Ashok Ramani
`
`Netflix, TSMC, Google, HTC and other leading technology companies
`rely on Ashok Ramani to resolve their most complex intellectual
`property disputes. Having tried 15 jury and bench trials nationwide and
`before the US International Trade Commission, Mr. Ramani
`understands how to identify key issues early, and how to translate
`sophisticated technology and legal concepts to juries and judges alike.
`
`Mr. Ramani focuses on bringing and defending patent and trade secret
`matters, particularly those which involve groundbreaking technology or
`lack legal precedent. For his plaintiff clients, Mr. Ramani has secured
`multiple nine-figure settlements (one of which followed a successful
`ten-week jury trial) and preliminary injunctions against former
`employees on trade-secret-misappropriation claims. For his defendant
`clients, Mr. Ramani has achieved mid-trial voluntary dismissal by the
`plaintiff (with Mr. Ramani's clients and the other defendant paying
`nothing), complete victory on multiple patents, and pretrial victory by
`summary judgment and motion to dismiss.
`
`Ashok Ramani
`PARTNER
`aramani@kvn.com
`Tel. (415) 676-2210
`
`Education
`Harvard Law School, J.D., cum
`laude, 1998
`
`UC Berkeley, B.A., with high honors,
`1995
`
`Page 1 of 6
`
`LG Electronics Exhibit 1026
`LGE, et al. v. Straight Path IP
`IPR2015-00209
`
`

`

`Mr. Ramani has been recognized for his skillful advocacy in patent and
`trade secret cases. In 2014, the Daily Journal included Mr. Ramani on
`its list of California's Top IP Lawyers. Chambers has named him one of
`the Leaders in their Field for intellectual property: patent. He has been
`listed for several years in Best Lawyers in America for intellectual
`property and patent litigation, and in Legal 500 for patent litigation.
`Since 2009, he has been recognized as a Northern California Super
`Lawyer for IP litigation.
`
`In addition to developing and executing successful trial strategies, Mr.
`Ramani counsels clients on ways to avoid litigation. He has conducted
`several prefiling investigations to determine potential patent
`infringement and has also led several internal investigations to
`determine whether former employees have misappropriated trade
`secrets or breached their fiduciary duty.
`
`Other than patent and trade­secret matters, Mr. Ramani’s clients also
`count on his trial experience and comprehensive understanding of their
`industries to resolve their trademark, contract, fiduciary-duty, and
`criminal matters.
`
`Mr. Ramani also dedicates his time to a number of community
`organizations. He serves on the board of Asian Americans Advancing
`Justice | Asian Law Caucus, the nation’s first legal and civil­rights
`organization serving low-income Asian Pacific Americans. He
`previously served on the State Bar of California’s Commission on
`Judicial Nominees Evaluation and as co-chair of the North American
`South Asian Bar Association’s IP and litigation sections. Mr. Ramani
`lives in Oakland with his wife, daughter, and dog.
`
`CASES OF NOTE
`
`In the Matter of Certain Products Containing Interactive Program
`Guide and Parental Control Technology: We defended our clients
`Netflix, Inc. and Roku Corporation in a U.S. International Trade
`Commission complaint filed by Rovi Corporation. The complaint
`accused our clients, along with Mitsubishi Electric Corp., LG Electronics
`Inc., and Vizio Inc., of infringing several patents related to interactive
`program guides. The complaint sought an order banning television and
`media-player makers from entering the U.S. By the time of the trial, the
`other defendants had all settled and our clients faced four patents. We
`successfully defended our clients, with the ALJ finding one of the
`patents invalid and none of the patents infringed, as well as no
`actionable importation or available remedy. The ITC reviewed the entire
`investigation and confirmed there was no violation.
`
`Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Company v. Semiconductor
`Manufacturing International Corporation: We represented TSMC
`against China's then-leading semiconductor manufacturer, SMIC, in the
`largest trade secret misuse case tried to date. SMIC owed its very
`existence to technology stolen from our client. Following a jury verdict
`on liability in favor of TSMC, SMIC agreed to pay $200 million in cash
`and approximately $130 million of its company stock. The case serves
`as precedent for the strong protection afforded by California's trade
`secret statute, even where the actual theft occurred in Asia.
`
`Multinational Biotechnology Company v. Biopharmaceutical
`Company: We won partial summary judgment for a Seattle
`biopharmaceutical company and its founder in a trade secret and
`contract action over a cystic fibrosis drug. Aided by that ruling, and the
`favorable progress of the trial relating to the remaining claims, another
`biotechnology company acquired our client for $365 million mid-trial.
`
`Prior Experience
`Google (six month secondment,
`2005)
`
`Howard Rice Nemerovski Canady
`Falk & Rabkin
`
`Clerkships
`Hon. Henry H. Kennedy, Jr.
`U.S. District Court, District of
`Columbia, 1999-2000
`
`Bar Admissions
`California
`
`Practice Areas
`
`Contract & Commercial
`Intellectual Property
`
`News
`
`Invoking 'Alice,' Lawyers for LinkedIn,
`Facebook Knock Out Database Patent
`01/06/2015 — David Silbert and his
`team score a win for LinkedIn.
`
`Decline in Patent Suits Raises
`Questions for Attorneys, Law Firms
`11/11/2014 — Ashok Ramani
`comments on how the Alice decision
`will impact NPE lawsuits seeking
`nuisance fee settlements.
`
`Keker & Van Nest Named Top
`Litigation Boutique
`10/15/2014 — One name mentioned by
`virtually everyone the Daily Journal
`spoke to was Keker & Van Nest.
`Lawyers at some of the best firms in
`California said they model themselves
`after the litigation powerhouse.
`
`Keker & Van Nest Fends off Intrusive
`Demands and Secures Sanctions for
`Client Netflix
`07/09/2014 — A federal judge refused to
`force Netflix Inc. to comply with Straight
`Path IP Group's “oppressive” subpoena
`demanding depositions, source code
`and more for its patent suits, finding
`Tuesday that Netflix is a nonparty in the
`cases and Straight Path may face
`sanctions.
`
`Patent litigation proponents pursue
`other efforts as Senate bill stalls
`05/22/2014 — Ashok Ramani
`comments on what needs to occur
`before Congress considers more
`legislation.
`
`LG, Toshiba Seek New ITC Penalty For
`
`Page 2 of 6
`
`

`

`Apple Inc. v. HTC Corp: We served as lead counsel for HTC, a Taiwan-
`based manufacturer of handheld devices, in its battle with Apple over
`smartphone technology. Apple first sued HTC in district court and
`before the International Trade Commission (ITC), claiming our client
`had infringed on 20 patents related to various computer-related
`technologies, including user interfaces, operating systems, power
`management, and digital signal processing. The ITC hearing that went
`to decision resulted in a favorable ruling, and HTC obtained a
`settlement to become the first Android handset maker licensed by
`Apple.
`
`Abbott v. Medtronic, Inc.: Prior to our retention in this matter, U.S.
`District Court Judge Lowell Jensen had found that Medtronic, Inc.
`willfully infringed on Abbott's delivery system patent and enjoined
`Medtronic until that patent expired. The injunction included language for
`its term to extend if Abbott applied to extend the patent, which the
`company did at the same time Medtronic planned to release its device.
`We were then brought on as co-counsel for Medtronic, and persuaded
`the judge to terminate the injunction upon the patent’s natural expiration
`date. As a result, Medtronic's Endeavor Rx stent is now for sale on the
`U.S. market.
`
`Plaintiffs v. Telecommunications Company: In a patent infringement
`suit concerning video-conferencing systems, our client's competitor
`and its patent-holding arm sought an injunction and demanded
`damages against all products and services in our client’s core
`business. We settled the case favorably for our client after summary
`judgment briefing.
`
`Deasy v. State of California: We represented Annika Deasy, a Swedish
`national convicted of accessory to murder, in her quest for parole. Ms.
`Deasy was involved in a crime spree in which her boyfriend shot and
`killed two men. After pleading guilty she was sentenced to prison at the
`California Institution for Women. While in prison, Ms. Deasy completed
`a remarkable rehabilitation. She conquered her heroin addiction,
`established a prison Narcotics Anonymous chapter, religious ministry
`and a guide dog training program for her fellow inmates. Despite her
`commitment to reform and admission of guilt, Ms. Deasy was twice
`denied parole. Once we began representing Ms. Deasy pro bono in her
`parole-board hearings and related proceedings, we were able to
`arrange for her transfer to a Swedish prison in 2009 and her eventual
`release in 2011.
`
`AWARDS AND HONORS
`
`Last-Minute Withdrawal
`05/09/2014 — Keker & Van Nest team
`called for a change to the ITC rules that
`would enable the agency to punish
`companies abandoning patent
`infringement cases at the last minute.
`
`Bob Van Nest and Ashok Ramani
`Named to Daily Journal's List of Top 75
`IP Attorneys
`04/09/2014 — Winners helped to
`advance technological innovation and
`chance the law, handling work critical to
`the future of the technology and other
`industries.
`
`ITC Confirms Groundbreaking Patent
`Victory on Behalf of Netflix
`11/01/2013 — The U.S. International
`Trade Commission affirmed an ITC
`judge's ruling that Keker & Van Nest's
`client Netflix Inc.'s streaming software
`didn't infringe digital entertainment
`technology company Rovi Corp.'s
`patented parental control and program
`guide technology.
`
`New ITC Pilot Program Put to Test
`07/05/2013 — Ashok Ramani
`comments on the International Trade
`Commission's first-ever ruling issued
`under a new preliminary procedure that
`some experts say would aid operating
`companies in their fight against patent
`holding companies.
`
`Ashok Ramani Leads Netflix to Victory
`in Groundbreaking ITC Patent Case
`06/10/2013 — The multi-patent case
`involved novel arguments which tested
`the ITC's definition of “unfair foreign
`competition.”
`
`Lawyers Weigh In On Obama 'Patent
`Troll' Initiatives
`
`Page 3 of 6
`
`

`

`Named one of the Leaders in Their Fields for Intellectual Property:
`Patent, Chambers, 2014
`Top 75 Intellectual Property Lawyers, Daily Journal, 2014
`World’s Leading Patent Practitioners, IAM Patent 1000, 2014
`Listed in Best Lawyers in America for Intellectual Property and Patent
`Litigation, 2012-2014
`Northern California Super Lawyer, IP litigation, 2009-2014
`Legal 500 for patent litigation, 2007, 2009
`Phi Beta Kappa, UC Berkeley, 1995
`
`PRESENTATIONS AND PUBLICATIONS
`
`"Intellectual Property Law," North American South Asian Law
`Students Association Conference, 2015
`Moderated "The Patent System: Does It Need to Be Fixed? How
`Would You Fix It?," Daily Journal & Thomson Reuters Patent
`Disputes Forum, 2014
`"Patent Trolls and Patent Reform Conference," Stanford Program in
`Law, Science, & Technology, 2014
`"Intellectual Property Roundtable: Patent Litigation," California
`Lawyer, 2014
`"IP Law for In house Counsel & Non IP Lawyers," Bridgeport
`Continuing Education, 2013
`"Intellectual Property Roundtable: Patent Litigation," California
`Lawyer, 2013
`"Listening to the Marketplace: What San Francisco’s Top Lawyers
`Expect From Mediators," American Bar Association, 2013
`Co-chair and speaker, "Patent Disputes Conference," Thomson
`Reuters, 2013
`"You Were Just Sued for Patent Infringement: Now What?" Westlaw
`Intellectual Property Journal, 2012
`“An Oft-Overlooked Patent-Inducement Defense,” Law360, 2012
`"You Just Got Sued, Now What," Bridgeport's Understanding Patent &
`Trade Secret Law Conference, 2012
`"Three Hot Topics in Patent Law," Bridgeport's Understanding Patent
`& Trade Secret Law Conference, 2012
`"Grow Your Business, Not Your Legal Bills: Avoid Litigation While
`Hiring New Talent, Managing Customer Data, and Protecting IP,"
`Keker & Van Nest presentation, 2011
`"How to Protect Your IP from Walking out the Door," 2011 NASABA
`Convention
`
`PROFESSIONAL AFFILIATIONS
`
`Member, Patent Instructions and Rules Attorney Advisory Committee
`Board of Directors, Advancing Justice - Asian Law Caucus, 2013-
`present
`Commissioner, California State Bar Commission on Judicial
`Nominee Evaluation, 2010-2013
`Faculty, National Institute of Trial Advocacy's Western Region trial-
`skills course
`Barrister, Edward J. McFetridge American Inn of Court
`
`INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY, TRADE SECRET
`
`06/06/2013 — Brian Ferrall and Ashok
`Ramani speak to Law360 about the
`President's legislative and executive
`proposals aimed at curbing frivolous
`lawsuits.
`
`Events
`
`4th Annual Patent Disputes Forum
`12/04/2014 — Ashok Ramani and other
`key players in patent litigation will share
`their knowledge, experience, and insight
`into the most recent issues in patent
`disputes.
`
`2014 Patent Disputes Forum
`05/06/2014 — Ashok Ramani, Leo Lam,
`Gene Paige and other distinguished
`faculty will share their experience and
`insight into critical patent litigation
`topics.
`
`Patent Trolls and Patent Reform
`Conference
`03/21/2014 — Patent reform is once
`again in the headlines, as the Supreme
`Court, Congress, and even state
`attorneys general target perceived
`abuses of the litigation system by patent
`trolls and others. Ashok Ramani and
`other knowledgeable lawyers, judges,
`and academics will discuss the
`prospects and impact of the most likely
`reforms.
`
`IP Law for In house Counsel & Non IP
`Lawyers
`12/05/2013 — Ashok Ramani wil take
`part in a panel discussion and
`presentation on patent law.
`
`Listening to the Marketplace: What
`San Francisco’s Top Lawyers Expect
`From Mediators
`08/09/2013 — Ashok Ramani will
`moderate this panel at the ABA's Annual
`Meeting.
`
`Patent Disputes 2013
`03/27/2013 — Ashok Ramani, Asim
`Bhansali and Matthias Kamber will
`speak at this conference, which brings
`together a distinguished faculty of the
`foremost patent attorneys, judges, and
`in-house counsel in the country.
`
`Page 4 of 6
`
`

`

`Understanding Patent & Trade Secret
`Law
`08/24/2012 — Ashok Ramani will offer a
`primer on patent and trade secret law
`for in-house counsel, and other non-IP
`lawyers.
`
`Impact: Critical Changes in Patent Law
`03/19/2012 — This webinar will cover
`the most recent cases and legislation to
`significantly impact patent law and the
`patent system.
`
`Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Company v. Semiconductor
`Manufacturing International Corporation: We represented TSMC
`against China's then-leading semiconductor manufacturer, SMIC, in the
`largest trade secret misuse case tried to date. SMIC owed its very
`existence to technology stolen from our client. Following a jury verdict
`on liability in favor of TSMC, SMIC agreed to pay $200 million in cash
`and approximately $130 million of its company stock. The case serves
`as precedent for the strong protection afforded by California's trade
`secret statute, even where the actual theft occurred in Asia.
`
`Cadence Design Systems, Inc. v. Former Employee: Representing
`Cadence Design Systems, Inc., we secured cutting-edge R&D
`materials that an employee conspired to misappropriate to start a
`competing venture overseas. We prevailed, obtaining a temporary
`restraining order, a preliminary injunction and a permanent injunction
`against the employee.
`
`United States v. Lee: We represented third-party TSMC in the first
`Espionage Act and criminal trade secret provisions case brought in the
`Northern District of California. We successfully limited inquiry into and
`discovery of our client's personnel and materials during pretrial
`proceedings, and coordinated with the U.S. Attorney’s Office to identify
`and prepare our client's witnesses for trial testimony.
`
`Multinational Biotechnology Company v. Biopharmaceutical
`Company: We won partial summary judgment for a Seattle
`biopharmaceutical company and its founder in a trade secret and
`contract action over a cystic fibrosis drug. Aided by that ruling, and the
`favorable progress of the trial relating to the remaining claims, another
`biotechnology company acquired our client for $365 million mid-trial.
`
`INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY, PATENT
`
`In the Matter of Certain Products Containing Interactive Program
`Guide and Parental Control Technology: We defended our clients
`Netflix, Inc. and Roku Corporation in a U.S. International Trade
`Commission complaint filed by Rovi Corporation. The complaint
`accused our clients, along with Mitsubishi Electric Corp., LG Electronics
`Inc., and Vizio Inc., of infringing several patents related to interactive
`program guides. The complaint sought an order banning television and
`media-player makers from entering the U.S. By the time of the trial, the
`other defendants had all settled and our clients faced four patents. We
`successfully defended our clients, with the ALJ finding one of the
`patents invalid and none of the patents infringed, as well as no
`actionable importation or available remedy. The ITC reviewed the entire
`investigation and confirmed there was no violation.
`
`Apple Inc. v. HTC Corp: We served as lead counsel for HTC, a Taiwan-
`based manufacturer of handheld devices, in its battle with Apple over
`smartphone technology. Apple first sued HTC in district court and
`before the International Trade Commission (ITC), claiming our client
`had infringed on 20 patents related to various computer-related
`technologies, including user interfaces, operating systems, power
`management, and digital signal processing. The ITC hearing that went
`to decision resulted in a favorable ruling, and HTC obtained a
`settlement to become the first Android handset maker licensed by
`Apple.
`
`Comcast Cable Communications, LLC v. PixFusion: On behalf of
`Comcast Cable Communications, LLC, we prosecuted a declaratory-
`judgment action against PixFusion for non-infringement and invalidity
`relating to two video-technology patents. After we defeated a motion to
`transfer the case from the Southern District of New York to the Eastern
`District of Texas where PixFusion had sued a score of other
`defendants, the case settled on very favorable terms.
`
`Page 5 of 6
`
`

`

`Edwards Lifesciences v. Medtronic, Inc.: We defended Medtronic, Inc.
`and its subsidiary, CoreValve, in a multi-patent case brought by
`Edwards Lifesciences in the District of Delaware. The patents at stake
`concerned CoreValve’s lifesaving transcatheter artificial heart valve.
`Although an injunction was initially ordered, we convinced the court to
`stay that injunction, and then later resolved all of the pending patent
`litigation with a successful settlement.
`
`Internet Subscription Service v. Competitor: We prosecuted a patent
`infringement case on behalf of a leading Internet subscription service.
`Our client claimed its once larger rival infringed on our client's unique
`business method. The competitor countersued, alleging antitrust
`violations. The case was dismissed before trial.
`
`Abbott v. Medtronic, Inc.: Prior to our retention in this matter, U.S.
`District Court Judge Lowell Jensen had found that Medtronic, Inc.
`willfully infringed on Abbott's delivery system patent and enjoined
`Medtronic until that patent expired. The injunction included language for
`its term to extend if Abbott applied to extend the patent, which the
`company did at the same time Medtronic planned to release its device.
`We were then brought on as co-counsel for Medtronic, and persuaded
`the judge to terminate the injunction upon the patent’s natural expiration
`date. As a result, Medtronic's Endeavor Rx stent is now for sale on the
`U.S. market.
`
`Plaintiffs v. Telecommunications Company: In a patent infringement
`suit concerning video-conferencing systems, our client's competitor
`and its patent-holding arm sought an injunction and demanded
`damages against all products and services in our client’s core
`business. We settled the case favorably for our client after summary
`judgment briefing.
`
`Broadcom Corporation v. SiRF Technology and CSR: We served as
`trial counsel for Broadcom, one of the world’s leading semiconductor
`companies, against SiRF, a GPS chip manufacturer, and its parent
`CSR. Broadcom asserted multiple patents covering graphics, video
`processing, and digital signal processing techniques, as well as
`claims arising under the Lanham Act and unfair competition laws. This
`case, along with other actions between the parties, was settled shortly
`before trial on terms that were very favorable to Broadcom.
`
`Semiconductor Company v. Competitor: We represented a
`semiconductor company in patent infringement claims in the Eastern
`District of California. The patents included those for a host of analog,
`mixed signal, and networking semiconductor devices. The case was
`settled on confidential terms favorable to our client.
`
`Genentech, Inc. v. The Trustees of the University of Pennsylvania: On
`behalf of Genentech, we sought a declaration of non-infringement and
`invalidity of a University of Pennsylvania patent that purported to cover a
`specific breast cancer therapy. After a very successful pretrial
`conference, we were able to negotiate a settlement which greatly
`benefitted our client.
`
`Page 6 of 6
`
`