Reuben Chen
`Partner
`
`Palo Alto
`3175 Hanover Street
`Palo Alto, CA 94304-1130
`
`+1 650 843 5480
`f: +1 650 849 7400
`rchen@cooley.com
`
`Intellectual Property
`Intellectual Property Litigation
`Patent Office Litigation
`Technology
`Internet & Social Media
`Software
`Medtech
`Life Sciences
`Fintech
`
`Reuben Chen's practice focuses on intellectual property litigation and counseling across a wide range of
`technologies, including mobile, web and communications technologies as well as medical devices and
`biotech. He has successfully litigated patent cases in US district courts, the Federal Circuit, the
`International Trade Commission and the US Patent and Trademark Office.
`
`Reuben's extensive patent litigation experience includes serving as trial counsel in high-stakes
`competitor-on-competitor cases, and he has been recognized repeatedly by Super Lawyers magazine as
`a Top Rated Intellectual Property Litigation Attorney. Reuben also lectures on intellectual property and
`patent matters and serves on the advisory board of the Stanford Law School Program in Law, Science &
`Technology.
`
`In addition to his focus on patent law, Reuben serves on the Stanford Law School Board of Visitors to the
`law school dean and as co-chair of the Stanford Alumni Regional Chapter for Silicon Valley. He
`previously also served on the board of directors and was president of the Asian Pacific American Bar
`Association of Silicon Valley, as well as on the Santa Clara County Bar Association's judiciary committee,
`which evaluates judicial candidates at the request of the California governor.
`
`Reuben has also taken on pro bono cases and his efforts have been recognized by the American Bar
`Association, the National Law Journal, the California Lawyers for the Arts and San Francisco Daily
`Journal.
`
`While at Stanford Law School, Reuben was a legal assistant to Professor Paul Goldstein and completed
`an externship with the Honorable Saundra Brown Armstrong of the US District Court for the Northern
`District of California.
`
`Recent representative cases include:
`
`•
`•
`•
`
`Vaporstream Inc v. Snap Inc. (C.D. Cal.) – Patent case for Snap.
`Uniloc USA, Inc., et al v. Snap Inc. (E.D. Tex.) – Patent case for Snap.
`Evolutionary Intelligence, LLC v. Facebook, Inc. (N.D. Cal. and Fed. Cir.) – Patent case for
`Facebook. Won motion to invalidate all asserted claims based on unpatentable subject matter.
`Obtained Federal Circuit affirmance of district court’s order.
`
`Snap's Exhibit No. 1024
`IPR2018-00416
`Page 1
`
`

`

`•
`
`•
`
`•
`
`•
`
`•
`
`•
`
`•
`
`Ramot at Tel Aviv University Ltd. v. Snap Inc. (D. Del.) – Patent case for Snap. Obtained dismissal
`with prejudice for Snap.
`Tele-Publishing Inc. v. Facebook, Inc., et al (D. Mass and Fed. Cir.) – Patent case for Facebook.
`Won on briefing and motion to invalidate all of Tele-Publishing’s asserted claims based on
`indefiniteness and unpatentable subject matter.
`Elekta Ltd. and William Beaumont Hospital v. Varian Medical Systems, Inc. (E.D. Mich.); Varian
`Medical Systems, Inc. et al v. Elekta AB et al (ITC); Varian Medical Systems, Inc. v. William
`Beaumont Hospital and Elekta LTD. (PTAB, IPR 2016-00187) – Patent cases for Varian, including
`defense of first suit filed by Elekta in district court, IPRs, and Varian countersuit at the ITC. Obtained
`settlement with no payments exchanged between plaintiffs and defendants and no future financial
`obligations.
`Investel Capital Corp. v. Snap Inc. (C.D. Cal.) – Patent case for Snap. Investel dismissed its
`complaint.
`Advanced Video Technologies, LLC v. HTC Corporation et al. (S.D.N.Y. and Fed. Cir.) – Patent
`case for HTC. Won motion to dismiss case for lack of standing. Obtained Federal Circuit affirmance
`of district court’s order. The district court awarded attorneys’ fees to HTC.
`Jimmy Bryan v. Ralph Lauren Corp., Ralph Lauren Retail, Inc., Leoht, Inc. and Kickstarter, Inc. (S.D.
`Tex.) – Patent case for Kickstarter. Obtained dismissal with no payment to plaintiff.
`TZU Technologies LLC v. Kickstarter, Inc. (C.D. Cal.) – Patent case for Kickstarter. Obtained
`dismissal with prejudice with no payment to TZU.
`• WhatsApp Inc. et al. v. TriPlay, Inc. (PTAB, IPR2015-00740) – Inter partes review for WhatsApp.
`Obtained final written decision invalidating all challenged claims of TriPlay's patent.
`• Weyer, et al. v. Facebook, Inc. (Fed. Cir.) – Patent case for Facebook. Argued at Federal Circuit to
`invalidate asserted patent.
`Facebook, Inc. v. Pragmatus AV, LLC (Fed. Cir.) – Patent case for Facebook. Successful appeal,
`resulting in invalidation of Pragmatus' asserted patents.
`JDS Uniphase Corporation v. CoAdna Photonics, Inc., (N.D. Cal.) – Patent case for CoAdna
`Photonics. The case was dismissed with prejudice.
`PersonalWeb Techs., LLC, et al. v. Facebook, Inc. (N.D. Cal.) – Patent case for Facebook. The case
`was administratively closed in light of pending PTO inter partes review of the patents-in-suit.
`The Salk Institute for Biological Studies v. Acceleron Pharma, Inc. (D. Mass.) – Breach of contract
`action for Salk Institute, involving TGF-Beta.
`Macrosolve, Inc. v. MediaFire, LLC, (E.D. Tex.) – Patent case for MediaFire. Obtained a dismissal
`with no payment to Macrosolve.
`Tranz-Send Broadcasting Network, Inc. v. BitTorrent, Inc. (N.D. Cal.) – Patent case for BitTorrent.
`Obtained a dismissal with prejudice with no payment to Tranz-Send.
`Mekiki Co., Ltd. v. Facebook, Inc. (N.D. Cal.) – Patent case for Facebook. Obtained a dismissal in
`light of sucessful request for PTO's reexamination of patents-in-suit. The PTO rejected the asserted
`patent claims in reexamination.
`• WhoGlue, Inc. v. Facebook, Inc. (D. Del.) – Patent case for Facebook. Obtained dismissal of case.
`
`•
`
`•
`
`•
`
`•
`
`•
`
`•
`
`•
`
`Snap's Exhibit No. 1024
`IPR2018-00416
`Page 2
`
`

`

`•
`
`•
`
`•
`
`Huntley, LLC v. Monterey Mushrooms, Inc., (D. Del.) – Patent case for Monterey Mushrooms.
`Obtained a dismissal of the case with prejudice along with attorneys' fees and costs.
`The Penn State Research Foundation, Inc. v. Monterey Mushrooms, Inc. (M.D. Pa.) – Correction of
`inventorship and ownership dispute for Monterey Mushrooms. Obtained a settlement and dismissal.
`Zenith Electronics Corporation v. Thomson, Inc., et al. (E.D. Tex.) – Patent enforcement case for
`Zenith Electronics. All defendants who manufacture are now licensees to the patents.
`
`Education
`Stanford Law School
`JD, 2003
`
`
`
`
`
`University of Pennsylvania
`BA, 1998, summa cum laude
`
`Bar Admissions
`California
`
`
`
`Court Admissions
`U.S. District Court, Central District of California
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`U.S. District Court, Eastern District of California
`
`U.S. District Court, Northern District of California
`
`U.S. District Court, Southern District of California
`
`U.S. District Court, Eastern District of Michigan
`
`U.S. District Court, Eastern District of Texas
`
`U.S. Court of Appeals, Federal Circuit
`
`Memberships
`American Bar Association
`
`
`
`
`
`Santa Clara County Bar Association
`
` William A. Ingram American Inn of Court
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Stanford Law School Board of Visitors
`
`Stanford Law School Program in Law, Science & Technology, Advisory Board
`
`Asian Pacific American Bar Association of Silicon Valley, Board of Directors
`
`Stanford Alumni Regional Chapter of Silicon Valley, Co-chair
`
`Snap's Exhibit No. 1024
`IPR2018-00416
`Page 3
`
`