UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`PLAID TECHNOLOGIES INC.
`Petitioner
`
`v.
`
`YODLEE, INC. and YODLEE.COM, INC.
`Patent Owners
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Case IPR2016-00275
`Patent 6,199,077
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`DECLARATION OF DAVID BARKAN IN SUPPORT OF PATENT
`OWNERS’ MOTION FOR PRO HAC VICE ADMISSION
`
`
` 
`
`YODLEE 2003 
`PLAID TECHNOLOGIES V. YODLEE, INC. 
`IPR2016‐00275 
`
`  
`
`

`
`Case IPR2016-00275
`Attorney Docket No: 12233-0046IP1
`
`DECLARATION OF DAVID BARKAN IN SUPPORT OF
`PATENT OWNERS’ MOTION FOR PRO HAC VICE
`ADMISSION
`
`I, David Barkan, declare the following:
`
` 
`
`
`
`1.
`
`I am a member in good standing of the State Bar of California, and am
`
`admitted to practice in the United States District Courts for the Northern, Central,
`
`and Southern Districts of California, the United States District Court for the
`
`Eastern District of Texas, the United States District Court for the Northern District
`
`of Illinois, the United States District Court for the Western District of Wisconsin,
`
`and the United States Courts of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit, Ninth Circuit, and
`
`Federal Circuit.
`
`2.
`
`I have not been suspended or disbarred from practice before any court or
`
`administrative body.
`
`3.
`
`I have never had an application for admission to practice before any court or
`
`administrative body denied.
`
`4.
`
`No sanction or contempt citation has been imposed against me by any court
`
`or administrative body.
`
`5.
`
`I have read and will comply with the Office Patent Trial Practice Guide and
`
`the Board’s Rules of Practice for Trials set forth in part 42 of the Code of Federal
`
`Regulations.
`
` 
`
`2 
`
`

`
`
`6.
`
`I will be subject to the USPTO Rules of Professional Conduct set forth in 37
`
`Case IPR2016-00275
`Attorney Docket No: 12233-0046IP1
`
`C.F.R. §§ 11.101 et seq. and disciplinary jurisdiction under 37 C.F.R. § 11.19(a).
`
`7.
`
`I have previously applied to appear pro hac vice before the Office in Cases
`
`No. IPR2013-00472 and IPR2013-00473 and am also applying to appear before
`
`the Office in Case No. IPR2016-00273, which involves another patent belonging to
`
`the Patent Owners that is at issue in the same district court action (Yodlee, Inc. v.
`
`Plaid Technologies Inc., USDC-D. Delaware - Case No 14-1445-LPS-CJB) as the
`
`present Proceeding. That application is being filed concurrently with the present
`
`application
`
`8.
`
`I am an experienced litigation attorney with more than 23 years of
`
`experience representing clients in patent cases involving electrical devices,
`
`computer hardware, computer software, financial and business services, the
`
`Internet, and semiconductors. I regularly litigate patent cases in various forums
`
`including the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, federal
`
`district courts, and the International Trade Commission. Through my experience
`
`in patent litigation matters, I have represented clients in many phases of litigation
`
`including discovery, Markman hearings, jury trials, bench trials, and appeals. I
`
`have also been substantively involved in developing technical and legal arguments,
`
`and working with technical experts and inventors. I have particular experience
`
`relevant to the patent-at-issue, having been lead counsel for Patent Owner Yodlee,
`
`
`
`3
`
`

`
`Case lPR2016-00275
`
`Attorney Docket No: 12233—0046IP1
`
`Inc. in a previously—litigated matter that was heard in the Northern District of
`
`California as well as in the current action in the District of Delaware, Yodlee, Inc.
`
`v. Plaid Technologies II’lC., Case No 14-1445—LPS—CJB. My biography is attached
`
`hereto as Exhibit A.
`
`I have also served as lead counsel for the Patent Owner since
`
`2001 in patent cases in district court proceedings involving software technologies.
`
`9.
`
`I hereby declare that all statements made herein of my own knowledge are
`
`true and that all statements made on information and belief are believed to be true;
`
`and further that these statements were made with the knowledge that willful false
`
`statements and the like so made are punishable by fine or imprisonment, or both,
`
`under Section 1001 of Title 18 of the United States Code and that such willful false
`
`statements may jeopardize the validity of the application or any patents issued
`
`thereon.
`
`Date:
`
`5/
`
`Respectfully submitted,
`
`David Barkan
`
`Fish & Richardson P.C.
`
`3200 RBC Plaza
`
`60 South Sixth Street
`
`Minneapolis, MN 55402
`Tel: 650-839-5065
`
`Email: barl<an@fr.corn
`
`

`
`EXHIBIT A 
`
`EXHIBIT A
`
`        
`
`5
`
`

`
`Barkan-David-2016-FishBio
`
`Page 1 of 8
`
`David M. Barkan
`Principal
`
` Redwood City, CA  650-839-5065
`
`
`
` barkan@fr.com
`
`Background
`
`David M. Barkan is a litigation principal in Fish & Richardson’s Silicon Valley office and served as the firm’s Nationwide Head of
`Litigation from 2001 through 2006. He specializes in high technology litigation, spanning a broad range of computer and network
`technologies, including computer graphics, programming theory and language, networking protocols and security, semiconductor
`processing, analog and digital semiconductor devices, distributed systems, and storage devices. Mr. Barkan has tried intellectual
`property cases before judges and juries in US district courts, in the US International Trade Commission, and in arbitration proceedings.
`Prior to law school, Mr. Barkan wrote software for a small start-up in Cambridge, Massachusetts (1988-1989).
`
`David has been selected as a Super Lawyer since 2004 and has been listed in The Best Lawyers in America since 2013 for Litigation –
`Intellectual Property. Additionally, in 2009, the Los Angeles and San Francisco Daily Journal named David as one of the "Top 100″ most
`influential lawyers in California. The Los Angeles and San Francisco Daily Journal also named him as one of the "Top 75″ intellectual
`property litigators in California in 2009 and 2010.
`
`Services
`• Litigation
`• ITC Litigation
`• Patent Litigation
`
`Industries
`• Digital Health
`• Electrical and Computer Technology
`• Financial and Business Services
`• Internet
`• Semiconductors
`• Software
`
`Education
`J.D., University of California, Berkeley School of Law 1992
`Order of the Coif
`
`A.B., Harvard University 1987
`Government
`magna cum laude
`
`http://www.fr.com/david-m-barkan/
`
`3/23/2016
`
`6
`
`

`
`Barkan-David-2016-FishBio
`
`Page 2 of 8
`
`Admissions
`• California 1992
`• U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit
`• U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
`• U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
`• U.S. District Court for the Central District of California
`• U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California
`• U.S. District Court for the Southern District of California
`• U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Texas
`• U.S. District Court for the Western District of Wisconsin
`• California Supreme Court
`
`Clerkships
`United States District Court for the Northern District of California, The Honorable Fern M. Smith, 1992 - 1993
`
`Memberships & Affiliations
`
` Firm operating committees: Litigation Practice Group Leader, 2001-2006; Management Committee, 2002-2004; Compensation
`Committee, 2012-present.
`
`Other Distinctions
`Selected publications
`"Navigating the Litigation Process," Strategies of Successful Litigators: Best Practices of the World’s Top Litigation Lawyers, Aspatore
`Books (2005).
`
`"Software Litiga ion in the Year 2000: The Effect of Object-Oriented Design Methodologies on Traditional Software Jurisprudence,"
`published in 7 High Technology L.J. 315 (1993)
`
`"Book Review of EDI and American Law," published in 5 High Technology L.J. 193 (1990).
`
`Additional information
`Featured as a keynote speaker on the audio-recording of "The Litigation Leadership Roundtable: Top Partners on Winning Legal
`Strategies & Best Practices for Success," ReedLogic Conferences (2005).
`
`Experience
`COMPUTER GRAPHICS AND IMAGE PROCESSING
`
`Adobe Systems Inc. adv. Heidelberger Druckmaschinen AG (computer graphics
`software) (D. Del.) Defended Adobe in patent litigation case brought by Heidelberger
`relating to computer graphics. Resolved successfully.
`
`Adobe Systems Inc. adv. Quantel Limited (computer graphics software) (D. Del.)
`Defended Adobe in patent infringement case brought by Quantel. Jury found all five
`patents invalid, not infringed, and unenforceable despite prior litigation victories by
`Quantel. The National Law Journal recognized this verdict as one of the Top 15
`Defense Verdicts for 1997, the only intellectual property case on the list.
`
`Autodesk, Inc. adv. Preco, Inc. (CAD software) (D. Kan.) Defended Autodesk against
`claims of patent infringement relating to CAD software. Resolved successfully.
`
`http://www.fr.com/david-m-barkan/
`
`3/23/2016
`
`7
`
`

`
`Barkan-David-2016-FishBio
`
`Page 3 of 8
`
`Autodesk, Inc. adv. Tektronix (CAD software) (D. Or.) Defended Autodesk against
`claims of patent infringement relating to CAD software. Resolved successfully.
`
`Autodesk, Inc. adv. Vermont Microsystems, Inc. (CAD software) (D. Vt.) Defended
`Autodesk against claims of trade secret misappropriation relating to computer graphics
`software in district court and appellate and remand proceedings. Resolved successfully.
`
`Corel Corp. adv. Heidelberger Druckmaschinen AG (computer graphics software)
`(S.D.N.Y.) Defended Corel in patent litigation case brought by Heidelberger relating to
`computer graphics. Resolved successfully.
`
`Corel Corp. adv. Victor Co. of Japan (video playback software) (W.D. Tex.) Defended
`Corel in a six-patent case brought by JVC relating to video playback from optical media.
`Resolved successfully.
`
`Marvell Semiconductor, Inc., and Nvidia Corp. adv. Intravisual, Inc. (video decoders)
`(E.D. Tex.) Defended Marvell and Nvidia against Intravisual’s claim of patent
`infringement involving video decoders for audiovisual services. Resolved successfully.
`
`Maxim Integrated Products, Inc. adv. FastVDO LLC (digital video codecs) (D. Del.)
`Defended Maxim against FastVDO’s charge of patent infringement involving video
`decoders. Resolved successfully.
`
`Yes Video, Inc. v. iMemories, Inc. (image transfer service) (E.D. Tex.) Representing
`YesVideo in asserting a patent describing a video processing system against
`iMemories.
`
`CYBERSECURITY
`
`Corel Corp adv. Entrust Corp. (digital signatures) (E.D. Va.) Defended Corel against
`allegations of copyright infringement and unfair competition relating to digital signature
`add-on software. Resolved successfully after obtaining dismissal of the action based on
`prior forum selection clause.
`
`Harland Financial Solutions, Inc. v. Wolf Run Hollow, LLC (secure email transmission
`systems) (C.D. Cal.) Defended Harland against Wolf Run’s allegation of infringement
`concerning methods and systems for securely transmit ing email messages. Resolved
`successfully.
`
`Sygate Technologies, Inc. v. Zone Labs, Inc. (network security devices) (N.D. Cal.)
`Defended Sygate in a patent infringement action brought by Zone labs relating to
`network computer security software. Resolved successfully.
`
`Zix Corp. v. Echoworx Corp. (email security systems) (N.D. Tex.) Represented Zix in
`enforcing three Zix patents relating to methods of analyzing and securing email against
`Echoworx. Resolved successfully.
`
`Zix Corp. adv. RPost Holdings, Inc., RPost Int’l Ltd., and RMail Ltd. (email
`authentication software) (E.D. Tex.) Defended Zix against RPost’s allegation of
`infringement of its patent concerning certifying message transmission. Resolved
`successfully.
`
`INTERNET AND ENTERPRISE SOFTWARE
`
`Adobe Systems Inc. adv. Macromedia, Inc. (website creation software) (N.D. Cal.)
`Defended Adobe in patent infringement litigation suit brought by Macromedia
`concerning website creation software. Resolved successfully.
`
`http://www.fr.com/david-m-barkan/
`
`3/23/2016
`
`8
`
`

`
`Barkan-David-2016-FishBio
`
`Page 4 of 8
`
`Bank of America Corp. adv. Ablaise Ltd and General Inventors Institute A, Inc. (financial
`data aggregation services) (D. Del. and N.D. Cal.) Defended Bank of America against
`Ablaise’s allegations of patent infringement concerning online data aggregation and
`banking services. Resolved successfully.
`
`Genesys Telecommunications Laboratories v. Kana Corp. (e-mail routing software) (D.
`Del.) Represented Genesys in a patent infringement action concerning intelligent e-mail
`and customer response management software. Resolved successfully.
`
`Harland Clarke Corp. adv. EZShield, Inc. (consumer fraud protection system) (D. MD.)
`Defended Harland against EZShield’s allegation of infringement of a patent concerning
`a system for reimbursing victims of check fraud. Resolved successfully.
`
`Infosys Technologies Ltd. adv. Versata Software Inc., and Versata Development Group,
`Inc. (business software) (W.D. Tex.) Defended Infosys against Versata’s allega ions of
`trade secret misappropriation, copyright infringement, and breach of contract. Resolved
`successfully.
`
`The Northwestern Mutual Life Insurance Co. adv. Unified Messaging Solutions
`(webmail services) (N.D. Ill. – MDL) Defending Northwestern Mutual in a multi-district
`litigation brought by UMS for alleged infringement of five patents dealing with web-
`based communications services.
`
`Yodlee, Inc. v. Ablaise Ltd and General Inventors Institute A, Inc. (financial data
`aggregation services) (N.D. Cal.) Represented Yodlee in a declaratory judgment action
`arising from Ablaise’s allegations of patent infringement concerning online data
`aggregation and banking services. Resolved successfully.
`
`Yodlee, Inc. v. Block Financial Corp. (distributed financial services systems) (D. Del.
`and W.D. Mo.) Represented Yodlee in prosecution of patent infringement action related
`to automatic collection of tax data over the Internet. Resolved successfully.
`
`Yodlee, Inc. adv. Block Financial Corp. (distributed financial services systems) (W.D.
`Mo.) Defended Yodlee in patent infringement suit brought by Block relating to
`distributed financial services systems. Obtained summary judgment of non-
`infringement. Resolved successfully during appeal.
`
`Yodlee, Inc. v. CashEdge Corp. (data aggregation products and services) (N.D. Cal.)
`Represented Yodlee in enforcing nine of its patents regarding financial data aggregation
`products and services against CashEdge in the Northern District of California. Resolved
`successfully.
`
`Yodlee, Inc. adv. CashEdge Corp. (data aggregation products and services) (D. Del.
`and N.D. Cal.) Defended Yodlee in a patent infringement suit brought by CashEdge
`concerning methods and apparatus for retrieving and processing financial data.
`Resolved successfully.
`
`MECHANICAL DEVICES
`
`BorgWarner, Inc. v. Honeywell Int’l, Inc. (automotive turbochargers) (W.D.N.C.)
`Represented BorgWarner in asserting three of its patents regarding the design and
`manufacture of turbocharger components. Obtained $32.5 million settlement for client
`on eve of trial.
`
`BorgWarner, Inc. v. Cummins, Inc. (automotive turbochargers) (W.D.N.C.) Represented
`BorgWarner in asserting three of its patents regarding the design and manufacture of
`turbocharger components. Successfully resolved.
`
`http://www.fr.com/david-m-barkan/
`
`3/23/2016
`
`9
`
`

`
`Barkan-David-2016-FishBio
`
`Page 5 of 8
`
`Intuitive Surgical adv. Brookhill-Wilk 1, LLC (robotic surgery devices) (S.D.N.Y.)
`Defended Intuitive Surgical in patent infringement action brought by Brookhill-Wilk LLC
`1 relating to robotic surgery devices. Resolved successfully.
`
`Microsoft Corp. adv. TypeRight Keyboard Corp. (Microsoft Natural® keyboard)
`(S.D.N.Y.) Defended Microsoft in a five-patent infringement case against TypeRight.
`Resolved successfully.
`
`NETWORKING
`
`D-Link Systems, Inc. adv. 3Com Corp. (network interface controllers) (N.D. Cal.)
`Defended D-Link in a patent infringement case brought by involving network interface
`controller products. Resolved successfully.
`
`Marvell Semiconductor, Inc. adv. Realtek Semiconductor Corp. (Ethernet networking
`devices) (N.D. Cal.) Defended Marvell in a patent infringement suit brought by Realtek
`relating to Ethernet networking devices. In a published decision, obtained a dismissal
`with prejudice and an award of more than $500,000 in attorneys’ fees for client.
`
`Emulex Corp. adv. Broadcom Corp. (networking infrastructure solutions) (C.D. Cal.)
`Defended Emulex against a patent infringement suit brought by Broadcom involving
`multiple networking-related patents. Resolved successfully.
`
`Marvell Semiconductor, Inc. v. Realtek Semiconductor Corp. / In re Certain Network
`Controllers and Products Containing Same (Ethernet networking devices) (ITC)
`Represented Marvell Semiconductor in a patent infringement action before the U.S.
`International Trade Commission relating to Ethernet network controllers. Resolved
`successfully.
`
`SynOptics, Inc. v. 3Com (network management software) (N.D. Cal.) Represented
`SynOptics in the prosecution of a patent infringement suit relating to network
`management software. Resolved successfully.
`
`OTHER SOFTWARE
`
`Corel Corp. adv. Blueberry Software, Inc. (file conversion software) (N.D. Cal.)
`Defended Corel in copyright infringement case brought by Blueberry Software relating
`to file conversion software. Resolved successfully.
`
`Corel Corp. adv. Disc Link Corp. (digital information distribution systems) (E.D. Tex.)
`Defended Corel against Disk Link’s complaint of patent infringement involving the
`distribution of information through broadcast and bi-directional communication
`channels. Resolved successfully.
`
`PROGRAMMING AND SYSTEMS SOFTWARE
`
`National Instruments Corp. v. Cognex Corp. (machine vision software) (D. Del.)
`Defended National Instruments against allegations of patent infringement, copyright
`infringement, and unfair competition brought by Cognex. Resolved successfully.
`
`National Instruments Corp. v. Coreco Inc. (graphical programming software) (W.D.
`Tex.) Represented National Instruments in asserting its foundational graphical
`programming patents. Resolved successfully.
`
`National Instruments Corp. v. Ensoft Corp. (graphical programming software) (S.D.
`Iowa) Represented National Instruments in asserting its graphical programming patents
`against Ensoft. Successfully resolved.
`
`http://www.fr.com/david-m-barkan/
`
`3/23/2016
`
`10
`
`

`
`Barkan-David-2016-FishBio
`
`Page 6 of 8
`
`National Instruments Corp. v. PPT Vision Inc. (graphical programming software) (W.D.
`Tex.) Represented National Instruments in asserting its graphical programming patents.
`Resolved successfully just prior to scheduled jury trial.
`
`National Instruments Corp. adv. SoftWIRE Technology (graphical programming
`software) (D. Mass.) Represented Na ional Instruments in a multi-patent dispute against
`SoftWIRE Technology and Measurement Computing Corp. relating to graphical
`programming software. Resolved successfully.
`
`SEMICONDUCTOR DEVICES
`
`Maxim Integrated Products, Inc. adv. Charge Lion LLC (battery chargers and charger
`controller ICs) (E.D. Tex.) Defended Maxim against Charge Lion’s allegation of
`infringement of a patent relating to an alkaline battery charger. Resolved successfully.
`
`Maxim Integrated Products Inc. adv. Commonwealth Research Group, LLC
`(microcontrollers) (D. Del.) Defended Maxim in a patent infringement suit brought by
`Commonwealth alleging infringement of a patent related to purportedly energy-saving
`circuitry. Resolved successfully.
`
`Maxim Integrated Products, Inc. & Volterra Semiconductor LLC v. Fairchild
`Semiconductor Int’l., Inc. (analog integrated circuits) (N.D. Cal.) Representing Maxim
`adverse to Fairchild in a lawsuit involving copyright infringement, misappropriation of
`trade secrets, breach of contract, intentional interference with contractual relations, and
`unfair competition.
`
`Maxim Integrated Products, Inc. et al. adv. Freescale Semiconductor, Inc.
`(microcontrollers) (W.D. Tex.) Defended Maxim adverse to Freescale in a lawsuit
`involving allegations of trade secret misappropriation and copyright infringement.
`Resolved successfully.
`
`Maxim Integrated Products, Inc. adv. In-Depth Test LLC (semiconductor test systems)
`(D. Del.) Defending Maxim adverse to In-Depth Text in a patent infringement lawsuit
`related to semiconductor testing.
`
`Maxim Integrated Products, Inc. adv. Signal Tech LLC (microcontrollers) (D. Del.)
`Defended Maxim in a patent infringement suit brought by Signal Tech alleging
`infringement of a patent related to amplifier circuitry. Resolved successfully.
`
`Marvell Semiconductor, Inc. et al. v Lonestar Inventions, L.P. (semiconductor device
`structures) (W.D. Tex.) Defended Marvell in a patent infringement lawsuit brought by
`Lonestar. Resolved successfully.
`
`Maxim Integrated Products v. Anpec Electronics Corp. (IC amplifiers) (N.D. Cal.)
`Represented Maxim in asserting a patent on integrated circuit headphone drivers
`against Anpec. Resolved successfully.
`
`Xicor, Inc. v. Catalyst Semiconductor, Inc. (digital potentiometers) (D. Del.)
`Represented Xicor in the prosecution of a patent infringement suit related to digital
`potentiometers. Resolved successfully.
`
`Nvidia Corp. adv. Mosaid Technologies, Inc. (microprocessors) (E.D. Tex.) Defended
`Nvidia against Mosaid’s seven-patent infringement lawsuit involving a wide array of
`technology relating to computer microprocessors. Successfully resolved.
`
`STORAGE SYSTEMS AND MEMORY DEVICES
`
`http://www.fr.com/david-m-barkan/
`
`3/23/2016
`
`11
`
`

`
`Barkan-David-2016-FishBio
`
`Page 7 of 8
`
`InvenSense, Inc., Roku, Inc., and Black & Decker (U.S ), Inc. adv. STMicroelectronics,
`Inc / In re Certain Microelectromechanical Systems ("MEMS Devices") and Products
`Containing Same (MEMS devices) (ITC) Successfully defended InvenSense against
`STMicroelectronics’ five patent infringement lawsuit before the International Trade
`Commission regarding micro-electromechanical systems. Resolved successfully.
`
`Kingston Technology Co., Inc. and Phison Electronics Corp. adv. SanDisk Corp. / In re
`Certain Flash Memory Controllers, Drives, Memory Cards, And Media Players And
`Products Containing Same (Flash memory devices) (ITC) Successfully defended
`Kingston Technology and Phison Electronics against SanDisk’s claims of patent
`infringement before the International Trade Commission regarding flash memory
`devices. Obtained determination of non-infringement from the ITC for both clients.
`
`Kingston Technology Co., Inc. and Phison Electronics Corp. adv. SanDisk Corp. (flash
`memory devices) (W.D. Wisc.) Defended Kingston Technology and Phison Electronics
`against SanDisk’s claims of patent infringement in the Western District of Wisconsin
`regarding flash memory devices. Resolved successfully.
`
`Kingston Technology Co., Inc. adv. SanDisk Corp. (flash memory devices) (W.D. Wisc.)
`Defended Kingston Technology against SanDisk’s claims of patent infringement in the
`Western District of Wisconsin regarding flash memory devices and asserted
`counterclaims by Kingston against SanDisk for antitrust violations. Resolved
`successfully.
`
`Macronix Int’l. Co., Ltd. & Macronix America Inc. v. Spansion Inc., et al / In the Matter of
`Certain Non-Volatile Memory Devices and Products Containing the Same (non-volatile
`memory systems) (ITC) Represented Macronix in a patent infringement investigation
`against Spansion before the International Trade Commission relating to devices
`containing non-volatile memory. Resolved successfully.
`
`Mylex Inc. v. American Megatrends, Inc. (RAID controllers) (N.D. Cal. Arbitration)
`Represented Mylex in trade secret arbitration relating to RAID controllers.
`
`Phison Electronics Corp. adv. Integrated Device Technology, Inc.
`
`(NAND flash drives) (N.D. Cal.) Defended Phison against IDT’s claims of infringement
`involving four patents dealing with the generation and synchronization of clock signals.
`Resolved successfully.
`
`Phison Electronics Corp. v. PNY Technologies Inc. (USB flash memory devices) (D.
`Del.) Representing Phison in enforcing two Phison patent relating to flash memory
`storage against PNY. Also represented Phison in two related Inter Partes Review
`Proceedings before the Patent Trial and Appeal Board.
`
`Seagate Technology LLC adv. Carl B. Collins and Farzin Davanloo (hard drives
`containing a diamond-like coating) (E.D. Tex) Defended Seagate Technology in a
`patent infringement suit brought by Collins and Davanloo concerning computer hard
`drives containing parts coated with a diamond-like material. Resolved successfully
`
`Seagate Technology LLC v. Cornice, Inc. / In re Certain Disc Drives, Components
`Thereof, and Products Containing Same (disk drive apparatus and magnetic recording
`media) (ITC and D. Del.) Represented Seagate Technology in patent infringement suits
`brought against Cornice before the International Trade Commission and in the District
`of Delaware relating to disk drive apparatus and magnetic recording media. Both
`matters were resolved successfully.
`
`http://www.fr.com/david-m-barkan/
`
`3/23/2016
`
`12
`
`

`
`Barkan-David-2016-FishBio
`
`Page 8 of 8
`
`Seagate Technology LLC, et al. adv. StorMedia Texas, LLC (magnetic recording media)
`(E.D. Tex.) Defended Seagate Technology in a patent infringement suit relating to
`magnetic recording media. Resolved successfully.
`
`Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd adv. Fujitsu Microelectronics, Inc. (DRAMs and
`semiconductor processors) (ITC) Represented Samsung in a patent infringement action
`heard before the U.S. International Trade Commission relating to DRAM device
`structure and semiconductor processing. Resolved successfully.
`
`Sonic Solutions and Napster (formerly known as Roxio, Inc ) adv. Optima Technology
`Corp. (CD-burning software) (C.D. Cal.) Represented Sonic Solutions and Napster
`(formerly Roxio) in a patent infringement lawsuit brought by Optima relating to CD
`burning software technology. Obtained summary judgment of non-infringement for
`client.
`
`TELECOMMUNICATIONS
`
`Arima Communications Corp. adv Interdigital Technology Corp., et al (mobile
`communications devices) (AAA – ICDR Int’l Arbitration Tribunal and D. Del.) Defended
`Arima adverse to Interdigital before a tribunal empanelled by the American Aribtration
`Association’s International Centre for Dispute Resolution in proceedings related to a
`licensing dispute. Also represented Arima in related proceedings in the District of
`Delaware in which the arbitration award was sought to be confirmed by InterDigital and
`modified or vacated by Arima. Resolved successfully.
`
`LG Electronics Mobilecomm U.S.A., Inc. adv Dicam, Inc. (camera phones) (N.D. Ill.)
`Defended LG Electronics against an action for patent infringement involving camera
`phones brought by Dicam. Resolved successfully.
`
`LG Electronics Mobilecomm U.S.A. Inc. adv. Golden Bridge Technology Inc. (wireless
`communication systems) (E.D. Tex.) Defended LG Electronics against an action for
`patent infringement involving WCDMA wireless communication systems brought by
`Golden Bridge. Resolved successfully.
`
`LG Electronics Mobilecomm U.S.A., Inc. adv. Implicit Networks, Inc. (cellular
`telephones) (N.D. Cal.) Defended LG Electronics against Implicit Networks’ allegation of
`patent infringement involving cellular telephones and touch screen technology.
`Resolved successfully.
`
`LG Electronics Mobilecomm U.S.A., Inc. adv. Morris Reese (cellular telephones) (E.D.
`Tex.) Represented LG Electronics in an action for patent infringement brought by
`inventor Morris Reese involving cellular telephones and caller identification systems.
`Resolved successfully.
`
`© 2016 - Fish & Richardson
`
`http://www.fr.com/david-m-barkan/
`
`3/23/2016
`
`13