`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`APPLE INC.,
`Petitioner
`
`v.
`
`KOSS CORPORATION,
`Patent Owner
`
`Case IPR2021-00381
`Patent 10,491,982
`
`UPDATED DECLARATION OF SETH M. SPROUL IN SUPPORT OF
`PETITIONER’S MOTION FOR PRO HAC VICE ADMISSION
`
`
`
`
`
`APPLE 1022
`Apple v. Koss
`IPR2021-00381
`
`1
`
`
`
`Case IPR2021-00381
`Attorney Docket: 50095-0019IP1
`
`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
`
`
`
`Case IPR2021-00381
`Attorney Docket: 50095-0019IP1
`
`
`
`8.
`
`I am an experienced litigation attorney with more than 20 years of 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:
`
`
`
`Case IPR2021-00381
`Attorney Docket: 50095-0019IP1
`
`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
`
`
`
`MENU
`
`6
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`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
`
`