`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`CISCO SYSTEMS, INC.,
` Petitioner
`
`v.
`
`CHRIMAR SYSTEMS, INC.,
`Patent Owner
`
`Case IPR2018-01508
`Patent 8,155,012 B2
`
`DECLARATION OF MICHAEL W. De VRIES IN SUPPORT OF MOTION
`TO APPEAR PRO HAC VICE ON BEHALF OF PETITIONER CISCO
`SYSTEMS, INC.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Cisco 1047
`IPR2018-01508
` Cisco v. ChriMar
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`I, Michael W. De Vries, do hereby declare:
`1.
`I am a partner in the law firm Kirkland & Ellis LLP. Lead counsel in this
`
`inter partes review proceeding is James Marina, who is a partner in the law
`
`firm Kirkland & Ellis LLP, and is registered to practice before the PTO and
`
`holds Registration No. 41,969. With respect to this proceeding, I will work
`
`closely with Mr. Marina.
`
`2.
`
`I hold a Bachelor of Arts degree in Political Science and English from the
`
`University of California at Berkley. I hold a Juris Doctor degree from the
`
`University of California, Berkeley School of Law, and hold a Certificate in
`
`Law and Technology from the Berkeley Center for Law & Technology.
`
`3.
`
`I have more than 17 years of experience as a litigation attorney who
`
`specializes in patent litigation and represents clients in patent litigation
`
`matters in various United States District Courts, the Court of Appeals for the
`
`Federal Circuit, and before the International Trade Commission. My
`
`experience includes several matters related to computer systems and
`
`networked communications technologies, and I have particular experience
`
`relevant to the technological and legal matters at issue in this proceeding. I
`
`am, therefore, an experienced patent litigation attorney with particular
`
`2
`
`Cisco 1047
`IPR2018-01508
`Cisco v. ChriMar
`
`
`
`
`expertise that is pertinent to this proceeding. Cisco Systems, Inc. (“Cisco”)
`
`desires, and have a need, to be represented in certain aspects of these
`
`proceedings by an experienced patent litigation attorney who has particular
`
`expertise that is relevant to the issues in this proceeding.
`
`
`
`4.
`
`I have also led efforts to educate attorneys at Kirkland & Ellis LLP about the
`
`Inter Partes Review procedures and have participated in preparing multiple
`
`Inter Partes Review petitions.
`
`5.
`
`I am very familiar with U.S. Patent No. 8,155,012, and with the legal
`
`subject matter, technical subject matter, and prior art discussed in Cisco’s
`
`Request for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 8,155,012, which
`
`forms the basis for this proceeding. I am currently counsel to Cisco in
`
`the co-pending litigation relating to the same patent in Cisco Systems,
`
`Inc. v. ChriMar Systems, Inc., Civil Action No. 2-17-cv-13770 (E.D.
`
`Mich.), filed November 20, 2017 and am involved with factual and
`
`technical developments in those matters.
`
`6.
`
`I am a member in good standing of the Bar of the State of California. I am
`
`admitted to practice before the United States District Court for the Eastern
`
`District of Texas, the United States District Court for the Eastern District of
`
`3
`
`Cisco 1047
`IPR2018-01508
`Cisco v. ChriMar
`
`
`
`
`
`
`California, the United States District Court for the Eastern District of
`
`California, the United States District Court for the Northern District of
`
`California, the United States District Court for the Central District of
`
`California, the United States District Court for the Southern District of
`
`California, the United States District Court of Colorado, the United States
`
`District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan, the United States Court of
`
`Appeals for the Federal Circuit, and the United States Court of Appeals for
`
`the Eleventh Circuit.
`
`7.
`
`I have never been suspended or disbarred from practice before any court or
`
`administrative body.
`
`8.
`
`I have never had a court or administrative body deny my application for
`
`admission to practice.
`
`9.
`
`I have never been sanctioned or cited for contempt by any court or
`
`administrative body.
`
`10.
`
`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 37 C.F.R.
`
`11.
`
`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.
`
`4
`
`Cisco 1047
`IPR2018-01508
`Cisco v. ChriMar
`
`
`
`
`and disciplinary jurisdiction under 37 C.F.R. § 11.19(a).
`
`12.
`
`In the past 3 years, I was admitted pro hac vice as counsel for before the
`
`
`
`PTAB in the following actions:
`
`Inter Partes Reviews IPR2014-01457, IPR2014-01458, IPR2014-01459,
`IPR2015-01052, IPR2015-01053, and IPR2015-01054 as counsel for Biscotti
`concerning a Real Time Video Communications System.
`
`Inter Partes Reviews IPR2015-00999 and IPR2015-01001 as counsel for
`Cisco Systems, Inc. concerning Admissions Control In A Connectionless
`Communications Network, and Providing Media Communication Across
`Firewalls, respectively.
`
`Inter Partes Reviews IPR2016-01398, IPR2016-01401, and IPR2016-01402
`as counsel for Intel Corp. concerning Security Processor With Bus
`Configuration, Performance Based Packet Ordering In A PCI Express Bus,
`and Method For Effecting The Controlled Shutdown Of Data Processing
`Units, respectively.
`
`Inter Partes Review IPR2016-01434 as counsel for Oracle Corporation
`concerning an Apparatus For Distributing Content Objects To A Personalized
`Access Point Of A User Over A Network-Based Environment And Method.
`
`Inter Partes Review IPR2017-00609, IPR2017-00610, and IPR2017-00616 as
`counsel for LivePerson, Inc. concerning Integrated Chat Client With Calling
`Party Choice; Interaction Management; And Method and Apparatus for
`Intelligent Routing of Incoming Calls to Representatives in a Call Center,
`respectively.
`
`Inter Partes Review IPR2018-00320 as counsel for Sierra Wireless, Inc.
`
`•
`
` •
`
`
`
` •
`
`
`
` •
`
`
`
` •
`
`
`
` •
`
`
`
`5
`
`Cisco 1047
`IPR2018-01508
`Cisco v. ChriMar
`
`
`
`
`
`
`concerning Method and Devices for the Transmission of Data with
`Transmission Error Checking.
`
`Inter Partes Reviews IPR2017-02183, IPR2018-00128, IPR2018-00176 as
`counsel for Motorola Solutions, Inc. concerning Two-Way Radio Equipment
`and Systems, Related Software and Components Thereof.
`
`•
`
`13.
`
`I 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
`
`U.S. Patent No. 8,155,012.
`
`
`
` Date: October 11, 2018
`
`
`
`
`
`Respectfully submitted,
`
`/s/ Michael W. De Vries
`Michael W. De Vries, P.C.
`KIRKLAND & ELLIS LLP
`333 South Hope St.
`Los Angeles, CA 90071
`Telephone: +1 213-680-8400
`Fax: +1 213-680-8500
`michael.devries@kirkland.com
`
`
`6
`
`Cisco 1047
`IPR2018-01508
`Cisco v. ChriMar
`
`
`
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
