UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`APPLE INC.,
`Petitioner
`
`v.
`
`KOSS CORPORATION,
`Patent Owner
`
`Case IPR2021-00255
`Patent No. 10,298,451
`
`UPDATED DECLARATION OF SETH M. SPROUL IN SUPPORT OF
`PETITIONER’S MOTION FOR PRO HAC VICE ADMISSION
`
`1
`
`
`
`APPLE 1021
`Apple v. Koss
`IPR2021-00255
`
`
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`APPLE INC.,
`Petitioner
`
`v.
`
`KOSS CORPORATION,
`Patent Owner
`
`Case IPR2021-00255
`Patent No. 10,298,451
`
`UPDATED DECLARATION OF SETH M. SPROUL IN SUPPORT OF
`PETITIONER’S MOTION FOR PRO HAC VICE ADMISSION
`
`1
`
`
`
`APPLE 1021
`Apple v. Koss
`IPR2021-00255
`
`
`
`Case IPR2021-00255
`Attorney Docket: 50095-0020IP1
`
`I, Seth M. Sproul, being duly sworn and upon oath, hereby declare the
`
`following:
`
`1.
`
`I am a member in good standing of the State Bar of California, as well as the
`
`United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit.
`
`2.
`
`I have not been suspended or disbarred from practice before any court or
`
`administrative body.
`
`3.
`
`I have never had an application for admission to practice before any court or
`
`administrative body denied.
`
`4.
`
`No sanction or contempt citation has been imposed against me by any court
`
`or administrative body.
`
`5.
`
`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 the Code of Federal
`
`Regulations.
`
`6.
`
`I will be subject to the USPTO 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).
`
`7.
`
`In the past three years, I have not applied to appear pro hac vice before the
`
`Office in any other proceedings during the past three years.
`
`2
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`I am an experienced litigation attorney with more than 20 years of
`
`Case IPR2012-00255
`Attorney Docket: 50095-0020IP1
`
`
`8.
`
`experience representing clients in patent cases involving medical devices,
`
`computer software, and semiconductors. I regularly litigate patent cases in
`
`various forums including the Federal District Courts, and the International Trade
`
`Commission. Through my experience in patent litigation matters, I have
`
`represented clients in many phases of litigation including discovery, Markman
`
`hearings, jury trials, bench trials, and appeals. My biography is attached hereto
`
`as Exhibit A.
`
`9.
`
`I am intimately familiar with the issues and subject matter presented in
`
`this above-captioned inter partes review proceeding. For example, I have
`
`extensively reviewed the above identified patent, its prosecution history, the
`
`Petition for IPR (including the invalidity grounds therein, and the cited
`
`references) and all exhibits filed in this case.
`
`10.
`
`I declare that all statements made herein of my knowledge are true, and
`
`that all statements made on information and belief are believed to be true, and
`
`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.
`
`
`
`
`
`3
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Date:
`
`
`
`Respectfully submitted,
`
`
`
`Seth M. Sproul
`Fish & Richardson P.C.
`12390 El Camino Real
`San Diego, CA 92130
`Tel: 858-678-5070
`Email: sproul@fr.com
`
`
`
`
`
`4
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`EXHIBIT A
`EXHIBIT A
`
`5
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`□ Menu
`
`(cid:31) Fish Team
`
`(cid:31)
`
`
`
`Seth M. Sproul
`Principal
`
`□ Download vCard
`
`Background
`
`Seth M. Sproul is a Principal in the Southern California office of Fish & Richardson P.C. His practice
`emphasizes patent litigation in the area of electrical engineering and physics. Mr. Sproul previously
`worked as a Law Clerk for the Corporate Licensing Group at Intel Corp., Hillsboro, OR (2000-2001),
`and as a Law Clerk with the Bonneville Power Administration, Portland, OR (1999-2000). His previous
`technical experience includes work as a Nuclear Engineer with Commissariat a l’Energie Atomique in
`Cadarache, France (1997), and as an AWU Fellow with Westinghouse Hanford Company, Richland,
`WA (Summer 1995).
`
`Education
`J.D., Lewis and Clark College, Northwestern School of Law 2001
`
`B.S., Oregon State University 1997□
`Nuclear Engineering
`
`Admissions
`• California 2001
`
`6
`
`MENU
`
`
`
`Other Distinctions
`Named as a "Top Young Attorney" by the San Diego Daily Transcript (2008).
`
`
`
`Services
`• Litigation
`• Patent Litigation
`
`Experience
`US Ethernet Innovations Inc. v. Acer et al (E.D. Tex. and N.D. Cal.) – Defending Intel Corporation in
`litigation relating to Ethernet adapters.
`
`Applied Signal v. ViaSat Inc. (N.D. Cal.) – Represented ViaSat in competitor suit relating to Satellite
`technology achieving successful settlement before trial.
`
`Asustech v. IBM (S.D. Cal.) – Represent computer manufacturer in assertion of patents relating to
`network devices and defense of patents relating to Ethernet adapters and vehicle control.
`
`Veeco Instruments Inc., et al. v. Asylum Research Corporation (C.D. Cal.) – Represented Asylum
`Research in litigation relating to Atomic Force Microscopy.
`
`Renesas v. Samsung (International Trade Commission) – Achieved favorable settlement for
`Samsung. Patents related to semiconductor process.
`
`z4 Technologies, Inc. v. Microsoft Corp./Autodesk, Inc. (E.D. Tex., Tyler) – Represented Autodesk and
`Microsoft in litigation relating to software anti-piracy technology.
`
`Lucent v. Gateway, Microsoft, et al. (S.D. Cal.) – Represented Microsoft in pending litigation relating to
`digital audio technology.
`
`TypeRight Keyboard Corporation v. Microsoft Corporation (S.D. Cal.) – Represented Microsoft in
`action relating to ergonomic keyboards. Settled favorably.
`
`Intel adv. Broadcom (D. Del. and E.D. Tex.) – represented Intel in multiple cases relating to networking
`and 3D graphics technology.
`
`Negotiated Data Solutions v. Intel (N.D. Cal.) – represented Intel against patent assertion. Prevailed
`
`7
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`on appeal.
`
`Predicate Logic v. Distributive Software – Achieved favorable settlement after prevailing at Federal
`Circuit for software design company in assertion of patent relating to automated software design
`analysis.
`
`Jardin v. Datallegro (S.D. Cal.) – represented Datallegro in successful defense against patent and theft
`of trade secret claims relating to database technology.
`
`What's trending with Seth
`
`Filter by
`
`News Events
`Show All News Events
`Events
`Show All
`News
`Events
`
`
`
`News
`January 1, 2009
`New Principals Announced
`
`Press Releases
`
`□ load more topics
`
`Quick Links
`
`People
`About Fish
`Offices
`
`Careers
`News & Events
`Contact Us
`
`
`
`Services & Industries
`Clients & Cases
`
`8
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
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
