyer {Intellectual Property}, 2013 - 2015
`
`- Named a "Top Attomey" {intellectual Property Litigation) in San Diego by the San Diego Dairy Transcn'pt, 2007 -
`2013
`
`Starbucks V. Ameranth, CBM2015-OOO99
`
`Starbucks, EX. 1062
`
`Starbucks, Ex. 1062
`Starbucks v. Ameranth, CBM2015-00099
`
`

`

`0 Recipient of the Wiley W. Manual award for Pro Bono Service
`
`EXHIBIT A
`
`PROFESSIONAL LEADERSHIP
`
`0 State Bar of California
`
`0 San Diego County Bar Association
`
`0 American Bar Association
`
`a American Intellectual Property Law Association
`
`o Intellectual Property Owners Association
`
`RELATED EMPLOYMENT
`
`a Fish 8t Richardson P.C.. San Diego, CA, Partner
`
`- DLA Piper [tormelly Gray Cary Ware & Freidenn'ch), San Diego. CA, Associate
`
`0 United States Agency for International Development, Washington, DC. Law Clerk
`
`EXPERIENCE
`
`PATENT LITIGATION
`
`CLOUDINGIP LLC, V. MICROSOFT CORPORATION
`U. 8. District Court for the District of Delaware
`
`Lead counsel for Microsott in 15 patent case related to cloud computing.
`
`
`AMERANTH, INC. V. STARBUCKS CORP.
`U. 8. District Court lor the Southern District of California
`
`Lead counsel for StarbucksIn patent litigation related to online menu generation and mobile pay merit.
`
`9193.39.99E999.93.If;If!9.9!!!99fl.l§9fl.!!9!:99!§§-!fl9-
`U. 8 District Court for the Western District of Washington
`Lead counsel for Starbucks in patent litigation related to OR codes.
`
`NFCTECHNOLOGYL'A?"”TCAMER'CWCETAL
`U. 8. District Court for the Eastern District 01 Texas
`
`Lead counsel for HTC America in patent litigation related to near field communications.
`
`ADVANCEDAUDIODEVQFSLLCVHTCMIFEIQA”“9.
`U. 3. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois
`
`Lead counsel for HTC America in patent litigation related to audio playlists.
`
`EWATCH'NC.....ETALVAPPLE'NCETAL
`U. 8. District Court for the Eastern District of Texas
`
`Lead counsei for HTC America and HTC Corp. in patent litigation related to mobile image systems.
`
`CH'NOOKL'CENS'NGDELLCVHULU”-9
`US. District Court for the District of Delaware
`
`Lead counsel for Hulu in patent litigation related to online recommendations.
`
`THANSV'DEOELECTRON'CSLTDVHULU”-9
`U S. 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. Amaranth, CBM2015-OOO99
`
`Starbucks, EX. 1062
`
`Starbucks, Ex. 1062
`Starbucks v. Ameranth, CBM2015-00099
`
`

`

`EXHIBIT A
`
`US. District Court for the District of Deiaware
`
`Lead ocunsel for Nettlix in patent litigation reiated to video distribution systems.
`
`E281:FEES..s..[It9.1.)!...E!§E9§QEI.QQEEQE£BQE
`U. 8. District Court for the District of Connecticut
`
`Lead counsel for Microsoft in patent litigation reiated to anti-spoofing and anti—spam technologies.
`
`EHLiNK CORP
`INMOTION EMAGERY TECHNOLOGIES, LLC V. CYBERLINK.COM CORP
`
`U. 8. District Court iorthe Eastern District of Texas
`
`Lead counsel for Cyberlink in patent litigation related to video indexing system.
`
`OVERLAND STORAGE, INC., V. OUALSTAFI CORPORATION
`U 8. District Court for the Southern District of California
`
`Lead counsel for Quatstar in patent litigation reiated to media libraries.
`
`ORIENTVIEWTECHNOLOGIES LLC, V. JUST FABULOUS INC
`U 3. District Court for the District of Deiaware
`
`Lead counsel for Just Fabulous in patent litigation related to online marketing.
`
`TtEFI RAVISION INC. V. MIC HOSOFT COR POFIATION
`
`U. 8. District Court tor the Southern District of California
`Lead counsel for Microsoft in patent litigation related to mobile mapping functionality.
`
`TRANSCENIC INC V GOOGLE INC ETAL
`U 8. District Court for the District of Delaware
`
`Lead counsel for Microsoft in patent litigation related to street level imagery.
`
`
` “torn-the Eastern District of Texas
`Lead counsel tor Hutu in patent litigation related to online reviews.
`
`F'GAVHTCCOEP
`U 8 District Court for the District of Massachusetts
`
`Lead counsel for HTC in patent litigation related to caller-id functionaiity on mobiie phones.
`
`LBS‘NNOVA'EONSLLCVMEONBROTHERSINC.....ETA}:
`U. S. District Court for the Eastern District of Texas
`
`Lead counsel for Adams Goif in patent litigation related to online store locators.
`
`LBSWNOVMONSLLCVBPAMEWCA'NC.....ETAL
`L}. 8. District Court for the Eastern District of Texas
`
`Lead counsel for McDonald's, Starbucks, Target, Costco, US. Bank and others in patent litigation related to ontine store
`loc ators.
`
`LBS'NNOVA“ON5LLCVSALWBEAUTYSUPPLYLLCET“—
`U. S. District Court for the Eastern District oi Texas
`
`Lead counsel for Sally Beauty in patent litigation related to online store locators.
`
`COMPRESS‘ONTECHNOLOGVSOLUTIONSU-CVCAINC.....ET“-
`U. 8. District Court forthe Eastern District of Missouri
`
`Lead counsel for Quest Software in patent litigation related to data compression.
`
`.
`ZipLIN
`
`U.S.
`Distric of
`
`
`Lead counsel for Time Warner in patent litigation related to anti-spoofing and anti-spam technologies.
`
`STYLEPATHINCVJUSTFABUEOUS'NC
`U. 8. District Court for the Central District of California
`
`Lead counsel for Just Fabuious'in patent litigation related to online marketing.
`
`_E DIGt’TAL CORPORATION V. INTEL CORPORATIOINI
`U. 8. District Court for the Southern District of California
`
`Starbucks V. Ameranth, CBM2015-00099
`
`Starbucks, EX. 1062
`
`Starbucks, Ex. 1062
`Starbucks v. Ameranth, CBM2015-00099
`
`

`

`EXHIBIT A
`
`Counsei for lntel in patent litigation related to flash memory.
`
`fLASI-IPOINT TECHNOLOGY INC. V. HTC CORPORATION, ET AL.
`U 8. District Court for the District of Delaware
`
`Counsel for HTC in patent litigation concerning 10 patents related to mobile technologies; pending.
`
`FLASHPOINTTECHNOLOGY INC V. HTC CORPORAYION, HTC AMERICA INC ETAL.
`Uné.....liii};ifi‘a‘fia};iii“tiétigiiai‘iii‘r‘r‘i‘éé‘isfi.................................................................................................................................
`
`Counsel for HTC in patent litigation concerning camera tunctirmality in smart phones: win at trial and initial 1D. ITC
`proceeding 337-TA—725
`
`FUJiNON CORPORATION V. HTC CORP. AND HTC AMERICA INC.
`
`US. District Court for the Southern District of Texas
`
`Counsel for HTC in patent titigation concerning 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 optical lens structures; dismissed.
`
`TREEFROG DEVELOPMENTS, INC. DfBr‘A LIFEPROOFV. SEIDIO INC.
`U. 8. District Court for the Southern District of California
`
`Counsel for Lif'eF‘roof in patent litigation related to iPhone cases.
`
`TREEFHOG DEVELOPMENTS, INC. DfB/A LIFEPROOFV. JOY FACTORY, INC.
`U. 8. District Court for the Southern District of California
`
`Counsei for LifeProcf in patent litigation related to iPhone cases.
`
`TREEFROG DEVELOPMENTS, INC. DIBI'A LIFEPROOFV. KLEARKASE LLC, ET AL.
`U. S. District Court for the Southern District of California
`Counset for LifeProof in patent litigation related to iPhone cases.
`
`ATEN {NTERNATIONAL COMPANY LTD. V. BELKIN CORPORATION
`U. 8. District Court for the Central District of California
`
`Counsel for ATEN in patent litigation related to KVM switches.
`
`
` . . ot Detaware
`
`
`Counsel for Amazon in multiple patent case related to cloud computing.
`
`CLOUD'NGIPI—LCVRACKSPACEHOSTWGINC......5.Ital-.3
`U. 8. District Court for the District of Delaware
`
`Counsel for Backspace in multiple patent case related to cloud computing.
`
`CLOUD'NG'PLLCVDHOPBOXINC
`U. 3. District Court for the District of Delaware
`
`Counsel for Dropbox in multiple patent case related to cloud computing.
`
`.5111!BEE99.1.8...!ti§..-.it...ilt!§tt9§9€t.995.!39l3fi119l§l..§1&&;
`U. 8. District Court for the Eastern District of Texas
`
`Counsel for HTC in two patent case related to remote notification technology tor mobile devices; ptaintiff voluntarily
`dismissed claims against HTC.
`
`LUCENTTECHNOLOGIESVMICROSOFICORPORAWN
`U. 8. District Court for the Southern District of California
`
`Federal Circuit Court of Appeals
`Defended Micros oft in patent litigation jury trial related to audio encoders and decoders.
`
`NDA
`
`
`Federal Circuit Court of Appeals
`Detended MicrosoitIn patent litigation jury trial related to software anti-piracy
`
`Starbucks V. Ameranth, CBM2015-00099
`
`Starbucks, EX. 1062
`
`Starbucks, Ex. 1062
`Starbucks v. Ameranth, CBM2015-00099
`
`

`

`EXHIBIT A
`
`mono-runs, L.P. v. BROADCOM CORP.’
`U. 8. District Court for the Eastern District of Texas
`
`Represented Microtune in patent litigation jury tn'al related to integrated TV tuners.
`
`9mQ§.§X§I§M§I.l.I!ELK.Elf!fiftfiflfifikflfiflmfifimflflfifi...!!‘.l.9.f.
`U. 8 District Court for the Western 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
`
`Repre5ented Crossroads Systems in patent litigation jury trial related to storage routers.
`
`POLAROID CORP. V. HEWLETT-PACKARD CO."
`U 8. District Court for the District of Delaware
`
`Detended Hewlett-Packard in patent litigation related to image enhancement algorithms.
`
`PRODUCT ACTIVAHON CORP. V. AUTODESK, INC.*
`U 3. District Court for the Eastern District of Texas
`
`Defended Autodesk in patent litigation related to software anti-pi racy.
`
`
`Federal Circuit Court of Appeals
`Defended Hewlett- Packard in patent litigation related to digital graphics.
`
`DQELDEVELOPMENTCOH PuVHEWl-ETTPACKARDHCQ
`U. 8 District Court for the Northern District of Califomia
`
`Defended Hewlett-Packard in patent litigation related to computer data integrity.
`
`WPER'GHTKEYBOARDCOHPVM'CROSOFTCOHPORAWDN
`US. District Court for the Southern District of California
`
`Defended Microsoft in patent litigation related to ergonomic keyboards.
`
`OR'ON'PLLCVAMER'CANSUZU K'MOTOHCOHP
`US. District Court for the Eastern District of Texas
`
`Defended American Suzuki Motor Corp. in patent litigation related to online advertising and online parts ordering.
`
`ALPHATECSP'NE'ECVX'SP'NESVSLEMSINC
`U. S District Court for the Southern District of California
`
`Lead counsel for patent holder Alphatec Spine in patent litigation related to cenrical plate and fixation systems.
`
`ALPHATECSP‘NE'NCVTHEKENSP'NELLCEVAL-
`U. 8. District Court for the Southern District of Calitomia
`
`Lead counsel for patent holder Alphatec Spine in patent litigation related to cervical plate and fixation systems. The
`case favorably settled.
`
`SEQUALTECHNOLOGIESINQV'NOGEN INC
`U. 8. District Court for the Southem District of California
`
`Represented patent holder Sequal in patent litigation related to portable oxygen concentrators. The case favorably
`settled.
`
`INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY LITIGATION
`
`LOH'LLAF'DTOBACCOCOVBall-U000"
`US. District Court for the Central District of California
`
`Represented Lorillard Tobacco in litigation involving trademark and counterfeit.
`
`LOH‘LLAHDTOBACCOCO“mu-£909
`US. District Court for the Central District of California
`
`Represented Lorillard Tobacco in trademark and counterfeit litigation.
`
`Starbucks V. Ameranth, CBM2015-OOO99
`
`Starbucks, EX. 1062
`
`Starbucks, Ex. 1062
`Starbucks v. Ameranth, CBM2015-00099
`
`

`

`EXHIBIT A
`
`D"SEUSSENTERPR'SESLPVSOFTTH'NGS'NC
`U. 8. District Court for the Southern District of California
`Represented Dr. Seuss Enterprises in trademark, trade dress and copyn‘ght litigation.
`
`MEIfiEQQFE'NTEFiNAnmAL'NCVONTRACKWELLNEsisJNC
`U. 8. District Court for the Southern District of California
`
`Represented Metabolite International in trademark and trade dress litigation.
`
`OR'NCONCORPllNTELLBENTAUTWAflONCORP
`Superior Court of Caliiomia, San Diego County
`Represented Orincon in trade secret and unfair competition litigation.
`
`"'CROTUNE'NCVBHOADCOM
`U 8 District Court for the Western District at Texas
`
`Represented Microtune in antitrust litigation.
`
`M'CHOTU'SE'NCVS'UCONWAVE'NC
`Superior Court of California, San Diego County
`Represented Microtune in breach of contract litigation.
`
`* Prior Experience
`
`NEWS
`
`03.13.2014
`
`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.
`
`03.07.2013
`
`Perkins Coie Partners Named to The Daily Transcript’s 2013 Top Attorneys List
`Press Releases
`
`Perkins Cole is pleased to announce that two partners in the firm's San Diego office have been named by their peers to
`The Daily Transcripts 2013 Top Attorneys list.
`
`03.02.2012
`
`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
`00in Transcripts 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.
`
`PUBLICATTONS
`
`5.112010
`
`”How has the change in pleading requirements, implemented by recent Supreme Court decisions, affected patent
`infringement 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 Abuse: Ethical Obligations for those Not Sufiering the Impairment”
`General Publications
`AlPLA Course Maten’als
`
`02.25.20] 0
`
`Starbucks V. Ameranth, CBM2015-OOO99
`
`Starbucks, EX. 1062
`
`Starbucks, Ex. 1062
`Starbucks v. Ameranth, CBM2015-00099
`
`

`

`EXHIBIT A
`
`”Beware Patent Markers ”
`Articles
`
`San Diego Daily Transcript
`
`PRESENTATIONS
`
`05.22.2014
`
`How to Deal with ILLS. 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
`
`IP Value Seminar
`
`Speaking Engagements
`|ll Institute for Information Technology 1' Taipei, Taiwan
`
`06.14.2013
`
`Patent Litigation 8‘ Inter Parties Review ("IPR"): IPR as Litigation Strategy
`Speaking Engagements
`Ji2 i Taipei, Taiwan
`
`AREAS OF FOCUS
`
`PRACTICES
`
`- Patent Litigation
`
`a Trademark & Copyright Litigation
`
`0 Taiwan Practice
`
`ITC Litigation
`«-
`0 Post-Grant Procedures
`
`0 Japan Practice
`
`INDUSTRIES
`
`-
`
`Internet 81 E-Commerce
`
`- Communications
`
`0 Electronic Financial Services
`
`a Food at Beverage
`1:
`Interactive Entertainment
`
`a Media Law
`
`a Medical Device
`
`- Retail & Consumer Products
`
`- Semiconductor
`
`Starbucks V. Ameranth, CBM2015-OOO99
`
`Starbucks, EX. 1062
`
`Starbucks, Ex. 1062
`Starbucks v. Ameranth, CBM2015-00099
`
`

`

`EXHIBIT A
`
`BAR AND COURT ADMISSIONS
`
`- California
`
`0 U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit
`
`. US. District Court for the Central District of California
`
`0 U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Caliiomia
`
`1- U.S. District Count for the Southern District of California
`
`0 US. District Court for the Eastern District of Texas
`
`EDUCATION
`
`0 The George Washington University Law School. JD, 1998
`
`o Tuits University, B.A., 1995
`
`© 2015 Perkins Coie LLP
`
`Starbucks V. Ameranth, CBM2015-OOO99
`
`Starbucks, EX. 1062
`
`Starbucks, Ex. 1062
`Starbucks v. Ameranth, CBM2015-00099
`
`