`
`EXHIBIT 2005
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`BIOGRAPHY OF TODD KENNEDY
`
`Todd Kennedy has successfully litigated some of the world’s largest patent cases,
`for both plaintiffs and defendants. He helped achieve complete defense jury
`verdicts for Google in the company’s first two patent trials—both of which were in
`the Eastern District of Texas, the favored venue for plaintiffs.
`
`On the plaintiffs’ side, Mr. Kennedy successfully represented Sony Electronics in
`enforcing ten digital television patents in a series of lawsuits spanning five
`jurisdictions.
`
`Todd clerked for one year on the U.S. Court of Appeals, and two years on the U.S.
`District Court.
`
`Representative Clients and Jurisdictions:
`
`
`
`• Google (E.D. Tex. and International Trade Commission)
`
`• IBM (W.D. Wash.)
`
`• HTC (International Trade Commission)
`
`• Bally Gaming (D. Nev. and Federal Circuit)
`
`• Sony (C.D. Cal., S.D. Cal., D.Wisc., D.N.J., and International Trade
`
`Commission)
`
`Representative Cases:
`
`• Bright Response v. Google Inc. et al. (E.D. Tex.) – Achieved complete jury
`
`verdicts of invalidity and non-infringement for defendant Google.
`
`
`
`1
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`• Function Media, L.L.C. v. Google, Inc. et al. (E.D. Tex.) – Achieved
`
`complete jury verdicts of invalidity and non-infringement for defendant
`
`Google against a plaintiff represented by Susman Godfrey, one of the top
`
`trial law firms in the United States.
`
`• In the Matter of Certain Personal Data and Mobile Communications
`
`Devices and Related Software (U.S. International Trade Commission) –
`
`Represented HTC in defending against Apple’s claims of infringement of
`
`ten patents.
`
`• In the Matter of Certain Display Devices (U.S. International Trade
`
`Commission) – Successfully represented Sony Electronics in asserting
`
`claims of infringement of ten patents against Chimei Innolux Corporation.
`
`• IGT v. Alliance Gaming Corp. (D. Nev.) – Achieved judgments of
`
`invalidity and non-infringement for defendant Alliance Gaming. These
`
`judgments were affirmed by the Federal Circuit on appeal.
`
`• Sony Corp. v. Vizio (C.D. Cal.) / Vizio, Inc. v. Sony Corp. et al. (C.D. Cal.
`
`2009) – Successfully represented Sony in these cases, which involved 14
`
`patents covering a broad range of digital television technology.
`
`• Sony Corp. v. Westinghouse Digital Electronics, LLC (C.D. Cal.) –
`
`Successfully represented Sony in this 10-patent infringement lawsuit against
`
`Westinghouse.
`
`2
`
`
`
`
`
`Prior Associations:
`
`• Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan, LLP (2006-2011)
`
`• United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit, Judicial clerk for the
`
`Hon. Duane Benton (2005-2006)
`
`• United States District Court for the Western District of Missouri, Judicial
`
`clerk for the Hon. Nanette Laughrey (2003-2005)
`
`Technical Experience:
`
`Mr. Kennedy has extensive experience with a wide range of technology. Cases he
`has litigated in the last five years involved the following technology:
`
`• Artificial intelligence
`
`• Internet advertising
`
`• Mobile telephones
`
`• Digital television
`
`• Casino gaming machines
`
`• Location-based advertising
`
`• Touchscreens
`
`• Digital video and audio distribution
`
`• Object-oriented programming
`
`• Encryption and software verification
`
`• Duplication of digital data
`
`Mr. Kennedy has regularly programmed in various languages for twenty years, and
`
`
`
`3
`
`
`
`
`
`has developed a number of web-based applications, including an application
`selected by eBay for demonstration at an industry trade show.
`
`Education:
`
`Yale Law School, J.D. (2003)
`University of Missouri, B.A., Philosophy, summa cum laude (2000)
`
`
`
`
`
`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
