EXHIBIT A
`
`

`

`W R
`
`obert D. Tadlock
`
`Partner
`
`intellectual Property, intellectual Property Litigation
`
`San Francisco j 415 273 ‘?585
`Rtadiock@i<ilpatrick‘fownsendcom
`
`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, lVlr.
`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. lVlr. Tadlock’s pro bono work includes advising The Shane McConkey Foundation on non—profit
`incorporation, obtaining trademarks, and drafting contracts protecting intellectual property.
`
`
`
`Vlr. Tadlock was recognized as a Northern California "Rising Star" for Intellectual Property Litigation in 2010,
`2012 and 2013 by Super Lawyers magazine.
`
`
`
`
`xperience Highiights
`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, Inc., No. 12—792 (ED. Tex. filed Oct. 17, 2012).
`
`Kilopass Technology inc. v. Sidense Corp.
`Defending Sidense Corp. in litigation asserting patent infringement, trade libel and defamation, intentional
`interference with prospective economic advantage, false advertising under the Lanham Act, and unfair
`competition under Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code § 17200 relating to one—transistor, onetime programmable
`embedded non-volatile memory (eNVM) technology. Defeated patent claims on summary judgment and
`plaintiff dismissed business tort claims with prejudice. Currently seeking attorneys’ fees.
`
`Ki/opass Tech, Inc. v. Sidense Corp, No. 10-2066 (ND. Cal. filed May 14, 2010).
`
`Apple Computer lnc. v. Psystar Corporation
`Obtained summary judgment and a permanent injunction against a computer company utilizing Apple’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 Computer inc, v. Psystar Corporation, 673 F.8upp.2d 943 (ND. Cal. 2009), 673 F.Supp.2d 931 (ND.
`
`7‘ net-rarities
`
`rowneeno
`
`In
`
`1
`
`

`

`V C
`
`al. 2009), 586 F.Supp. 2d 1190 (ND. Cal. 2008), afi’d in part, remand in part 658 F.3d 1150 (9th Cir. 2011)
`(affirmed on infringement, remand regarding sealing of certain information, cert. denied 132 S. Ct. 2374 (May
`1-4, 2012).
`
`Ice Cream Distributors of Evansville v. Dreyer's Grand Ice Cream Inc, et at.
`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 lawsuit 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 judgment in favor of
`Dreyer’s for the full amount sought plus interest.
`
`Ice Cream Distribs. of Evansville, LLC v. Dreyer's Grand Ice Cream, Inc, No. 4:09-cv—05815—CW (ND. Cal.
`2009); appealed No. 10—17257 (9th Cir. Oct. 7, 2010). Dreyer's Grand Ice Cream, Inc. v. Ice Cream
`‘
`Distributors of Evansville, ND. Cal. No. 010—00317.
`
`Weinrib v. Williams~$onoma Inc., Pottery Barn Inc. and West Elm Inc.
`Represented Williams-Sonoma, Pottery Barn and West Elm in copyright litigation. Plaintiff settled after
`defendants filed for summary judgment. Weinrib v. I/l/i/Iiams—Sonoma, Inc. et a/., No. 08—5695 (S.D.N.Y. filed
`June 25, 2008).
`
`In re Maxim Integrated Products Inc. MDL
`Defending Union Bank, NA. in patent litigation relating to Union Bank’s Mobile Banking App. Maxim
`Integrated Prod. Inc. v. Union Bank NA, No. 12-882 (WD. 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 Williams—Schema in case alleging trademark and copyright infringement as well as unfair
`competition claims against home goods manufacturers. Williams~Sonoma Inc. v. Tradewinds Textiles, Inc. et
`al, No. 10—2727 (ND. Cal. filed June 22, 2010).
`
`Apple Inc. v. Eforcity Corp. et aI.
`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 iPadTM. Apple Inc. v. Eforcity
`Corporation et al., No. 10—03216 (ND. Cal. filed July 22,2010).
`
`Phoenix Licensing L.L.C.ILPL Licensing L.L.C. v. Union Bank NA
`Represented Union Bank, NA. in patent litigation relating to automated marketing materials. Phoenix
`Licensing, I_.I_,C. et a/ v. Aegon USA, Inc. et al., 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.
`L
`
`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 TWG, 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
`TWG are using Actuate’s software which Actuate contends violates both the terms of its license contract with
`
`7‘ regenerates
`
`‘ “tenements
`
`2
`
`

`

`V A
`
`on and violates Actuate’s copyrights in its software. Matter settled.
`
`Actuate Corp. v. Aon Corp, etal., No. 10—5750 (ND. 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
`
`Informatica Corp. v. Business Objects Data Integration, Inc, No. 02—3378 (ND. Cal filed July 15, 2002).
`
`Education
`
`University of San Francisco School of Law, JD, cum laude, 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 forthe Southern District of California
`
`US District Court for the Northern District of California
`
`7‘ attestaton
`
`L townsano
`
`