UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARKOFFICE
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`MICROSOFT CORPORATION,
`
`Petitioner,
`
`BRADIUM TECHNOLOGIESLLC,
`
`Patent Owner.
`
`
`
`PTAB Case No. IPR2016-00448
`
`Patent No. 7,908,343 B2
`
`AFFIDAVIT OF EVANS. DAY IN SUPPORT OF
`PETITIONER MICROSOFT CORPORATION'S MOTION FOR PRO HAC
`VICE ADMISSION UNDER37 C.F.R. §42,10(c)
`
`Microsoft, Ex. 1013
`Microsoft v. Braditum
`
`IPR2016-00448
`
`Microsoft, Ex. 1013
`Microsoft v. Bradium
`IPR2016-00448
`
`

`

`PTAB Case No. IPR2016-00448
`Affidavit of Evan S. Day
`
`I, Evan S. Day, being duly sworn and uponoath, hereby apply to appear pro
`
`hac vice before the Office in inter partes review proceeding under PTAB Case No.
`
`IPR2016-00448 on U.S. Patent No. 7,908,343 and hereby attest to the following:
`
`I.
`
`I am a memberin goodstandingofthe state Bar of California and the
`
`United States District Court, Southern District of California. I am an
`
`associate memberof the Virginia State Bar.
`
`I have never been suspendedor disbarred from practice before any court
`
`or administrative body.
`
`I have never had an application for admission to practice before any court
`
`or administrative body denied.
`
`No sanction or contemptcitation has been imposed against me by any
`
`court or administrative body.
`
`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 37 C.F.R. Part 42.
`
`I will be subject to the USPTO Rules of Professional Conductset forth in
`
`37 C.F.R. §§ 11.101 ef seg. and disciplinary jurisdiction under 37
`
`C.P.R. § 11.19(a).
`
`Microsoft, Ex. 1013
`Microsoft v. Bradium
`
`IPR2016-00448
`
`Microsoft, Ex. 1013
`Microsoft v. Bradium
`IPR2016-00448
`
`

`

`PTABCase No. IPR2016-00448
`Affidavit of Evan 8. Day
`
`7.
`
`I have applied, and have been admitted by the Office, to appear pro hac
`
`vice before the Officein thelast three (3) years.
`
`I have applied to appear
`
`before the PTABin the following PTAB proceedings:
`
`HTC Corporationet al. v. Advanced Audio Devices, LLC
`Cases:
`IPR2014-01154 (Patent 6,587,403 B1)
`IPR2014-01155 (Patent 7,289,393 B2)
`IPR2014-01156 (Patent 7,817,502 B2)
`IPR2014-01157 (Patent 7,933,171 B2)
`IPR2014-01158 (Patent 8,400,888 B2)
`
`il.
`
`Microsoft Corporation v. Bradium Technologies LLC
`Case:
`IPR2015-01432 (Patent 7,139,794)
`Case:
`IPR2016-00449 (Patent 8,924,506)
`Case:
`IPR2016-01897 (Patent 9,253,239)
`
`I am an experiencedlitigation attorney with more than 4 years of
`
`experience representing clients in patent cases involving computer
`
`hardware and software, Internet and e-commerce, hand held computers
`
`and other mobile devices, optics, displays, user interfaces, mapping
`
`services, audio applications, image processing, and digital graphics.
`
`I
`
`regularly litigate patent cases in various forumsincluding various federal
`
`district courts and the International Trade Commission.
`
`I also regularly
`
`assist patent attorneys within Perkins Coie with post-grant procedures
`
`pending before the USPTO whichrelateto litigation that I am involved
`
`in, including the previousIPRtrials listed above and the PTAB
`
`Microsoft, Ex. 1013
`Microsoft v. Braditum
`
`IPR2016-00448
`
`Microsoft, Ex. 1013
`Microsoft v. Bradium
`IPR2016-00448
`
`

`

`PTAB Case No. IPR2016-00448
`Affidavit of Evan S. Day
`
`proceeding for which I am currently applying for admission pro hacvice.
`
`Through my experience in patent litigation matters, I have represented
`
`clients in many phasesoflitigation including discovery, Markman
`
`hearings, and trial. My biographyis attached hereto as Appendix A.
`
`On January 9, 2015, Patent Ownerfiled a lawsuit alleging that Petitioner
`Microsoft Corporation infringes several patents, includingUS. Patent
`
`No.7,908,343, in Bradium Techs. LLC v. Microsoft Corp., 1:15-cv-
`
`00031-RGA,filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware.
`
`Thatlitigation is ongoing and led to inter partes review proceeding under
`
`PTABCase No. IPR2016-00448.
`
`10.
`
`I am counsel for Petitioner Microsoft Corporation in the above litigation
`
`in whichI handle all phasesof the litigation from discovery throughtrial,
`
`and will continue to be involved in the case as counsel. I am familiar
`
`with the technology and issued claimsin the '343 Patent in the above
`
`litigation.
`
`I am familiar with the prior art references cited in PTAB Case
`
`No. IPR2016-00448 andthe associated invalidity grounds before the
`
`PTAB.
`
`Microsoft, Ex. 1013
`Microsoft v. Bradium
`
`IPR2016-00448
`
`Microsoft, Ex. 1013
`Microsoft v. Bradium
`IPR2016-00448
`
`

`

`PTAB Case No. IPR2016-00448
`Affidavit of Evan 8. Day
`
`I hereby declarethat all statements made of my own knowledgeare true and
`
`that all statements made on information and belief are believed to be true.
`
`I further
`
`declare that these statements were made with the knowledgethat willful false
`
`statements and the like so madeare punishable by fine or imprisonment, or both,
`
`under Section 1001 of the Title 18 of the United States Code.
`
`Respectfully submitted,
`
`
`
` Dated: November24 aL 4 C=
`
`Evan S. Day
`Perkins Coie LLP
`11988 El Camino Real, Suite 350
`San Diego, CA 92130
`
`4
`
`Microsoft, Ex. 1013
`Microsoft v. Bradium
`
`IPR2016-00448
`
`Microsoft, Ex. 1013
`Microsoft v. Bradium
`IPR2016-00448
`
`

`

`Professional Biography
`
`|
`EVAN S. DAY ASSOCIATE
`
`SAN DIEGO
`11988 El Camino Real, Suite 350
`San Diego, CA
`+1.858.720.5700
`EDay@perkinscoie.com
`
`Evan Day is an associate with the firm's Patent Litigation practice. Evan practices in the areas of patent litigation,
`Section 337 investigations, post-grant procedures, and due diligence investigations. Evan has represented clients in
`litigation matters spanning a wide variety of technologies, including optics, displays, user interfaces, mapping services,
`audio applications, image processing, and digital graphics.
`
`Evan previously served as an attorney on active duty in the U.S. Marine Corps, where he served primarily as a
`prosecutor. He tried complex felony-level court-martial cases before both judges and juries, involving a wide range of
`offenses including rape, obstruction of justice, conspiracy, larceny, fraud, and narcotics manufacturing and distribution.
`
`PROFESSIONAL RECOGNITION
`
`Awarded American Bar Association "Award for Professional Merit" for graduating first in class at the Naval Justice
`School in Newport, RI, 2009
`
`RELATED EMPLOYMENT
`
`U.S. Marine Corps, Judge Advocate, 2008 - 2011
`
`Henry M. Jackson Foundation for the Advancement of Military Medicine, Rockville, MD, Intellectual Property
`Paralegal, 2007 - 2008
`
`Hamilton, Brook, Smith and Reynolds, P.C., Concord, MA, Summer Associate, 2006
`
`EXPERIENCE
`
`ITC SECTION 337 ACTIONS
`
`IN THE MATTER OF CERTAIN CONSUMER ELECTRONICS AND DISPLAY DEVICES AND PRODUCTS CONTAINING SAME,
`U.S. INTERNATIONAL TRADE COMMISSION INVESTIGATION NO. 337-TA-836
`U.S. International Trade Commission
`Counsel for Respondents HTC Corporation and HTC America Inc. in a four-patent investigation before ALJ Essex
`concerning CPU architecture, floating point rasterization and framebuffering, and large area wide aspect ratio flat panel
`technologies; settled favorably prior to the hearing.
`
`U.S. DISTRICT COURT PATENT LITIGATION
`
`APPENDIX A
`
`Microsoft, Ex. 1013
`Microsoft v. Bradium
`IPR2016-00448
`
`

`

`MICROSOFT CORP. ET AL V. GEOTAG, INC.
`U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware
`Counsel for Microsoft in a one-patent case before Judge Andrews concerning geographic search engines; plaintiff
`voluntarily dismissed numerous actions filed against Microsoft customers using Microsoft mapping services and
`counterclaims against Microsoft.
`
`GRAPHIC PROPERTIES HOLDING VS. ASUSTEK COMPUTER INC. AND ASUS COMPUTER INTERNATIONAL ET AL.
`U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware
`Counsel for ASUS in a three patent case before Judge Stark concerning graphics processing and LCD screens; pending.
`
`SMART AUDIO V. HTC CORPORATION AND HTC AMERICA INC.
`U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware
`Counsel for HTC in a one patent case before Judge Sleet concerning vehicle audio systems; settled.
`
`SIMPLEAIR, INC., V. MICROSOFT CORPORATION, ET AL.
`U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Texas
`Counsel for HTC in two patent case before Judge Schneider and Judge Gilstrap related to remote notification technology
`for mobile devices; plaintiff voluntarily dismissed claims against HTC.
`
`LARGAN PRECISION, COMPANY LTD. V. FUJINON CORPORATION
`U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California
`Counsel for Largan in patent litigation concerning optical lens structures; dismissed.
`
`PERSONAL AUDIO, LLC V. HTC CORPORATION AND HTC AMERICA INC., ET AL.
`U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Texas
`Counsel for HTC in a two patent case before Judge Clark concerning audio playlist functionality; settled favorably after
`Markman hearing.
`
`DATASCAPE, INC. V. KYOCERA WIRELESS CORP.
`U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Georgia
`Counsel for Kyocera in a six patent case before Judge Cooper relating to data transaction systems which communicate
`over a network with a plurality of non-standard I/O remote terminals. Datascape accused Kyocera cellular handsets and
`smartphones of infringement. Settled favorably before trial.
`
`DEVELOPMENT INNOVATION GROUP, INC. V. SONY ERICSSON, ET AL.
`U.S. District Court for the Southern District of California
`Counsel for Sony Ericsson in a three patent case concerning mobile device synchronization, power conservation, and
`voice command; settled on favorable terms to Sony Ericsson.
`
`FLASHPOINT TECHNOLOGIES, LLC V. HTC CORPORATION AND HTC AMERICA, INC.
`U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware
`U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina
`Counsel for HTC in a six patent case before Judge Sleet concerning camera, file system, and graphics processing
`functionality in smartphones; obtained a transfer of the case from the Eastern District of North Carolina to the District of
`Delaware; pending.
`
`FLASHPOINT TECHNOLOGY INC. V. AIPTEK INC., ET AL.
`U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware
`Counsel for HTC in a ten patent case before Judge Sleet concerning camera user interface functionality in smartphones;
`pending.
`
`E.DIGITAL, INC. V. TRANSCEND INFORMATION INC.
`Counsel for Transcend in a one-patent case before Judge Huff concerning flash memory devices; settled.
`
`E.DIGITAL, INC. V. ACCELERATED MEMORY PRODUCTION, INC.
`Counsel for AMP in a one-patent case before Judge Huff concerning flash memory devices; settled.
`
`ADVANCED AUDIO DEVICES, LLC V. HTC AMERICA, INC.
`Counsel for HTC in a five-patent case before Judge Feinerman concerning audio playlist functionality; filed five inter
`partes review petitions against the asserted patents; stayed.
`
`APPENDIX A
`
`Microsoft, Ex. 1013
`Microsoft v. Bradium
`IPR2016-00448
`
`

`

`TREEFROG DEVELOPMENTS, INC. D/B/A LIFEPROOF V. KLEARKASE, LLC AND SEAL SHIELD, LLC
`Local counsel for Lifeproof in a one-patent case before Judge Huff concerning waterproof cases for electronic devices;
`settled.
`
`TREEFROG DEVELOPMENTS, INC. D/B/A LIFEPROOF V. SEIDIO, INC.
`Local counsel for Lifeproof in a one-patent case before Judge Huff concerning waterproof cases for electronic devices;
`settled.
`
`LIFE TECHNOLOGIES CORP., APPLIED BIOSYSTEMS, LLC AND INVITROGEN IP HOLDINGS, INC. V. PROMEGA CORP.
`Local counsel for Promega in a declaratory judgment action before Judge Houston concerning Short Tandem Repeat
`(STR) DNA testing; voluntarily dismissed.
`
`PUBLICATIONS
`
`09.2015
`Inter Partes Review Proceedings: A Third Anniversary Report
`IPR @3
`A Look Into IPR Statistics and Their Impact on IPR Strategy
`When inter partes review (IPR) proceedings became effective in September 2012, few people would have predicted the
`transformative effect it would have on patents and the litigation landscape. Three years in, IPR has become the
`preferred procedure for challenging the validity of a patent. Read the full report.
`
`03.20.2012
`Supreme Court Holds Medical Method Patent Claims Invalid for Monopolizing a Law of Nature
`Updates
`The U.S. Supreme Court unanimously held that claims on methods of determining whether drug dosing levels should be
`increased or decreased based on levels of a metabolite in a patient’s bloodstream were not patent eligible.
`
`PRESENTATIONS
`
`05.2011
`The New Business Plan: Prosecuting an Active-Duty 'Spice' Manufacturer-Dealer in the U.S. Marine Corps
`General Events
`Keynote Speech
`Drug Enforcement Agency Southwest Laboratory 2011 Spring Symposium
`
`AREAS OF FOCUS
`
`PRACTICES
`Litigation
`Patent Litigation
`ITC Litigation
`Post-Grant Overview
`
`BAR AND COURT ADMISSIONS
`
`California
`U.S. District Court for the Southern District of California
`
`EDUCATION
`
`Georgetown University Law Center, J.D., 2007
`Harvard University, B.A., Biology, cum laude , 2003
`
`APPENDIX A
`
`Microsoft, Ex. 1013
`Microsoft v. Bradium
`IPR2016-00448
`
`

`

`© 2016 Perkins Coie LLP
`
`APPENDIX A
`
`Microsoft, Ex. 1013
`Microsoft v. Bradium
`IPR2016-00448
`
`