Case 8:12-cv-00329-AG-JPR Document 502-2 Filed 03/24/15 Page 1 of 13 Page ID
` #:24918
`
`Peter H. Kang, SBN 158101
`pkang@sidley.com
`SIDLEY AUSTIN LLP
`1001 Page Mill Road, Building 1
`Palo Alto, California 94304
`Tel: (650) 565-7000
`Fax: (650) 565-7100
`
`ADDITIONAL COUNSEL LISTED
`ON SIGNATURE PAGE
`
`Attorneys for Defendant
`UNIVERSAL REMOTE CONTROL, INC.
`
`UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
`SOUTHERN DIVISION
`
`Case No. 8:12-CV-00329 AG (JPRx)
`
`Assigned to: Hon. Andrew J. Guilford
`
`DECLARATION OF PETER H.
`KANG IN SUPPORT OF
`DEFENDANT UNIVERSAL
`REMOTE CONTROL, INC.’S
`SUPPLEMENTAL SUBMISSION
`RE: AWARD OF ATTORNEYS’
`FEES
`
`
`))))))))))))))
`
`UNIVERSAL ELECTRONICS, INC.,
`
`Plaintiff and Counterclaim-
`Defendant,
`
`
`v.
`
`UNIVERSAL REMOTE CONTROL,
`INC.,
`
`
`Defendant and
`Counterclaimant.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`28
`
`
`
`
`DECL. OF P. KANG IN SUPPORT OF SUPP. FEE SUBMISSION
`CASE NO. 8:12-CV-00329 AG (JPRX)
`
`Universal Remote Control Exhibit: 1060 Page 000001
`
`

`
`Case 8:12-cv-00329-AG-JPR Document 502-2 Filed 03/24/15 Page 2 of 13 Page ID
` #:24919
`
`I, Peter H. Kang, declare:
`1.
`I am a partner at Sidley Austin LLP (“Sidley”), one of the law firms
`representing Defendant Universal Remote Control, Inc. (“URC”) in the above-
`captioned matter. I submit this declaration in support of URC’s Motion for Attorneys’
`Fees and Sanctions against Plaintiff Universal Electronics Inc. (“UEI”) and its counsel
`of record. The statements made in this declaration are based on my own personal
`knowledge or records regularly maintained in the ordinary course of Sidley’s business,
`and if sworn as a witness I could testify competently thereto.
`2.
`Sidley was founded in 1866 in Chicago and established a strong and
`highly regarded practice representing corporate America in litigation, regulatory,
`corporate, and general banking areas. Sidley has over 100 lawyers actively involved in
`patent litigation. Our Intellectual Property practice and, in particular, our Patent
`Litigation practice have been consistently ranked among the top in the country. For
`example, Chambers USA recognized the firm with the 2014 national “Team of the
`Year” designation in the Intellectual Property category. Sidley’s patent trial lawyers
`have successfully represented many of the largest high technology clients to verdict in
`some of the most hotly contested patent cases in federal courts nationwide.
`3.
`Sidley was retained to represent URC in this matter in November 2013.
`4.
`I was lead trial counsel for URC in this matter and responsible for
`overseeing the Sidley team of attorneys and employees representing URC in this
`matter.
`5.
`Attached hereto as Exhibit 1 is a table that provides a breakdown of the
`total legal fees and expenses charged to URC in this matter during specific time
`periods by Sidley and the other law firms representing URC in this matter, Ostrolenk
`Faber LLP (“Ostrolenk”), Christie, Parker & Hale LLP (“CPH”), and Tucker Ellis LLP
`(“Tucker”). The information in this table was derived, for Sidley, from the invoices
`attached hereto as Exhibits 2 to 16; for Ostrolenk, the invoices attached to the Miro
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`28
`
`
`
`1
`DECL. OF P. KANG IN SUPPORT OF SUPP. FEE SUBMISSION
`CASE NO. 8:12-CV-00329 AG (JPRX)
`
`Universal Remote Control Exhibit: 1060 Page 000002
`
`

`
`Case 8:12-cv-00329-AG-JPR Document 502-2 Filed 03/24/15 Page 3 of 13 Page ID
` #:24920
`
`Declaration as Exhibits 1 to 36; and, for CPH and Tucker, the invoices attached to the
`Brookey Declaration as Exhibits 1 to 2.
`6.
`Exhibit 1 reflects two different methodologies used to apportion fees and
`expenses that were “attributable to the ’426 and ’067 Patents, and the motion for
`reconsideration regarding the ’367 Patent,” as the Court required: (1) an “issue”-based
`approach in which a percentage of the fees and expenses is derived based on, for
`certain specified time periods, the percentage of litigation issues associated with the
`’426 and ’067 patents and the motion for reconsideration regarding the ’367 patent;
`and (2) a “patent”-based approach in which a percentage of the fees and expenses is
`derived based on, for the same time periods, the percentage of patents that were the
`subject of the litigation that were the ’426 and ’067 patents (and, for the time period
`regarding the motion for reconsideration, the ’367 patent). This is illustrated in the
`chart below:
`Time Period
`Complaint to
`Markman Order
`(3/2/12 to 2/1/13)
`
`Patent % Issue %
`2/4
`16/25
`or
`or
`50%
`64%
`
`Patents and Issues
`’367: Non-infringement (claim
`coverage), invalidity (prior art),
`laches (3)
`’067: Non-infringement (claim
`coverage), invalidity (prior art),
`laches/estoppel, unclean hands,
`patent misuse, marking,
`damages (7)
`’426: Non-infringement (claim
`coverage), invalidity (prior art),
`invalidity (inventorship), license,
`laches/estoppel/res judicata,
`unclean hands, patent misuse,
`marking, damages (9)
`’906: Non-infringement (claim
`coverage), non-infringement
`(non-use), invalidity (prior art),
`unclean hands, patent misuse,
`damages (6)
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`28
`
`
`
`2
`DECL. OF P. KANG IN SUPPORT OF SUPP. FEE SUBMISSION
`CASE NO. 8:12-CV-00329 AG (JPRX)
`
`Universal Remote Control Exhibit: 1060 Page 000003
`
`

`
`Case 8:12-cv-00329-AG-JPR Document 502-2 Filed 03/24/15 Page 4 of 13 Page ID
` #:24921
`
`Patents and Issues
`’367: No separate apportionment
`necessary
`
`Patent % Issue %
`100%
`100%
`
`’067: Non-infringement (claim
`coverage), invalidity (prior art),
`laches/estoppel, unclean hands,
`patent misuse, marking,
`damages (7)
`’426: Non-infringement (claim
`coverage), invalidity (prior art),
`invalidity (inventorship), license,
`laches/estoppel/res judicata,
`unclean hands, patent misuse,
`marking, damages (9)
`’906: Non-infringement (claim
`coverage), non-infringement
`(non-use), invalidity (prior art),
`unclean hands, patent misuse,
`damages (6)
`invalidity (inventorship),
`laches/estoppel/res judicata,
`unclean hands, patent misuse (4)
`’906: Non-infringement (claim
`coverage), non-infringement
`(non-use), invalidity (prior art),
`unclean hands, patent misuse,
`damages (6)
`’426: No separate apportionment
`necessary for briefing on
`equitable issues
`
`’426:
`
`2/3
`or
`66%
`
`16/22
`or
`73%
`
`1/2
`or
`50%
`
`4/10
`or
`40%
`
`100%
`
`100%
`
`Time Period
`Motion for
`Reconsideration
`(Segregated Out)
`(2/1/13 to
`5/14/13)
`Markman Order
`to Summary
`Judgment Order
`(Excluding
`Motion for
`Reconsideration)
`(2/1/13 to
`3/24/14)
`
`Summary
`Judgment Order
`to Jury Verdict
`(3/24/14 to
`5/21/14)
`
`Post-Trial
`Briefing on
`Equitable Issues,
`Motion for
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`28
`
`
`
`3
`DECL. OF P. KANG IN SUPPORT OF SUPP. FEE SUBMISSION
`CASE NO. 8:12-CV-00329 AG (JPRX)
`
`Universal Remote Control Exhibit: 1060 Page 000004
`
`

`
`Case 8:12-cv-00329-AG-JPR Document 502-2 Filed 03/24/15 Page 5 of 13 Page ID
` #:24922
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`28
`
`Time Period
`Attorneys’ Fees,
`Bill of Costs
`(5/21/14 to
`Present)
`
`Patents and Issues
`
`Patent % Issue %
`
`
`Apportionment not otherwise
`applicable.1
`
`7.
`The total amount of fees and expenses for each period were calculated
`based on the law firms’ invoices. These totals exclude certain fees and expenses that
`have been redacted from the attached invoices based on their subject matter and that
`are not presently being claimed. The calculation of total fees and expenses from
`Tucker Ellis takes into account a 20% discount. The 20% discount does not appear on
`the Tucker Ellis invoices but does appear on the Ostrolenk Faber invoices that bill
`URC for Tucker Ellis’ services as “Charges of Associate counsel” under
`Disbursements.
`8. Where a period began/ended in the middle of a month, expenses were
`generally split on a daily pro rata basis. There are two exceptions to the pro rata
`approach—expenses were individually shifted into their corresponding periods for the
`Motion for Reconsideration and for trial.
`9.
`The amount of fees and expenses for the Motion for Reconsideration
`were derived from time entries and expenses devoted exclusively to the motion for
`reconsideration. The expenses for these periods are expenses for travel associated with
`the hearing for the Motion for Reconsideration that appear on Ostrolenk Invoices
`00004231-00000-145 RCF and 00004231-00000-150 RCF. The 2/1/13 - 3/24/14
`period numbers were reached by summing all fees and expenses for that period, and
`
`
`1 As set forth herein, URC seeks to be compensated for its attorneys’ fees and
`expenses incurred in connection with its Motion for Attorneys’ Fees and its Bill of
`Costs. The work performed on these matters was not patent-specific and has not been
`apportioned.
`
`
`
`4
`DECL. OF P. KANG IN SUPPORT OF SUPP. FEE SUBMISSION
`CASE NO. 8:12-CV-00329 AG (JPRX)
`
`Universal Remote Control Exhibit: 1060 Page 000005
`
`

`
`Case 8:12-cv-00329-AG-JPR Document 502-2 Filed 03/24/15 Page 6 of 13 Page ID
` #:24923
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`28
`
`then subtracting the fees and expenses associated exclusively with the motion for
`reconsideration.
`10.
`The Ostrolenk Faber expenses for the 2/1/13 - 3/24/14 period include two
`additional expenses that were not charged to URC until later invoices. $3,686.76 was
`incurred during this period for travel and was not charged until Ostrolenk Invoice
`00004231-00000-184 RCF. $1,400.00 and $1,002.51 were incurred during this period
`for translation services and were not charged until Ostrolenk Invoice 00004231-00000-
`197 RCF.
`11.
`The total amounts for the 3/24/14 to 5/21/14 period include all fees and
`expenses spent toward trial, and exclude fees and expenses incurred outside of this
`period. Expenses that were incurred between 3/24/14 and 5/21/14 and that were not
`charged until later invoices have been included in the 3/24/14 to 5/21/14 period and are
`as follows: $129,684.08 in expenses from Sidley Austin Invoice No. 34036456;
`$10,604.80 in expenses from Sidley Austin Invoice No. 34043170; and $4,792.85 in
`expenses from Ostrolenk Invoice No. 004231-00000-184. Fees and expenses incurred
`during May 2014 that were not identified with a specific date were split pro rata
`between the 3/24/14 to 5/21/14 and 5/21/14 to current periods. These fees and
`expenses are $1,068.32 in expenses from Ostrolenk Invoice No. 004231-00000-181,
`$53.76 in expenses from Tucker Ellis Invoice No. 379801, and Tucker Ellis fees from
`Tucker Ellis Invoice No. 379801. Expenses from the May 2014 invoices that were
`incurred after 5/21/14 and that are thus excluded from the 3/24/14 to 5/21/14 period are
`$78.97 in expenses from Sidley Austin Invoice No. 34030444, $1,313.24 in expenses
`from Ostrolenk Invoice No. 004231-00000-181, and $70.52 in expenses from Tucker
`Ellis Invoice No. 379801.
`12. Attached hereto as Exhibit 17 is a spreadsheet that details the hours spent
`on a daily basis by URC’s counsel on this matter. The information in this spreadsheet
`was derived from the invoices attached hereto as Exhibits 2 to 16, the invoices attached
`to the Miro Declaration as Exhibits 1 to 36, and the invoices attached to the Brookey
`5
`DECL. OF P. KANG IN SUPPORT OF SUPP. FEE SUBMISSION
`CASE NO. 8:12-CV-00329 AG (JPRX)
`
`
`
`Universal Remote Control Exhibit: 1060 Page 000006
`
`

`
`Case 8:12-cv-00329-AG-JPR Document 502-2 Filed 03/24/15 Page 7 of 13 Page ID
` #:24924
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`28
`
`Declaration as Exhibits 1 to 2. In general, for each time entry, the spreadsheet gives:
`(A) the work date, (B) the law firm, (C) the timekeeper name, (D) the timecard
`narrative, (E) the billed hours, (F) the dollar amount, (G) the discount applied, (H) the
`dollar amount after discount, and (I) the invoice number. The one exception is Tucker
`Ellis time entries, which do not give the billed hours, dollar amount, discount applied,
`or dollar amount after discount; because the Tucker Ellis invoices do not include this
`information. The spreadsheet also includes a field indicating the time entries devoted
`to the Motion for Reconsideration. A copy of this spreadsheet in native Excel format
`is also being lodged with the Court.
`13. Attached hereto as Exhibits 2 to 16 are true and correct copies of invoices
`that Sidley issued to URC in connection with Sidley’s work in this matter for the
`months of November, 2013 through February, 2015. Included on each invoice is an
`itemization, by date, of the tasks performed and the time expended by the relevant
`Sidley attorneys and personnel for the time period invoiced, as well as the hourly rate
`charged. The time entries were recorded on a daily basis using block billing, as is
`standard practice in most cases. As these invoices reflect, Sidley provided to URC pre-
`billing discounts on almost all bills and further 15% hourly rate discounts on all bills
`covering work performed in 2014 and 2015. I have reviewed the information
`contained in Sidley’s invoices and to my knowledge the information is accurate. The
`tasks identified in these invoices were necessary to the proper representation of URC in
`this matter, and the number of hours expended for each task was reasonable. I made
`every reasonable effort to assign each of the tasks and responsibilities for this matter to
`an attorney or other professional having a level of experience appropriate to, but not
`exceeding, that required to perform each task so as to minimize the billing rate charged
`for each task.
`14. Attached hereto as Exhibit 18 is a table summarizing the expenses
`charged by Sidley, Ostrolenk, CPH, and Tucker to URC in this matter, as reflected in
`the invoices attached hereto as Exhibits 2 to 16, the invoices attached to the Miro
`6
`DECL. OF P. KANG IN SUPPORT OF SUPP. FEE SUBMISSION
`CASE NO. 8:12-CV-00329 AG (JPRX)
`
`
`
`Universal Remote Control Exhibit: 1060 Page 000007
`
`

`
`Case 8:12-cv-00329-AG-JPR Document 502-2 Filed 03/24/15 Page 8 of 13 Page ID
` #:24925
`
`declaration as Exhibits 1–36, and the invoices attached to the Brookey declaration as
`Exhibits 1–2. The expenses charged in Sidley’s invoices were necessary to the proper
`representation of URC in this matter and were reasonably incurred. Note that some of
`these expenses were also sought in URC’s bill of costs, but URC does not yet know
`what costs will be granted pursuant to the bill of costs procedure and, thus, cannot yet
`deduct those costs from this submission.
`15.
`For the time period from November, 2013 to February, 2015, the fees
`charged to URC by Sidley for the work performed by the above-referenced attorneys
`and personnel amounted to a total of $3,955,292.75 and legal expenses charged to
`URC by Sidley amounted to a total of $613,096.26. To date, of these fees and legal
`expenses invoiced, URC has paid Sidley a total of $3,637,098.26 in fees and
`$608,997.53 for legal expenses. My understanding and expectation is that URC will
`pay Sidley the amounts due and owing in the near future, in the ordinary course of
`business.
`16.
`The following table identifies the Sidley attorneys and employees that
`were primarily responsible for representing URC in this matter, along with their titles
`and, where applicable, their law school background and hourly billing rates:
`
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`28
`
`
`
`Law School (Year) 2013/2014/2015
`Hourly Rates
`Attorney (Partner) Georgetown (1990) $875/$975/$975
`Attorney (Senior
`Boalt Hall (1975)
`$825/$850/$850
`Counsel)
`Attorney (Partner) George Washington
`(1998)
`Harvard (2000)
`University of
`Chicago (2012)
`Harvard (2013)
`
`$750/$850/$875
`
`$775/$850/$875
`$385/$495/$585
`
`$385/$445/$525
`
`Title
`
`Name
`
`Peter H. Kang
`Samuel R. Miller
`
`Teague I. Donahey
`
`Theodore W. Chandler Attorney (Partner)
`Clarence A. Rowland
`Attorney
`(Associate)
`Attorney
`(Associate)
`7
`DECL. OF P. KANG IN SUPPORT OF SUPP. FEE SUBMISSION
`CASE NO. 8:12-CV-00329 AG (JPRX)
`
`Cynthia A. Chi
`
`Universal Remote Control Exhibit: 1060 Page 000008
`
`

`
`Case 8:12-cv-00329-AG-JPR Document 502-2 Filed 03/24/15 Page 9 of 13 Page ID
` #:24926
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`28
`
`Ferenc Pazmandi
`Joseph S. Christensen
`Melinda Hanhan
`
`Patent Agent
`Paralegal
`Paralegal
`
`N/A
`N/A
`N/A
`
`$575/$665/$720
`$335/$350/$365
`$250/$260/$260
`
`17. Attached hereto as Exhibits 19 to 25 are true and correct copies of the
`primary Sidley attorney and patent agent biographies. From time-to-time, other Sidley
`litigation support personnel provided assistance on an as-needed basis.
`18.
`Sidley subscribes to a database created and maintained by Valeo
`Partners, the Hourly Rates Database, which maintains hourly rate information for
`various law firms and attorneys based on information contained in publicly-available
`court filings across the United States. Attached as Exhibit 26 is a true and correct copy
`of a table of partner and counsel billing rates for litigation attorneys based in the Los
`Angeles and Orange County region for the time period from 2012 to 2015, which was
`derived from the Valeo Hourly Rates Database. Attached as Exhibit 27 is a true and
`correct copy of a table of partner and counsel billing rates for intellectual property
`litigation attorneys based in California for the time period from 2012 to 2014 (2015
`data was not available), which was derived from the Valeo Hourly Rates Database.
`Attached as Exhibit 28 is a true and correct copy of a table comparing Sidley Austin’s
`2013 and 2014 associate rate structure to the 2013 and 2014 associate billing rates for
`peer law firms (2015 data was unavailable), which was also derived from the Valeo
`Hourly Rates Database. Attached as Exhibit 29 is a true and correct copy of a table of
`paralegal billing rates for paralegals based in the Los Angeles and Orange County
`region for the time period from 2012 through 2015, which was derived from the Valeo
`Hourly Rates Database.
`19. Attached as Exhibits 30 to 32 are true and correct copies of law firm
`billing surveys for the years 2012 to 2014 published by the National Law Journal.
`20. URC retained Stephen D. Bristow as an expert witness to testify at trial
`concerning the non-infringement and invalidity of the UEI patents-in-suit. Attached
`8
`DECL. OF P. KANG IN SUPPORT OF SUPP. FEE SUBMISSION
`CASE NO. 8:12-CV-00329 AG (JPRX)
`
`
`
`Universal Remote Control Exhibit: 1060 Page 000009
`
`

`
`Case 8:12-cv-00329-AG-JPR Document 502-2 Filed 03/24/15 Page 10 of 13 Page ID
` #:24927
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`28
`
`hereto as Exhibits 33 to 37 are true and correct copies of invoices issued by Mr.
`Bristow to URC with respect to his work on this matter. Based upon my review of the
`information set forth in the invoices as well as the disclosed opinions of Mr. Bristow,
`Mr. Bristow’s invoices are accurate and, in my professional judgment, the work
`performed was necessary to responding to the claims asserted by UEI against URC in
`this matter and the number of hours expended were reasonable. Similarly, the amount
`of costs incurred was reasonable and were necessary to the proper representation of
`URC in this matter. As reflected in his invoices, Mr. Bristow’s total fees in this matter
`through March, 2014 were $168,705 and his total expenses were $3,086. My client
`has informed me that URC actually paid all of Mr. Bristow's expenses and fees through
`March, 2014. Mr. Bristow submitted invoices for work performed after March, 2014,
`but those are not attached because they are unclaimed.
`21. URC retained John C. Jarosz of the Analysis Group, Inc. (“Analysis
`Group”) as an expert witness to testify at trial concerning damages. Attached hereto as
`Exhibits 38 to 44 are true and correct copies of invoices issued by the Analysis Group
`to URC with respect to the work performed on this matter by or under the supervision
`of Mr. Jarosz. Based upon my review of the information set forth in the invoices as
`well as the disclosed opinions of Mr. Jarosz, the Analysis Group’s invoices are
`accurate and, in my professional judgment, the work performed was necessary to
`responding to the claims asserted by UEI against URC in this matter and the number of
`hours expended were reasonable. Similarly, the amount of costs incurred was
`reasonable and were necessary to the proper representation of URC in this matter. As
`reflected in its invoices, the Analysis Group’s total fees in this matter through March,
`2014 were $324,190 and its total expenses were $2,235. My client informs me that
`URC paid those Analysis Group fees and expenses in full. Analysis Group also
`submitted invoices after March, 2014, but those invoices are not attached because they
`are unclaimed. Some of the expenses from the March invoice were incurred after the
`summary judgment order issued, and those are also unclaimed.
`9
`DECL. OF P. KANG IN SUPPORT OF SUPP. FEE SUBMISSION
`CASE NO. 8:12-CV-00329 AG (JPRX)
`
`
`
`Universal Remote Control Exhibit: 1060 Page 000010
`
`

`
`Case 8:12-cv-00329-AG-JPR Document 502-2 Filed 03/24/15 Page 11 of 13 Page ID
` #:24928
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`28
`
`22. URC retained The Focal Point LLC, a trial consulting and graphics firm
`located in Oakland, California, to provide trial graphics and related trial consulting
`services in this matter. Attached hereto as Exhibits 45 and 46 are true and correct
`copies of invoices from The Focal Point with respect to its work on this matter. Based
`upon my review of the information set forth in the invoices as well as the work
`performed under my supervision, The Focal Point’s invoices are accurate and, in my
`professional judgment, the work performed was necessary to responding to the claims
`asserted by UEI against URC in this matter and the number of hours expended were
`reasonable. Similarly, the amount of costs incurred was reasonable and were necessary
`to the proper representation of URC in this matter. As reflected in its invoices, The
`Focal Point’s total fees in this matter were $249,618.00 and its total expenses were
`$26,865.21. My understanding is that those fees and expenses have been paid to Focal
`Point in full.
`23. URC retained DecisionQuest, a jury consulting firm located in Los
`Angeles, California, to provide jury consulting services in this matter. Attached hereto
`as Exhibit 47 is a true and correct copy of Decision Quest’s invoice for its work on this
`matter. Based upon my review of the information set forth in the invoice as well as the
`work performed under my supervision, DecisionQuest’s invoice is accurate and, in my
`professional judgment, the work performed was necessary to responding to the claims
`asserted by UEI against URC in this matter and the number of hours expended were
`reasonable. Similarly, the amount of costs incurred was reasonable and were necessary
`to the proper representation of URC in this matter. DecisionQuest’s total fees in this
`matter were $11,418.75 and its expenses were $18,314.93, for a total of $29,783.18
`(after $49.50 in sales tax). My understanding is that these fees and expenses were paid
`in full.
`24. Attached hereto as Exhibit 48 is a true and correct copy of excerpts from
`the November 13, 2013 Expert Report of Frank A. Bernatowicz, UEI’s damages expert
`in this action. These excerpts demonstrate that, in or around the time Sidley was
`10
`DECL. OF P. KANG IN SUPPORT OF SUPP. FEE SUBMISSION
`CASE NO. 8:12-CV-00329 AG (JPRX)
`
`
`
`Universal Remote Control Exhibit: 1060 Page 000011
`
`

`
`Case 8:12-cv-00329-AG-JPR Document 502-2 Filed 03/24/15 Page 12 of 13 Page ID
` #:24929
`
`retained as trial counsel in this action, UEI was seeking at least $20 million in
`compensatory damages.
`25. Attached hereto as Exhibit 49 is a true and correct copy of excerpts from
`the American Intellectual Property Law Association (AIPLA) Report of the Economic
`Survey for the year 2013 (data for subsequent years is not currently available). This
`survey estimated, based on information obtained from 176 respondents, that the
`median total cost (inclusive of fees and expenses) of patent litigation matters of all
`varieties across the United States in 2013 in which more than $25 million was at risk
`was $5.5 million, with the 25th percentile amounting to $3.5 million, and the 75th
`percentile amounting to $7.5 million. This survey also reviewed similar data for 2013
`cases focusing on the Los Angeles metropolitan area, finding that the median total cost
`of patent litigation in the Los Angeles area in which more than $25 million was at risk
`was $8 million, with the 25th percentile amounting to $6 million, and the 75th
`percentile amounting to $8.5 million.
`26. Attached hereto as Exhibit 50 is a true and correct copy of UEI’s Form
`10-K for the year 2014, which is publicly-available on the website of the U.S.
`Securities & Exchange Commission (“SEC”).
`27. Attached hereto as Exhibits 51 to 66 are true and correct copies of UEI
`Securities and Exchange Commission filings (Form 4) that my staff collected from the
`UEI website on March 20, 2015. UEI’s shares are publicly traded, and the SEC
`requires them to file these forms, which disclose insider sales of UEI stock over the
`time period from March, 2014 through March, 2015. These documents are available
`from the SEC’s EDGAR website and from UEI’s website.
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`28
`
`
`
`11
`DECL. OF P. KANG IN SUPPORT OF SUPP. FEE SUBMISSION
`CASE NO. 8:12-CV-00329 AG (JPRX)
`
`Universal Remote Control Exhibit: 1060 Page 000012
`
`

`
`Case 8:12-cv-00329-AG-JPR Document 502-2 Filed 03/24/15 Page 13 of 13 Page ID
` #:24930
`
`I declare under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct.
`Executed this 24th day of March, 2015 in Palo Alto, California.
`
`
`
`
`/s/ Peter H. Kang
`Peter H. Kang, SBN 158101
`pkang@sidley.com
`SIDLEY AUSTIN LLP
`1001 Page Mill Road, Building 1
`Palo Alto, California 94304
`Tel: (650) 565-7000
`Fax: (650) 565-7100
`
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`28
`
`
`
`
`
`12
`DECL. OF P. KANG IN SUPPORT OF SUPP. FEE SUBMISSION
`CASE NO. 8:12-CV-00329 AG (JPRX)
`
`Universal Remote Control Exhibit: 1060 Page 000013