`______________________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`______________________
`
`MICROSOFT CORPORATION,
`
`Petitioner
`
`v.
`
`DIRECTSTREAM, LLC,
`
`Patent Owner
`
`_______________________
`
`IPR2018-01605, IPR2018-01606, and IPR2018-01607
`
`Patent No. 7,620,800
`
`_______________________
`
`
`DECLARATION OF RAJKUMAR VINNAKOTA IN SUPPORT OF PATENT
`OWNER’S MOTION FOR PRO HAC VICE ADMISSION OF RAJKUMAR
`VINNAKOTA UNDER 37 C.F.R. § 42.10(c)
`
`
`
`
`1
`
`
`
`
`
`I, Rajkumar Vinnakota, declare as follows:
`
`1. I am more than twenty-one years of age, competent to present this declaration,
`
`and have personal knowledge of the facts set forth herein.
`
`2. This declaration is given in support of Patent Owner’s Motion for Pro Hac Vice
`
`Admission of Rajkumar Vinnakota.
`
`3. I am a Partner at the law firm Janik Vinnakota LLP.
`
`4. I have been practicing law in the field of intellectual property, and specifically
`
`patent litigation, for approximately 15 years.
`
`5. I have extensive experience litigating patent infringement cases in many
`
`different courts across the United States. My experience in patent litigation matters
`
`includes, but is not limited to: presenting oral arguments to the Board in IPR
`
`proceedings; serving as lead trial counsel in district court patent litigation; presenting
`
`oral arguments to the court in claim construction hearings and other patent-related
`
`hearings; taking depositions of fact and expert witnesses regarding invalidity,
`
`infringement, and claim construction; drafting claim construction briefs; drafting
`
`briefs associated with motions for summary judgments regarding invalidity and
`
`infringement issues; drafting invalidity and infringement contentions; and handling
`
`patent appeals before the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit and
`
`briefing before the U.S. Supreme Court.
`
`2
`
`
`
`6. Because of my work for Patent Owner, I have an established familiarity with
`
`U.S Patent Nos. 6,076,152, 6,247,110, 6,434,687, 7,225,324, 7,421,524, and
`
`7,762,800, the field of high-performance computing design, and the prior art that
`
`Microsoft has asserted in each of the ten IPRs filed against these six patents.
`
`7. I am a member in good standing of the Bar of Texas (admitted 2003), as well as
`
`the following Federal Courts: U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Texas,
`
`U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Texas, U.S. District Court for the
`
`Southern District of Texas, U.S District Court for Western District of Texas; U.S.
`
`District Court for the Eastern District of Arkansas; U.S. District Court for the
`
`Western District of Arkansas; U.S. District Court for the District of Colorado; U.S.
`
`District Court for the District of Nebraska; U.S. District Court for the Northern
`
`District of Illinois, the United States Courts of Appeals for the Fifth and Federal
`
`Circuits, and the U.S. Supreme Court.
`
`8. I have never been suspended or disbarred from practice before any court or
`
`administrative body.
`
`9. No court or administrative body has ever denied my application for admission
`
`to practice before it.
`
`10. No court or administrative body has imposed sanctions or contempt citations
`
`on me.
`
`3
`
`
`
`11. 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 in 37 C.F.R. § 42.
`
`12. I understand that I will be subject to the USPTO Code of Professional
`
`Responsibility set forth in 37 C.F.R. §§ 11.101 et seq. and disciplinary jurisdiction
`
`under 37 C.F.R. § 11.19(a).
`
`13. I have appeared before the Board pro hac vice in the last several years in: (1)
`
`IPR2014-00411 and IPR2015-00065 (consolidated) and I presented oral arguments
`
`to the Board. See IPR2014-00411.
`
`14. I also developed specialized skills and experience regarding procedural issues
`
`that arise in PTAB trials, including administrative law and constitutional issues. For
`
`example, I was a briefing attorney in the following appeal from various PTAB cases
`
`involving complex procedural issues: Leak Surveys, Inc. v. FLIR, Inc., Case No. 16-
`
`1299 (U.S. S.Ct. 2018, cert. denied).
`
`15. I hereby declare that all statements made herein are of my own knowledge, are
`
`true, and further that all statements made herein that are willful or false statements
`
`are punishable by fine or imprisonment, or both, under Section 1001 of Title 18 of
`
`the United States Code.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`4
`
`
`
`Dated: May 24, 2019
`
`
`
`
`
`
`By:
`Rajkumar Vinnakota
`Janik Vinnakota LLP
`8111 LBJ Freeway, Suite 790
`Dallas, TX 75248
`214-390-99990
`kvinnakota@jvllp.com
`
`
`
`
`
`5
`
`
`
`CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
`
`This is to certify that I caused to be served true and correct copies of the
`
`Declaration of Rajkumar Vinnakota in Support of Patent Owner’s Motion
`
`For Pro Hac Vice Admission of Rajkumar Vinnakota Under 37 C.F.R. §
`
`42.10(c) on May 24, 2019 to the Petitioner at the correspondence address of the
`
`Petitioners as follows:
`
`Joseph A. Micallef
`jmicallef@sidley.com
`Scott M. Border
`sborder@sidley.com
`SIDLEY AUSTIN LLP
`1501 K Street N.W.
`Washington, DC 20005
`
`Jason P. Greenhut
`jgreenhut@sidley.com
`SIDLEY AUSTIN LLP
`1 South Dearborn
`Chicago, IL 60603
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
` /Alfonso Chan/
`Alfonso Chan
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`6
`
`