Expert Witness Experience
`
`Alfred C. Weaver, Ph.D.
`Professor of Computer Science
`Founding Director, UVa Applied Research Institute
`Department of Computer Science
`85 Engineer’s Way, P. O. Box 400740
`University of Virginia
`Charlottesville, VA 22904
`
`cell: 434-242-1949 (call first)
`office: 434-982-2201 (call second)
`home: 434-979-7324 (call third)
`email: weaver@virginia.edu
`
` I
`
` have worked as an expert witness since 1988. Below, in reverse chronological order, are the cases
`with which I have been involved. Six cases have gone to trial. For each case I have underlined the
`client by whom I was engaged.
`
`25. Firm: Goodwin Procter LLP, Washington, DC
`Date: January 2016 –
`Litigants: Personalized Media Communications, LLC v. Samsung Electronics America, Inc.
`Case: Declaration of state of the art in computing
`Venue: Eastern District of Texas (Marshall)
`Resolution: Ongoing.
`
`24. Firm: Goodwin Procter LLP, Washington, DC
`Date: January 2016 –
`Litigants: Personalized Media Communications, LLC v. Apple, Inc.
`Case: Infringement of Harvey ‘635 and ‘091 patents
`Venue: Eastern District of Texas (Marshall)
`Resolution: Ongoing.
`
`23. Firm: Irell and Manella LLP
`Date: November 2015 –
`Litigants: ZOLL Medical Corp. v. Respironics, Inc.
`Case: Infringement of US Patent 6,681,003
`Venue: US District Court for District of Delaware
`Resolution: Ongoing.
`
`22. Firm: Goodwin Procter LLP, Washington, DC
`Date: April 2015—
`Litigants: Personalized Media Communications, LLC v. Amazon, Inc. and Amazon Web Services LLC
`Case: CBM review of two patents
`Venue: Patent Trial and Appeal Board, USPTO
`Resolution: Ongoing.
`
`21. Firm: Hunton and Williams, Atlanta, GA
`Date: June 2014-April 2015
`Litigants: PAID, Inc. v. eBay, Inc.
`
`1/5
`
`KAMRANI 2012
`
`

`
`Case: Inter partes review of four patents
`Venue: Patent Trial and Appeal Board, USPTO
`Resolution: Settled.
`
`
`
`20. Firm: Mayer Brown, Washington, DC
`Date: June-September 2014
`Litigants: buySAFE, Inc. v. Google, Inc.
`Case: buySAFE alleged that Google infringed its patents for payment processing.
`Court: US District Court, Eastern Virginia, Alexandria, VA
`Resolution: Settled; no documents written or depositions taken.
`
`19. Firm: Goodwin Procter LLP, Washington, DC
`Date: 2013-
`Litigants: Encylopaedia Britannica v. Dickstein Shapiro
`Case: EB claimed that DS erred in patent prosecution such that issued patents were later found to be
`invalid.
`Court: U.S. District Court, Eastern Virginia
`Resolution: Awaiting claim construction.
`
`18. Firm: Keker and Van Nest LLP, San Francisco, CA, and Troutman Sanders, Richmond, VA
`Date: 2011
`Litigants: VT Technologies v. Twitter
`Case: VT Technologies accused Twitter of infringing its patent that purported to define a method and
`system for creating a virtual community of famous people. I testified that Twitter did not infringe. The
`jury found that the patent was not infringed and was invalid.
`Court: U.S. District Court, Eastern Virginia (Norfolk)
`Resolution: Patent not infringed; patent invalid.
`
`17. Firm: Goodwin Procter LLP, Washington, DC
`Date: 2011-2013
`Litigants: Augme v. Pandora
`Case: Augme accused Pandora of patent infringement regarding the operation of Pandora’s personalized
`radio systems.
`Court: U.S. District Court, Eastern Virginia (Alexandria)
`Resolution: Settled.
`
`16. Firm: Goodwin Procter LLP, Washington, DC
`Date: 2009-2013
`Litigants: ePlus, Inc. v. Lawson Software
`Case: ePlus alleged that Lawson’s electronic purchasing system infringed multiple claims in three of
`ePlus’s patents with regard to searching multiple electronic catalogs, creating requisitions, and issuing
`purchase orders to multiple vendors.
`Court: U.S. District Court, Eastern Virginia (Richmond).
`Resolution: Verdict in favor of ePlus. The patents are valid and several claims infringed. ePlus won
`contempt of court against Lawson for continued infringement.
`
`15. Firm: Finnegan, Henderson, Farabow, Garrett & Dunner, LLP
`
`2/5
`
`KAMRANI 2012
`
`

`
`Date: 2009—2010
`Litigants: Netscape Communication Corp. v. ValueClick and subsidiaries
`Case: Netscape alleged that ValueClick's online advertising business infringed the claims of its "cookie"
`patent with respect to the operation of web browsers and web servers.
`Court: U.S. District Court, Eastern Virginia (Alexandria)
`Resolution: Settled.
`
`
`
`14. Firm: Alston & Bird
`Date: August 2007—February 2008
`Litigants: Nokia v. Qualcomm
`Case: Nokia alleged that Qualcomm infringed multiple claims of its patents on data exchange methods.
`Resolution: Unknown. No reports, depositions, or testimony took place.
`
`13. Firm: Jones Day, Austin, Texas
`Date: 2006-2007
`Litigants: IBM vs. Amazon
`Case: I was retained, but the case settled before any expert witness work was required.
`Resolution: Settled.
`
`12. Firm: Hunton & Williams, Washington, DC
`Date: 2005—2006
`Litigants: ePlus, Inc. v. SAP
`Case: ePlus alleged that SAP’s electronic purchasing system infringed multiple claims in three of ePlus’s
`patents with regard to searching multiple electronic catalogs, creating requisitions, and issuing purchase
`orders to multiple vendors.
`Court: U.S. District Court, Eastern Virginia (Alexandria).
`Resolution: Settled.
`
`11. Firm: Kirkland & Ellis, New York, New York.
`Date: 2004—2006
`Litigants: Hewlett-Packard v. Foundry Networks
`Case: HP alleged that Foundry Networks manufactures products (routers) that infringe one claim of its
`patent for a method of providing security in computer networks.
`Court: U.S. District Court for District of Delaware
`Resolution: Settled.
`
`10. Firm: Kirkland & Ellis, New York, New York.
`Date: 2004—2006
`Litigants: Hewlett-Packard v. Extreme Networks
`Case: HP alleged that Extreme Networks manufactures products (routers) that infringe one claim of its
`patent for a method of providing security in computer networks.
`Court: U.S. District Court for District of Delaware
`Resolution: Jury trial resulted in a split decision. On summary judgment the judge granted plaintiff’s
`motion for a new trial. The case then settled.
`
`9. Firm: Hunton & Williams, Washington, DC
`Date: 2004—2005
`Litigants: ePlus, Inc. v. Ariba
`
`3/5
`
`KAMRANI 2012
`
`

`
`Case: ePlus alleged that Ariba’s electronic purchasing system infringes multiple claims in three of
`ePlus’s patents with regard to searching multiple electronic catalogs, creating requisitions, and issuing
`purchase orders to multiple vendors.
`Court: U.S. District Court, Eastern Virginia (Richmond).
`Resolution: All asserted claims were found to be valid and infringed.
`
`
`
`8. Firm: Venable, Washington, DC
`Date: 2004
`Litigants: Simplification, LLC v. Block Financial Corp.
`Case: Simplification alleged patent infringement by Block Financial. On behalf of Simplification, I
`provided consultation regarding claim construction.
`Court: U.S. District Court, Delaware.
`Resolution: Unknown.
`
`7. Firm: Swidler Berlin Shereff and Friedman, Washington, DC
`Date: 2003—2004
`Litigants: 3COM v. D-Link
`Case: 3COM alleged that D-Link Ethernet products infringe multiple claims of its patents regarding
`Ethernet operation. With a technical partner, I provided an analysis of the operation of D-Link
`Ethernet products and consulted on claim construction.
`Court: U. S. District Court, Northern California.
`Resolution: Case abandoned by plaintiff.
`
`6. Firm: Hunton & Williams, Washington, DC
`Date: 2001—2008
`Litigants: MercExchange LLC v. eBay
`Case: MercExchange had early (1995) patents regarding electronic commerce, selling goods at
`auction electronically and paying for goods online. MercExchange alleged that eBay infringed three
`of its patents with its electronic auction, “buy it now” fixed-price option, and electronic payment via
`PayPal. On behalf of MercExchange I provided numerous expert reports and two depositions
`regarding the operation of eBay, my opinion that eBay’s system did infringe multiple claims in three
`of MercExchange’s patents, and that the patents were valid in light of prior art. The case went to jury
`trial in April-May 2003 before Judge Jerome Freidman in the Eastern District of Virginia, Norfolk
`Division. I was qualified as an expert witness in computer science and electronic commerce before
`Judge Friedman.
`Court: U.S. District Court, Eastern Virginia (Norfolk).
`Resolution 1: The validity of certain claims pertaining to electronic auctions were dismissed on
`summary judgment (inadequate written description), but the remainder of the case went to jury trial.
`In the two surviving patents, the jury upheld the validity of both and decided in favor of
`MercExchange on all counts of alleged infringement.
` Resolution 2: Federal circuit confirmed the jury verdict. On the question of whether the judge should
`issue a permanent injunction against eBay, the Supreme Court remanded the case to the trial judge for
`a new decision. eBay then purchased a license from MercExchange.
`
`5. Firm: LeClair Ryan, Richmond, VA
`Date: 2000
`Litigants: John Lynch and First Union Capital Markets v. Scott Prendergast
`
`4/5
`
`KAMRANI 2012
`
`

`
`Case: John Lynch, who operated the Lynch Retirement Group for First Union, alleged that Scott
`Prendergast, a former employee, copied proprietary customer account data from LRG/FU when he
`left that firm to start his own retirement planning business. I examined a database of customer
`information recovered from Scott Prendergast’s computer and concluded that it could only have
`originated from information belonging to LRG/FU. I was qualified as an expert in computer science
`before Judge T. S. Ellis in the Eastern District of Virginia (Alexandria) and testified before him.
`Court: U.S. District Court, Eastern Virginia (Alexandria)
`Resolution: Prendergast was found guilty of data theft.
`
`4. Firm: Kirkland & Ellis, New York, NY
`Date: 1999
`Litigants: Cisco v. Lucent
`Case: Cisco and Lucent counter-sued each other for infringement of each company’s patents in the
`area of Virtual Private Network (VPN) establishment in ATM fiber optic network routers. On behalf
`of Lucent, I consulted on product and patent analysis.
`Resolution: Settled.
`
`3. Firm: Pennie and Edmonds, New York, NY
`Date: 1996
`Litigants: Hewlett-Packard v. C. S. Telecom
`Case: C. S. Telecom alleged that HP’s use of multicast and broadcast addressing in its IEEE 802.3
`(Ethernet) product infringed multiple claims of one of its patents. On behalf of HP, I provided an
`expert report supporting HP’s position that it did not infringe.
`Resolution: Settled.
`
`2. Firm: Weingarten, Shurgin, Gagnebin & Hayes, Boston, MA
`Date: 1993
`Litigants: Proteon v. C. S. Telecom
`Case: C. S. Telecom alleged that the Proteon Pronet local area network infringed multiple claims of
`its token ring patent. On behalf of Proteon, I provided an expert report and a deposition supporting
`my opinion that the Pronet product did not infringe.
`Resolution: Settled.
`
`1. Firm: Latham and Watkins, Washington, DC
`Date: 1988
`Litigants: Hewlett-Packard v. IBM
`Case: The federal government awarded the FAA Advanced Automation System project to IBM. HP
`contested the award, alleging that the IBM proposal did not meet the RFP’s requirements with regard
`to its choice of local area networks. On behalf of HP, I testified before an administrative law judge
`on the meaning and status of the IEEE 802.5 token ring standard.
`Court: hearing held before an administrative law judge
`Resolution: HP lost its appeal.
`
`
`
`Updated: October 10, 2016
`
`
`5/5
`
`KAMRANI 2012