`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`SEQUENOM, INC.
`Petitioner
`
`V.
`
`THE BOARD OF TRUSTEES OF
`
`THE LELAND STANFORD JUNIOR UNIVERSITY
`
`Patent Owner
`
`Case IPR2013-0039O
`
`Patent 8,195,415
`
`AFFIDAVIT OF MICHAEL J. MALECEK
`
`Page 1 of4
`
`SEQUENOM EXHIBIT 1012
`
`Sequenom v. Stanford
`Trial |PR2013-00390
`
`SEQUENOM EXHIBIT 1012
`Sequenom v. Stanford
`Trial IPR2013-00390
`
`Page 1 of 4
`
`
`
`1.
`
`I, Michael J. Malecek, am more than twenty-one years of age, am
`
`competent to present this affidavit, and have personal knowledge of the facts set forth
`
`herein.
`
`2.
`
`This affidavit is given in support of Petitioner Sequenom, Inc’s Motion
`
`for Pro Hac Vice Admission of Michael J. Malecek.
`
`3.
`
`I am a partner at the law firm of Kaye Scholer LLP. I am an experienced
`
`litigation attorney and have been a litigation attorney for more than twenty years.
`
`4.
`
`5.
`
`6.
`
`I have been litigating patent cases for over eleven years.
`
`I am a member in good standing of the State Bar of California.
`
`I have never been suspended or disbarred from practice before any court
`
`or administrative body.
`
`7.
`
`No court or administrative body has ever denied my application for
`
`admission to practice before it.
`
`8.
`
`No court or administrative body has ever imposed sanctions or contempt
`
`citations on me.
`
`9.
`
`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.
`
`10.
`
`I understand that I will be subject to the USPTO Code of Professional
`
`Responsibility set forth in 37 CPR. §§ 10.20 et seq. and disciplinary jurisdiction
`
`under 37 C.'F.R. § 11.19(a).
`
`Page 2 of 4
`
`Page 2 of 4
`
`Page 2 of 4
`
`
`
`11.
`
`I was admitted pro hac vice by the Board in Case IPR2012-00022
`
`(MPT) to represent the Patent Owner as back-up counsel in that proceeding.
`
`12.
`
`l have an established familiarity with the subject matter at issue in this
`
`proceeding.
`
`I have litigated patent cases in the area of nucleic acid analysis since
`
`2002, including several cases about “next generation” sequencing technologies.
`
`I
`
`began representing and advising real party in
`
`interest Sequenom,
`
`Inc.
`
`(“Sequenom”) in matters relating to US. Patent No. 8,195,415 (“the ’415 patent”)
`
`no later than June 2012. Since that time, I have become very familiar with the
`
`’4 1 S patent and with its prosecution file history.
`
`13.
`
`I am lead trial counsel for Sequenom in its co—pending district court
`
`litigation against the Patent Owner and its licensee Verinata Health, Inc. That
`
`litigation is captioned Verz'nat‘a Health, Inc, et a]. v. Sequenom, Inc, et cl, Case
`
`No. 12-cv-00865 (SI) (N.D. Cal), and involves the same patent at issue in this
`
`proceeding. As lead trial counsel for Sequenom, I have been actively involved in
`
`all aspects of the co-pending district court litigation. As examples of my work as
`
`lead trial counsel,
`
`I have presented a technology tutorial and argued claim
`
`construction regarding the ”415 patent before the District Court in 2013.
`
`14.
`
`In addition, I am lead trial counsel for Sequenom in two other pending
`
`district court cases involving related technology claimed in US. Patent No.
`
`6,258,540 (“the ’540 patent”): Ariosa Diagnostics, Inc. v. Sequenom, Inc. e! 611.,
`
`Page 3 of 4
`
`Page 3 of 4
`
`Page 3 of 4
`
`
`
`Civ. No. 11-06391-SI (ND. Cal.); and Narera, Inc. v. Sequenom, Inc. et al., Civ.
`
`No. 12-00132-SI (ND. Cal). Further, in January 2013, I argued on behalf of
`
`Sequenom in an appeal before the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit relating
`
`to the validity and proper claim construction of the ’540 patent in Aria Diagnostics,
`
`Inc. V. Sequenom, Inc., Appeal No. 12-1531.
`
`
`
`Sworn
`and subscribed before me
`thisi day of January, 2014.
`
`
`
`Notary Public
`
`
`
`Page 4 of 4
`
`Page 4 of 4
`
`Page 4 of 4
`
`
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
