IN THE UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`Apple, Inc.,
`Petitioner
`
`v.
`
`California Institute of Technology
`Patent Owner
`
`IPR2017-00701
`U.S. Patent No. 7,421,032
`
`DECLARATION OF JAMES M. DOWD IN SUPPORT OF MOTION FOR
`ADMISSION PRO HAC VICE
`
`Apple v. Caltech
`IPR2017-00701
`APPLE 1127
`
`
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`Apple, Inc.,
`Petitioner
`
`v.
`
`California Institute of Technology
`Patent Owner
`
`IPR2017-00701
`U.S. Patent No. 7,421,032
`
`DECLARATION OF JAMES M. DOWD IN SUPPORT OF MOTION FOR
`ADMISSION PRO HAC VICE
`
`Apple v. Caltech
`IPR2017-00701
`APPLE 1127
`
`
`
`IPR2017-00701
`U.S. Patent No. 7,421,032
`
`I, James M. Dowd, declare as follows:
`
`1.
`
`I was admitted to the Virginia State Bar in 1997 and have been
`
`practicing law for 20 years. During the entire time that I have been practicing law,
`
`my practice has focused on the field of intellectual property, and particularly,
`
`patent litigation.
`
`2.
`
`I am a member in good standing of the Virginia State Bar, the District
`
`of Columbia Bar, and the State Bar of California, and am admitted to practice
`
`before the Supreme Court of the United States, the United States Court of Appeals
`
`for the Federal Circuit, the Ninth Circuit, and the Fourth Circuit, and the United
`
`States District Courts for the Central District of California, the Northern District of
`
`California, the Southern District of California, the Eastern District of California,
`
`and the Eastern District of Virginia.
`
`3.
`
`My Virginia State Bar membership number is 41406. My District of
`
`Columbia Bar membership number is 465230. My State Bar of California
`
`membership number is 259576.
`
`4.
`
`Over the course of my career, I have been counsel in dozens of patent
`
`litigations. Several of these cases have concerned patent office rules and
`
`regulations. For example, I litigated a number of cases concerning the duty of
`
`candor to the patent office embodied in 37 C.F.R. §1.56. Cases that I have been
`-1-
`
`
`
`involved in which implicate this rule include Cal. Inst. of Tech. v. Broadcom Ltd.,
`
`IPR2017-00701
`U.S. Patent No. 7,421,032
`
`
`et al., Civ. No. 2:16-cv-3714-GW (AGRx) (C.D. Cal. 2017) (the “Caltech
`
`litigation”, which is a related matter to this proceeding); Enerqetiq Tech., Inc. v.
`
`ASML Netherlands B.V. et al., Civ. No. 1:15-cv-10240-LTS (D. Mass. 2016); Cal.
`
`Inst. of Tech. v. Hughes Commc’ns, Inc., Civ. No. 2:13-cv-02745 (C.D. Cal. 2014)
`
`(the “Hughes litigation”); ASML Netherlands B.V. v. Nikon Corp., Civ. No. 3:02-
`
`cv-05601 (N.D. Cal. 2004); SanDisk Corp. v. STMicroelectronics, Inc., Civ. No.
`
`5:06-cv-00194 (N.D. Cal. 2006); In the Matter of Certain NAND Flash Memory
`
`Circuits and Products Containing Same, Inv. No. 337-TA-526 (USITC 2006); and
`
`In the Matter of Certain NOR and NAND Flash Memory Devices and Products
`
`Containing Same, Inv. No. 337-TA-560 (USTIC 2006).
`
`5.
`
`I have never been suspended or disbarred from practice before any
`
`court or administrative body.
`
`6.
`
`I have never had a court or administrative body deny my application
`
`for admission to practice.
`
`7.
`
`I have never had any sanctions or contempt citations imposed on me
`
`by any court or administrative body.
`
`
`
`-2-
`
`
`
`I have read and will comply with the Office Patent Trial Practice
`
`IPR2017-00701
`U.S. Patent No. 7,421,032
`
`
`8.
`
`Guide and the Board’s Rules of Practice for Trials, as set forth in 37 C.F.R. Part
`
`42.
`
`9.
`
`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. § 11.19(a).
`
`10. Within the last three years, I have been admitted to appear pro hac
`
`vice in the following proceedings before the United States Patent and Trademark
`
`Office:
`
` ASML Netherlands B.V., ASML U.S., Inc., Excelitas Technologies Corp.,
`and Qioptic Photonics GmbH & Co. KG v. Energetiq Technology, Inc.,
`Case IPR2015-00130;
` ASML Netherlands B.V., ASML U.S., Inc., Excelitas Technologies Corp.,
`and Qioptic Photonics GmbH & Co. KG v. Energetiq Technology, Inc.,
`Case IPR2015-01279;
` ASML Netherlands B.V., ASML U.S., Inc., Excelitas Technologies Corp.,
`and Qioptic Photonics GmbH & Co. KG v. Energetiq Technology, Inc.,
`Case IPR2015-01277;
` ASML Netherlands B.V., ASML U.S., Inc., Excelitas Technologies Corp.,
`and Qioptic Photonics GmbH & Co. KG v. Energetiq Technology, Inc.,
`Case IPR2015-01377;
` ASML Netherlands B.V., ASML U.S., Inc., Excelitas Technologies Corp.,
`and Qioptic Photonics GmbH & Co. KG v. Energetiq Technology, Inc.,
`Case IPR2015-01362;
` ASML Netherlands B.V., ASML U.S., Inc., Excelitas Technologies Corp.,
`and Qioptic Photonics GmbH & Co. KG v. Energetiq Technology, Inc.,
`Case IPR2015-01375; and
`
`
`
`-3-
`
`
`
`IPR2017-00701
`U.S. Patent No. 7,421,032
`
`
` ASML Netherlands B.V., ASML U.S., Inc., Excelitas Technologies Corp.,
`and Qioptic Photonics GmbH & Co. KG v. Energetiq Technology, Inc.,
`Case IPR2015-01368.
`
`
`11.
`
`I am familiar with the subject matter at issue in this proceeding. I
`
`have reviewed U. S. Patent No. 7,421,032 (the “’032 patent”), which is being
`
`challenged in this proceeding, as well as its file history, the Petition, the Institution
`
`Decision, and the exhibits in this proceeding. I have also reviewed and am familiar
`
`with the relevant prior art,
`
`12. Beginning in 2016 and continuing until the present, I have represented
`
`Petitioner Apple Inc. in the Caltech litigation, which is a related matter to this
`
`proceeding. The validity of the ’032 patent is a contested issue in the Caltech
`
`litigation. The validity of other patents in the same patent family as the ’032 patent
`
`over some of the prior art raised in this proceeding are also contested issues in the
`
`Caltech litigation.
`
`13.
`
`I previously litigated the validity of the ’032 patent and other patents
`
`in the same family as the ’032 patent in the Hughes litigation. While representing
`
`Hughes Communications in the Hughes litigation, I participated in the drafting of
`
`briefing regarding claim construction for, and the validity of, the ’032 patent. I
`
`also took and defended expert depositions regarding the invalidity of the ’032
`
`patent in the Hughes litigation.
`
`
`
`-4-
`
`
`
`I hereby declare that all statements made herein of my own
`
`IPR2017-00701
`U.S. Patent No. 7,421,032
`
`
`14.
`
`knowledge are true and that all statements made on information and belief are
`
`believed to be true; and further that the 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.
`
`
`
`Respectfully Submitted,
`
`/s/ James M. Dowd
`James M. Dowd
`
`WILMER CUTLER PICKERING
`HALE AND DORR LLP
`350 South Grand Avenue, Suite 2100
`Los Angeles, California, 90071
`james.dowd@wilmerhale.com
`Tel.: 213-443-5309
`Fax: 213-443-5400
`
`Dated: October 24, 2017
`
`
`
`
`
`-5-
`
`
Accessing this document will incur an additional charge of $.
After purchase, you can access this document again without charge.
Accept $ Charge
Still Working On It
This document is taking longer than usual to download. This can happen if we need to contact the court directly to obtain the document and their servers are running slowly.
Give it another minute or two to complete, and then try the refresh button.
A few More Minutes ... Still Working
It can take up to 5 minutes for us to download a document if the court servers are running slowly.
Thank you for your continued patience.
This document could not be displayed.
We could not find this document within its docket. Please go back to the docket page and check the link. If that does not work, go back to the docket and refresh it to pull the newest information.
Your account does not support viewing this document.
You need a Paid Account to view this document. Click here to change your account type.
Your account does not support viewing this document.
Set your membership
status to view this document.
With a Docket Alarm membership, you'll
get a whole lot more, including:
- Up-to-date information for this case.
- Email alerts whenever there is an update.
- Full text search for other cases.
- Get email alerts whenever a new case matches your search.
One Moment Please
The filing “” is large (MB) and is being downloaded.
Please refresh this page in a few minutes to see if the filing has been downloaded. The filing will also be emailed to you when the download completes.
Your document is on its way!
If you do not receive the document in five minutes, contact support at support@docketalarm.com.
Sealed Document
We are unable to display this document, it may be under a court ordered seal.
If you have proper credentials to access the file, you may proceed directly to the court's system using your government issued username and password.
Access Government Site
