`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`APPLE INC. and GOOGLE INC.
`Petitioners,
`
`v.
`
`SMARTFLASH LLC
`Patent Owner.
`
`Case CBM2015-00125
`Case CBM2015-00028
`Case CBM2015-000291
`Patent No. 7,334,720 B2
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`DECLARATION OF MELISSA J. BAILY IN SUPPORT OF MOTION FOR
`PRO HAC VICE ADMISSION
`
`I, Melissa J. Baily, being duly sworn and under oath, state and declare as
`
`follows:
`
`1.
`
`I am a member in good standing of the State Bar of California and of the
`
`State Bar of New York.
`
`
`1 Google challenged claims 1 and 15 of U.S. Patent No. 7,334,720 in
`CBM2015-00125. Google’s challenge to claim 1 was consolidated with
`CBM2015-00028. CBM2015-00125, Pap. 11. Google’s challenge to claim 15 was
`consolidated with CBM2015-00029. Id. Identical motions for pro hac vice
`admission and supporting declarations are being filed in CBM2015-00125,
`CBM2015-00028, and CBM2015-00029.
`
`01980-00035/6844529.2
`
`1
`
`
`
`
`
`2.
`
`I have never been suspended or disbarred from practice by any court or
`
`administrative body.
`
`3.
`
`I have never been denied an application for admission to practice before any
`
`court or administrative body.
`
`4.
`
`I have never been sanctioned or had contempt citations 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 37 C.F.R.
`
`6.
`
`I will be subject to the USPTO Rules of Professional Conduct set forth in 37
`
`C.F.R. §§ 11.101 et seq. and disciplinary jurisdiction under 37 C.F.R. § 11.19(a).
`
`7.
`
`I have not applied to appear pro hac vice before the Office in the last three
`
`(3) years.
`
`8.
`
`I am an experienced litigation attorney and have been practicing law since
`
`2001. My practice focuses on intellectual property litigation, and I have litigated
`
`patent infringement cases in district courts throughout the country. I have
`
`participated in all stages of district court proceedings in patent cases, including
`
`Markman hearings, trials, and other patent-related hearings and proceedings
`
`concerning patent validity and infringement issues. I was named one of the top
`
`intellectual property lawyers in the country under the age of 40 by Law360 in
`
`2014.
`
`01980-00035/6844529.2
`
`2
`
`
`
`
`
`9.
`
`I have experience and am familiar with U.S. Patent No. 7,334,720 (“the ’720
`
`patent”) and the issues involved in this proceeding. I am counsel for Google in the
`
`currently stayed district court proceeding where Smartflash accuses Google of
`
`infringement of U.S. Patent Nos. 7,334,720; 7,942,317; 8,033,458; 8,061,598;
`
`8,336,772; and 8,794,516. (Smartflash LLC v. Google Inc., E.D. Tex. No. 6:14-cv-
`
`435.) I also represent Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd., Samsung Electronics
`
`America, Inc., HTC Corporation, and HTC America, Inc. in currently stayed
`
`district court litigation where Smartflash asserts infringement of U.S. Patent Nos.
`
`7,334,720; 7,942,317; 8,033,458; 8,061,598; and 8,336,772. (Smartflash LLC v.
`
`Samsung Elecs. Co., Ltd., et al., E.D. Tex. No. 6:13-cv-448.) As counsel in those
`
`district court proceedings, I have been involved in all aspects of the defense,
`
`including with respect to issues regarding the invalidity of the ’720 patent.
`
` declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the United States that
`
` I
`
`the foregoing is true and correct. Executed on December 23, 2015, at San
`
`Francisco, California.
`
`
`/Melissa J. Baily/
`Melissa J. Baily
`
`
`
`01980-00035/6844529.2
`
`3
Accessing this document will incur an additional charge of $.
After purchase, you can access this document again without charge.
Accept $ Charge
Still Working On It
This document is taking longer than usual to download. This can happen if we need to contact the court directly to obtain the document and their servers are running slowly.
Give it another minute or two to complete, and then try the refresh button.
A few More Minutes ... Still Working
It can take up to 5 minutes for us to download a document if the court servers are running slowly.
Thank you for your continued patience.
This document could not be displayed.
We could not find this document within its docket. Please go back to the docket page and check the link. If that does not work, go back to the docket and refresh it to pull the newest information.
Your account does not support viewing this document.
You need a Paid Account to view this document. Click here to change your account type.
Your account does not support viewing this document.
Set your membership
status to view this document.
With a Docket Alarm membership, you'll
get a whole lot more, including:
- Up-to-date information for this case.
- Email alerts whenever there is an update.
- Full text search for other cases.
- Get email alerts whenever a new case matches your search.
One Moment Please
The filing “” is large (MB) and is being downloaded.
Please refresh this page in a few minutes to see if the filing has been downloaded. The filing will also be emailed to you when the download completes.
Your document is on its way!
If you do not receive the document in five minutes, contact support at support@docketalarm.com.
Sealed Document
We are unable to display this document, it may be under a court ordered seal.
If you have proper credentials to access the file, you may proceed directly to the court's system using your government issued username and password.
Access Government Site
