`
`Filed on behalf of Intel Corporation
`By: Grant K. Rowan, Reg. No. 41,278
`Yung—Hoon Ha, Reg. No. 56,368
`Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr LLP
`1875 Pennsylvania AVe., NW
`Washington, DC 20006
`Tel: (202) 663-6000
`Email: Grant.Rowan@wilmerhale.com
`Yung—Hoon.Ha@wilmerhale.corn
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`INTEL CORPORATION
`
`Petitioner
`
`V.
`
`DSS Technology Management, Inc.
`Patent Owner
`
`Case IPR20 1 6—00290
`
`DECLARATION OF LOUIS W. TOMPROS IN SUPPORT OF MOTION
`
`FOR ADMISSION PRO HAC VICE
`
`Intel v. DSS
`Intel V. DSS
`IPR2016-00290
`IPR2016-00290
`INTEL 1120
`INTEL 1 120
`
`
`
`Case No. IPR20 l 6—0029O
`
`I, Louis W. Tompros, declare as follows:
`
`1.
`
`I am a partner at the law firm of Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale
`
`and Dorr LLP in Boston, Massachusetts.
`
`2.
`
`I have been practicing law for more than twelve years. My
`
`practice during that time has focused on intellectual property litigation, and
`
`particularly, patent litigation.
`
`3.
`
`I am a member in good standing of the Bar of the
`
`Commonwealth of Massachusetts, and am admitted to practice before the
`
`United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, the United States
`
`Supreme Court, the United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit, the
`
`United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit, and the United
`
`States District Court for the District of Massachusetts.
`
`4.
`
`5.
`
`My Massachusetts Bar membership No. is 657791.
`
`I have represented parties in patent litigation cases in the District of
`
`Massachusetts, the Eastern District of Texas, the District of Delaware, the
`
`Northern, Central, Eastern, and Southern Districts of California, the District of
`
`Minnesota, and the International Trade Commission, among other jurisdictions.
`
`Those cases have involved, among other issues, issues involving Patent Office
`
`rules, regulations, and procedures, including inventorship disputes, inequitable
`
`conduct, prosecution history disclaimer, and other issues for which review of a
`
`2
`
`
`
`Case No. lPR2016-00290
`
`patent’s prosecution history is critical. See, e. g., General Electric Company v.
`
`Wilkins, No 1:10—cv—00674—LJO-ILT (ED. Cal.) (involving disputed inventorship);
`
`Qualcomm, Inc. v. Broadcom Corporation, No. 3:05—cv-1958 (S.D. Cal.)
`
`(involving allegations of inequitable conduct).
`
`6.
`
`I have represented parties in patent appeals to the United States Court
`
`of Appeals for the Federal Circuit in twenty—nine cases. Two of those cases were
`
`appeals from the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (“the Board”)—In re T/zomas G.
`
`Packard, No. 13-1204 (PTAB No. 12/004,324), and In re Klein, 647 F.3d 1343,
`
`No. 2010-1411 (BPA1 No. 10/2007,747).
`
`I was lead counsel in the Klein and
`
`Packard cases.
`
`7.
`
`I have, on pro /zac vice admission, represented parties in inter partes
`
`reexamination matters before the Board in three matters, Reexam Control Nos.
`
`95/000,580, 95/000,633, and 95/001,272.
`
`8.
`
`On November 7, 2013, the Patent Office denied my petition to be
`
`admitted pro lzac vice as backup counsel in inter partes reexamination proceeding
`
`Control No. 95/001,272. However, upon a petition for reconsideration, the Board
`
`subsequently admitted me pro hac vice in those proceedings in its decision dated
`
`December 12, 2013. Aside from this initial denial and subsequent admission on
`
`reconsideration, no other application by me for admission to practice before any
`
`court or administrative body has ever been denied.
`
`3
`
`
`
`Case No. IPR20l6—00290
`
`9.
`
`I have read and will comply with Office Patent Trial Practice guide
`
`and the Board’s Rules of Practice for Trials, as set forth in Part 42 of the C.F.R.
`
`10.
`
`I agree to be subject to the United States Patent and Trademark Office
`
`Rules of Professional Conduct set forth in 37 C.F.R. §§ 11.101 et. seq. and
`
`disciplinary jurisdiction under 37 C.F.R. § ll.l9(a).
`
`11.
`
`In the past three years, I have appeared pro /zac vice before the United
`
`States Patent and Trademark Office in the following proceedings: Control Nos.
`
`95/000,580, 95/000,633, and 95/001,272. Petitioner Intel Corp. has moved for my
`
`admission pro hac vice in Case Nos. IPR20l6—00287, IPR2016—00288 and
`
`IPR20 1 6—00289 concurrently with this motion.
`
`12.
`
`I am familiar with the subject matter at issue in this proceeding.
`
`I
`
`participated in the drafting of the Petition filed in this proceeding, and I have
`
`reviewed the papers filed in this proceeding.
`
`13.
`
`I have represented Intel Corporation in multiple patent—related
`
`matters, including the following United States District Court cases: DSS Teclz.
`
`Mgmt, Inc. v. Intel Corp. et al., 6:15-CV—130-JRG (E.D. Tex.), which is related to
`
`and involves the same patent at issue in this proceeding; Power Management
`
`Solutions LLC v. Intel Corporation et al, 1:1 l—cv—00743 (D. Del); and Power
`
`Management Solutions LLC v. Intel Corporation, 13-1457 (Fed. Cir.).
`
`4
`
`
`
`Case No. IPR2016—00290
`
`14.
`
`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 are made with the knowledge
`
`that willful false statements and the like are punishable by fine, imprisonment, or
`
`both, under Section 1001 of Title 18 of the United States Code.
`
`March 24, 2016
`
`Respectfully Submitted,
`
`zM/
`
`Louis W. Tompros
`WILMER CUTLER PICKERING
`
`HALE AND DORR LLP
`
`60 State Street
`
`Boston, MA 02109
`Louis.Tompros@wilmerhale.com
`Tel.: 617—526—6000
`
`Fax: 617-526-5000
`
`5