`
`Exhibit A to Motion for Pro Hac Vice Admission - 1001 - Page 1
`(cid:40)(cid:91)(cid:75)(cid:76)(cid:69)(cid:76)(cid:87)(cid:3)(cid:36)(cid:3)(cid:87)(cid:82)(cid:3)(cid:48)(cid:82)(cid:87)(cid:76)(cid:82)(cid:81)(cid:3)(cid:73)(cid:82)(cid:85)(cid:3)(cid:51)(cid:85)(cid:82)(cid:3)(cid:43)(cid:68)(cid:70)(cid:3)(cid:57)(cid:76)(cid:70)(cid:72)(cid:3)(cid:36)(cid:71)(cid:80)(cid:76)(cid:86)(cid:86)(cid:76)(cid:82)(cid:81)(cid:3)(cid:16)(cid:3)(cid:20)(cid:19)(cid:19)(cid:20)(cid:3)(cid:16)(cid:3)(cid:51)(cid:68)(cid:74)(cid:72)(cid:3)(cid:20)
`
`
`
`7 R
`
`obert D. Tadlock
`
`Partner
`
`Intellectual Property, Intellectual Property Litigation
`
`San Francisco 44.5 273 7585
`Rtadlcck@i<E?patrick‘Townsend.con'1
`
`Services
`
`Robert Tadlock focuses his practice on intellectual property and complex commercial litigation. He has
`
`experience representing companies in litigation relating to patent, trademark, and copyright infringement, as
`well as breach of contract. commercial torts, unfair competition and antitrust disputes. Outside of litigation, Mr.
`
`Tadlock has also worked with clients to develop programs protecting and enforcing their brands and
`intellectual property rights. He has advised clients in a variety of industries, including consumer electronics,
`semiconductor manufacturing, social media, food and beverage products, and computer software and
`hardware. Mr. Tadtock’s pro bono work includes advising The Shane Mcconkey Foundation on non-profit
`
`incorporation, obtaining trademarks, and drafting contracts protecting intellectuai property.
`
`Mr. Tadlock was recognized as a Northern Caiifornia "Rising Star" for lnteliectual Property Litigation in 2010.
`2012 and 2013 by Super Lawyers magazine.
`
`Experience Highlights
`Evolutionary Intelligence v. Yelp Inc.
`
`Defending Yelp, Inc. in patent litigation relating to storing data in computer memory. Evolutionary intelligence,
`LLC v. Yelp, Inc, No. 12-794 (ED. Tex. filed Oct. 17, 2012}.
`
`Evolutionary Intelligence v. Twitter Inc.
`
`Defending Twitter, Inc. in patent litigation relating to storing data in computer memory. Evolutionary
`intelligence, LLC v. Twitter, lnc., No. 12-792 (ED. Tex. filed Oct. 1?, 2012).
`
`Kilopass Technology Inc. v. Sidense Corp.
`
`Defending Sidense Corp. in litigation assezting patent infringement, trade libel and defamation. intentional
`interference with prospective economic advantage, false advertising under the Lanham Act, and unfair
`
`competition under Cal. Bus. 8. Prof. Code § 17200 relating to one—transistor, one-time programmable
`embedded non-volatile memory (eN\/M) technology. Defeated patent claims on summary judgment and
`plaintiff dismissed business tort ciaims with prejudice. Currently seeking attorneys’ fees.
`
`Kilopass Tech., inc. v. Sidense Corp. No. 10-2066 (N.D. Cal. filed May 14, 2010).
`
`Apple Computer Inc. v. Psystar Corporation
`Obtained summary judgment and a permanent injunction against a computer company utilizing App|e’s
`
`copyrighted operating system software on non-Apple hardware based upon copyright infringement and
`violation of the Digital Millennium Copyright Act. The ruling resulted in a published opinion which affirmed
`liability for distributing copies of operating software and circumvention technology. The Ninth Circuit affirmed
`the permanent injunction and inapplicability of copyright misuse.
`
`Apple Compurerlnc. v. Psystar Corporation, 673 F.Supp.2d 943 (ND. Cal. 2009}, 873 F.Supp.2d 931 (ND.
`
`7‘ KILPATRICK
`
`L TOWNSEND
`
`1
`
`Exhibit A to Motion for Pro Hac Vice Admission - 1001 - Page 2
`(cid:40)(cid:91)(cid:75)(cid:76)(cid:69)(cid:76)(cid:87)(cid:3)(cid:36)(cid:3)(cid:87)(cid:82)(cid:3)(cid:48)(cid:82)(cid:87)(cid:76)(cid:82)(cid:81)(cid:3)(cid:73)(cid:82)(cid:85)(cid:3)(cid:51)(cid:85)(cid:82)(cid:3)(cid:43)(cid:68)(cid:70)(cid:3)(cid:57)(cid:76)(cid:70)(cid:72)(cid:3)(cid:36)(cid:71)(cid:80)(cid:76)(cid:86)(cid:86)(cid:76)(cid:82)(cid:81)(cid:3)(cid:16)(cid:3)(cid:20)(cid:19)(cid:19)(cid:20)(cid:3)(cid:16)(cid:3)(cid:51)(cid:68)(cid:74)(cid:72)(cid:3)(cid:21)
`
`
`
`7 C
`
`al. 2009), 586 F.Supp. 2d 1190 (ND. Cal. 2008), afi"di'n part, remand in pain.‘ 658 F.3d 1150 (9th Cir. 2011}
`(affirmed on infringement, remand regarding sealing of certain information, cert. o'eni'ed132 S. Ct. 2374 (May
`14, 2012).
`
`Ice Cream Distributors of Evansville v. Dreyer's Grand Ice Cream Inc., et al.
`
`We represented Dreyer's Grand Ice Cream, Inc. in litigation filed by a former distributor of Dreyer's products
`alleging violations of the Sherman and Cartwright Acts, Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organization
`(RICO) Act, and Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code §17200. The court granted our motion for dismissal with prejudice of
`
`all claims, and the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals recently affirmed that decision. In response to the action by
`ICD. we filed a separate iawsuit on behalf of Dreyer's seeking to recover amounts owed to it by ICD for
`products previously delivered by Dreyer's. In that matter the Court granted summary iudgment in favor of
`Dreyer‘s for the full amount sought plus interest.
`
`ice Cream Distribs. of Evansviiie, LLC -.2. Dreyefs Grand ice Cream, inc, No. 4:09-cv-05815-CW (ND. Cal.
`2009); appealed No. 10-1725? (9th Cir. Oct. 7, 2010). Dreyefs Grand ice Cream, inc. v. ice Cream
`Distributors of Evansviiie, N.D. Cat. No. C10-00317.
`
`Weinrib v. WiIliams~Sonoma Inc., Pottery Barn Inc. and West Elm Inc.
`Represented Williams-Sonoma, Pottery Barn and West Elm in copyright litigation. Plaintiff settled after
`defendants flied for summary judgment. Weinnb v. W'i'iiiams-Sonoma, inc. et at, No. 08-5695 (S.D.N.Y. filed
`June 25, 2008).
`
`In re Maxim Integrated Products inc. MDL
`
`Defending Union Bank, N.A. in patent litigation relating to Union Bank’s Mobile Banking App. Maxim
`integrated Prod. inc. v. Union Bank NA, No. 12-882 (W.D. Pa. filed June 27, 2012).
`
`Dreyer's Grand Ice Cream v. ConAgra Foods Inc.
`Represented Dreyer's Grand Ice Cream in breach of contract litigation involving manufacturing and
`
`distribution agreements.
`
`Williams-Sonoma Inc. v. Tradewinds Textiles Inc. and Tuesday Morning Corp.
`
`Represented Witliams-Sonoma in case alleging trademark and copyright infringement as well as unfair
`competition claims against home goods manufacturers. Williams-Sonoma, inc. v. Tradewinds Textiies, Inc. et‘
`
`al., No. 10-2727 (ND. Cal. filed June 22, 2010}.
`
`Apple Inc. v. Eforcity Corp. et al.
`Representing Apple inc. in case alleging patent and trademark infringement as well as unfair competition
`claims against manufacturers of accessories for the Apple iPhone®, iPod®, and iPadT'“‘. Apple Inc. v. Eforcity
`Corporation et al., No. 10-03210 (N.D. Cal. filed July 22, 2010).
`
`Phoenix Licensing L.L.C.iLPL Licensing L.L.C. v. Union Bank N.A
`Represented Union Bank, N.A. in patent litigation relating to automated marketing materials. Phoenix
`
`Licensing, LLC. et at v. Aegon USA, inc. et ai., No. 10-212 (ED. Tex. filed June 24, 2010).
`
`Sklar v. Microsoft
`
`Represented plaintiff in patent litigation involving the task bar feature of Microsoft's Windows XP and Vista
`operating systems.
`
`Actuate Corporation v. Aon Corporation et al.
`
`Represent Actuate Corporation, a manufacturer of business intelligence software, in breach of contract and
`
`copyright infringement litigation against Aon Corporation and TING, Inc. Aon licensed a certain quantity of
`software from Actuate. Aon then spun off one of its divisions into a new company, TWG. Now both Aon and
`
`'l'WG are using Actuate’s software which Actuate contends violates both the terms of its license contract with
`
`7‘ Kiwsrnicx
`
`L "rownsans
`
`2
`
`Exhibit A to Motion for Pro Hac Vice Admission - 1001 - Page 3
`(cid:40)(cid:91)(cid:75)(cid:76)(cid:69)(cid:76)(cid:87)(cid:3)(cid:36)(cid:3)(cid:87)(cid:82)(cid:3)(cid:48)(cid:82)(cid:87)(cid:76)(cid:82)(cid:81)(cid:3)(cid:73)(cid:82)(cid:85)(cid:3)(cid:51)(cid:85)(cid:82)(cid:3)(cid:43)(cid:68)(cid:70)(cid:3)(cid:57)(cid:76)(cid:70)(cid:72)(cid:3)(cid:36)(cid:71)(cid:80)(cid:76)(cid:86)(cid:86)(cid:76)(cid:82)(cid:81)(cid:3)(cid:16)(cid:3)(cid:20)(cid:19)(cid:19)(cid:20)(cid:3)(cid:16)(cid:3)(cid:51)(cid:68)(cid:74)(cid:72)(cid:3)(cid:22)
`
`
`
`V A
`
`on and violates Actuate‘s copyrights in its software. Matter settled.
`
`Actuate Corp. v. Aon Corp., er a.''., No. 10-5750 (N.D. Cal. filed Dec. 16, 2010}.
`
`The Prudential Insurance Company of America v. Actuate Corp.
`Represented Actuate Corporation in copyright, breach of contract, and unfair competition litigation for
`unlicensed use of software. The Prudential Ins. Co. of America v. Actuate Corp., No. 11-3692 (D.N.J. filed
`June 28, 2011).
`
`lnformatica Corp. v. Business Objects Data Integration Inc.
`Counsel for defendant Business Objects Data Integration in a patent infringement action involving business
`intelligence software.
`
`fnfonnatica Corp. v. Business Objects Data Integration, .-‘no, No. 02-3378 (N.D. Cal filed July 15, 2002).
`
`Education
`
`University of San Francisco School of Law: JD. cum faude, University of San Francisco Law Review,
`Comments Editor (2005)
`
`University of Washington, Jackson School of International Studies. BA. (1999)
`
`Bar Admissions
`California
`
`Admissions
`
`US. District Court for the Eastern District of California
`
`US. District Court for the Central District of California
`
`US. District Court for the Southern District of California
`
`US. District Court for the Northern District of California
`
`7‘ KILPATRICK
`
`L ‘rowrvsswc
`
`3
`
`Exhibit A to Motion for Pro Hac Vice Admission - 1001 - Page 4
`(cid:40)(cid:91)(cid:75)(cid:76)(cid:69)(cid:76)(cid:87)(cid:3)(cid:36)(cid:3)(cid:87)(cid:82)(cid:3)(cid:48)(cid:82)(cid:87)(cid:76)(cid:82)(cid:81)(cid:3)(cid:73)(cid:82)(cid:85)(cid:3)(cid:51)(cid:85)(cid:82)(cid:3)(cid:43)(cid:68)(cid:70)(cid:3)(cid:57)(cid:76)(cid:70)(cid:72)(cid:3)(cid:36)(cid:71)(cid:80)(cid:76)(cid:86)(cid:86)(cid:76)(cid:82)(cid:81)(cid:3)(cid:16)(cid:3)(cid:20)(cid:19)(cid:19)(cid:20)(cid:3)(cid:16)(cid:3)(cid:51)(cid:68)(cid:74)(cid:72)(cid:3)(cid:23)