`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`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
`
`DECLARATION OF MICHAEL PIEJA IN SUPPORT OF PETITIONER’S
`MOTION FOR PRO HAC VICE ADMISSION
`
`
`
`
`
`APPLE 1023
`Apple v. Koss
`IPR2021-00381
`
`1
`
`

`

`Case IPR2021-00381
`Attorney Docket: 50095-0019IP1
`
`I, Michael Pieja, being duly sworn and upon oath, hereby declare the
`
`following:
`
`1.
`
`I am a member in good standing of the State Bar of California, Illinois, and
`
`New York, as well as the United States Courts of Appeals for the Ninth and
`
`Federal Circuits.
`
`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.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`2
`
`

`

`I am an experienced litigation attorney with more than 15 years of
`
`Case IPR2021-00381
`Attorney Docket: 50095-0019IP1
`
`
`8.
`
`experience representing clients in patent cases involving consumer electronics,
`
`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, trials, and appeals. My biography is attached hereto as Exhibit A.
`
`9.
`
`I serve as trial counsel for Apple in a litigation that involves the same patent
`
`that is at issue in the above-captioned inter partes review proceeding, styled Koss
`
`Corporation v. Apple Inc., W.D. Tex. Case. No. 6:20-cv-00665. As a result, 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: 12/10/2021
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Respectfully submitted,
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`/Michael Pieja/
`Michael Pieja
`Goldman Ismail Tomaselli Brennan & Baum LLP
`200 South Wacker Dr., 22nd Floor
`Chicago, IL 60606
`P 312-881-5954
`mpieja@goldmanismail.com
`
` 
`
` 
`
`
`
`4
`
`

`

`EXHIBIT A
`EXHIBIT A
`
`
`
`
`
`5
`
`

`

`Michael T. Pieja
`  ÿ ÿ
` ÿ
`Partner / Chicago
` ÿÿ
`P: 312-881-5954
`
` ÿ ! "ÿ
`F: 312-380-7016
`#ÿ$%$&
`
`mpieja@goldmanismail.com
`'()*+,'-'+.'
`
`software, user interfaces, wireless communications, touchscreen hardware,
`
`Mikeis a litigator focusing on casesinvolving complex technologies, with
`/0ÿ-ÿÿ+ÿ12-ÿÿ--ÿ3+3ÿ'(+4ÿ+-5ÿ6
`experience spanning a range of technical areas and jurisdictions. He has
`4(ÿ-(ÿÿÿ1ÿ+ÿ-ÿ,ÿ)2-,-.ÿ7ÿ-
`managed complex, multi-jurisdictional and multi-national intellectual-
`',ÿ'(+45ÿ'2+)2-,+ÿ,ÿ'2++ÿ++2+
`propertyactions and has significant experiencelitigating in the
`((8ÿ-ÿ,ÿ-ÿ-1ÿ4(ÿ+ÿÿ
`International Trade Commission as well as manydistrict courts. Mike has
`9+ÿ:,ÿ''--ÿ-ÿ6++ÿ-ÿ'8ÿ,-ÿ2-.ÿ/0ÿ-
`also successfully argued several appeals before the Federal Circuit. His
`+-ÿ-2--12++8ÿ2,ÿ-3+ÿ((+-ÿ;1ÿÿ#,+ÿ2.ÿ7-
`cases have spanned smartphone design, computer operating systems and
`--ÿ3ÿ-(,ÿ-'(ÿ,-5ÿ'(2ÿ(ÿ-8-'-ÿ,
`
`-165ÿ2-ÿ1-5ÿ6+--ÿ''2-5ÿ2-ÿ,65
`processor and memorydesign, polymer processing, radar, voice and speech
`(--ÿ,ÿ''8ÿ,-5ÿ(+8'ÿ(--5ÿ,5ÿ3ÿ,ÿ-(
`coding, consumer electronics, and other technologies. In addition to his
`,5ÿ-2'ÿ+-5ÿ,ÿÿ+-.ÿ9ÿ,,ÿÿ-
`extensive intellectual-property experience, Mike has alsolitigated contract
`4-3ÿ++2+((8ÿ4(5ÿ/0ÿ-ÿ+-ÿ+,ÿ
`and tort claims arising out of technology-related disputes. In all of his
`,ÿÿ+'-ÿ-ÿ2ÿ1ÿ+8+,ÿ,-(2-.ÿ9ÿ++ÿ1ÿ-
`cases, Mike specializes in analyzing complex legal and technical issues and
`--5ÿ/0ÿ-(+<-ÿÿ+8<ÿ'(+4ÿ++ÿ,ÿ+ÿ--2-ÿ,
`presenting his clients’ arguments in a clear, understandable, and
`(-ÿ-ÿ+-=ÿ2'-ÿÿÿ+5ÿ2,-,;+5ÿ,
`compelling way.
`'(++ÿ68.
`
`
`
`RepresentativeLitigation
`_WDA@FF `ÿG F HF ?@
`
`Consumer ElectronicsLitigation
`>?@ABCDÿEFD?@ AÿG F HF ?@
`¢ Serving as lead counsel for a Fortune 10 consumer electronics companyin eight patent-infringement cases brought by Uniloc USA,a prolific
`I3ÿ-ÿ+,ÿ2-+ÿ1ÿÿ#2ÿ$ÿ-2'ÿ+-ÿ'(8ÿÿÿ(1'ÿ--ÿ;2ÿ;8ÿJ+ÿJIK5ÿÿ(+1
`non-practicing entity, relating to telecommunications, user-interface, computer security, and battery technologies. To date, Mike and his
`(ÿ85ÿ+ÿÿ+''2-5ÿ2-15ÿ'(2ÿ-285ÿ,ÿ;8ÿ+-.ÿ:ÿ,5ÿ/0ÿ,ÿ-
`team havesecured dismissal of three patents on their merits, and successfully secured the dismissal or stay of all remaining cases based on
`'ÿ3ÿ-2,ÿ,-'--+ÿ1ÿÿ(-ÿÿÿ'-5ÿ,ÿ-2--12++8ÿ-2,ÿÿ,-'--+ÿÿ-8ÿ1ÿ++ÿ'ÿ--ÿ;-,ÿ
`a defect in Uniloc’s constitutional standing issue—a win that forced Uniloc to dismiss dozens of cases nationwide. Mike also secured
`ÿ,1ÿÿJ+=-ÿ-2+ÿ-,ÿ--2Lÿ6ÿÿ1,ÿJ+ÿÿ,-'--ÿ,<-ÿ1ÿ--ÿ6,.ÿ/0ÿ+-ÿ-2,ÿ
`transfer of the remaining cases from the Eastern District of Texas to the Northern District of California—the first convenience-based
`-1ÿ1ÿÿ'ÿ--ÿ1'ÿÿN-ÿO-ÿ1ÿ:4-ÿÿÿPÿO-ÿ1ÿ+1Lÿ1-ÿ3;-,
`transfer ever granted againstthis plaintiff across hundreds of cases. Mike has also served as arguing counsel in multiple Federal Circuit
`-1ÿ3ÿ,ÿ-ÿ-ÿ(+11ÿ--ÿ2,,-ÿ1ÿ--.ÿ/0ÿ-ÿ+-ÿ-3,ÿ-ÿ2ÿ2-+ÿÿ'2+(+ÿ#,+ÿ2
`appeals arising out of this series oflitigations and led a multi-defendant effort that defeated Uniloc's attempt to centralize its
`((+-ÿ-ÿ2ÿ1ÿ-ÿ--ÿ1ÿ+-ÿ,ÿ+,ÿÿ'2+,1,ÿ11ÿÿ,1,ÿJ+=-ÿ'(ÿÿ+<ÿ-
`infringement cases in an MDL. The remaining cases have reached the fact and expert discovery phases.
`1'ÿ--ÿÿÿ/OQ.ÿ:ÿ'ÿ--ÿ3ÿ,ÿÿ1ÿ,ÿ4(ÿ,-38ÿ(--.
`e Mike also is serving and has served as lead counsel for the same client in multiple patent-infringement lawsuits in Delaware, Texas,Illinois,
`/0ÿ+-ÿ-ÿ-3ÿ,ÿ-ÿ-3,ÿ-ÿ+,ÿ2-+ÿ1ÿÿ-'ÿ+ÿÿ'2+(+ÿ(1'ÿ+6-2-ÿÿO+65ÿ:4-5ÿ9++-5
`and the International Trade Commission relating to wearable computers, streaming media, user interface, and camera technologies. He
`,ÿÿ9+ÿ:,ÿ''--ÿ+ÿÿ6;+ÿ'(2-5ÿ-'ÿ',5ÿ2-ÿ15ÿ,ÿ'ÿ+-.ÿ7
`secured dismissals of all claims against his client in each case.
`-2,ÿ,-'--+-ÿ1ÿ++ÿ+'-ÿ-ÿ-ÿ+ÿÿÿ-.
`
`Audio ProductsLitigation
`RBS ?ÿ
`D?SBFAÿG F HF ?@
`° Serving as lead counsel for an American technology companyin a multi-jurisdictional breach-of-contract and patent-infringement dispute
`I3ÿ-ÿ+,ÿ2-+ÿ1ÿÿK'ÿ+8ÿ'(8ÿÿÿ'2+)2-,+ÿ;1ÿ,ÿ(1'ÿ,-(2
`relating to wireless headphones, wireless communications, and audio products. Relevant cases are pending in the Northern District of
`+ÿÿ6+--ÿ,(-5ÿ6+--ÿ''2-5ÿ,ÿ2,ÿ(,2-.ÿT+3ÿ--ÿÿ(,ÿÿÿPÿO-ÿ1
`California and the Western District of Texas. The caseis presently in the discovery phase,with trial set for early 2022.
`+1ÿ,ÿÿU-ÿO-ÿ1ÿ:4-.ÿ:ÿ-ÿ-ÿ(-+8ÿÿÿ,-38ÿ(-5ÿ6ÿ+ÿ-ÿ1ÿ+8ÿ$.
`
`Digital Mapping Litigation
`V H FÿWW @HÿG F HF ?@
`¢ Served as lead counsel for an American technology companyin a patent-infringement dispute relating to digital mapping technologies. The
`I3,ÿ-ÿ+,ÿ2-+ÿ1ÿÿK'ÿ+8ÿ'(8ÿÿÿ(1'ÿ,-(2ÿ+ÿÿ,+ÿ'((ÿ+-.ÿ:
`matter resolved immediately after the Court issued its Markman order that provided Mike's client with several new non-infringement
`'ÿ-+3,ÿ'',+8ÿ1ÿÿ2ÿ--2,ÿ-ÿXYZ[\Y]ÿ,ÿÿ(3,,ÿ/0=-ÿ+ÿ6ÿ-3+ÿ6ÿ1'
`arguments.
`2'-.
`
`^CDFW ?@ÿ
`F@FÿG F HF ?@
`
`T(-,ÿÿ+1;-,ÿ#2ÿ$ÿ-2'ÿ+-ÿ'(8ÿÿ1ÿ-ÿ(ÿ-ÿ-ÿ1ÿ,ÿ,'-
`
`
`
`6
`
`

`

`Smartphone Patent Litigation
`Represented a California-based Fortune 10 consumer electronics companyin enforcing its patent rights against foreign and domestic
`competitors.
`* Southern District of Florida Actions: Co-lead counsel in patent cases against Motorola, including arguing Markmanhearing. Case settled after a
`favorable Markman ruling.
`* Multinational Actions: Coordinated actions in the United Kingdom, Germany, the Netherlands, and Australia relating to design and user interface
`technologies. Client was awarded injunctive relief.
`International Trade Commission Actions: Litigation and trial counsel in ITC action involving operating system software. Following trial, client was
`awarded an exclusion order barring importation of competitor's smartphones.
`
`*
`
`In re Certain Nitrile Gloves
`Defended a group of Malaysian polymer and rubber producers at trial in an ITC action alleging that their surgical and work gloves infringed a
`patent. Trial resulted in a defense verdict and invalidation of all claims of the asserted patent.
`
`Smartphone UserInterface Litigation
`Defended a major California consumer electronics company against patent infringement claims on touch-based user interfaces, including
`arguing Markman hearing, and developed and litigated related tort and breach of contract claims. Case settled immediately after client
`received a favorable Markman ruling.
`
`Kid Stuff Marketing v. Creative Consumer Concepts,Inc.
`Lead counsel for Kid Stuff in inter partes review broughtby client's competitor challenging patent on client's flagship products. After trial,
`secured a finding in the client's favor upholding every challenged claim.
`
`Guada Technologies v. MLB Advanced Media, L.P.
`Counselfor MLB in patent-infringement case relating to web search technologies pending in the Eastern District of Texas.
`
`Avionica,Inc. v. Teledyne Controls, Inc.
`Counsel for Teledyne in declaratory judgment action alleging certain avionics patents wereinvalid and client's products did not infringe.
`Formulated and pursued infringement counterclaims and managedall day-to-day aspects of case.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`«
`
`Private Practice
`
`Partner, Goldman Ismail Tomaselli Brennan &
`Baum LLP
`
`Partner, Bridges & Mavrakakis LLP
`
`Associate, Kirkland & Ellis LLP
`
`<
`
`Education
`
`Yale Law School (J.D.)
`
`Princeton University (B.S.E., chemical engineering, summa cum /aude)
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`7
`
`

`

`<
`
`Judicial Clerkship
`
`The Honorable John T. Noonan, Jr., U.
`
`3. Court of Appeals for the Ninth
`Circuit
`
`<
`
`Publications
`
`
`
`Klepeis J.L., Pieja M.T. and Floudas C.A.,A New Class of Hybrid Global Optimization Algorithms for Peptide Structure Prediction: Integrated
`Hybrids, Computer Phys. Comm. 151:121-140 (2003).
`
`Klepeis J.L., Pieja M.T. and Floudas C.A., Hybrid Global Optimization Algorithmsfor Protein Structure Prediction: Alternating Hybrids, Biophysical
`J. 84:869-882 (2003).
`
`
`<OfNote
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Selected by Super Lawyers as anIllinois
`Super Lawyer (2020, 2021)
`
`Selected by Super Lawyers as an
`Illinois Rising Star (2014, 2018, 2019)
`
`Ranked by Benchmark Litigation as a
`Top Litigater Under 40 (2018-2019)
`
`
`
`Goldman Ismail Wins Motion to
`Dismiss In Uniloc Patent Litigation,
`Impacting Dozens of Cases
`Nationwide
`
`Goldman Ismail and Partners Receive
`Top Rankings in BenchmarkLitigation
`2018
`
`GoldmanIsmail Secures Federal
`Circuit Win In Uniloc Patent Litigation
`
`Goldman Ismail and Partners Receive
`Top Rankings in BenchmarkLitigation
`2019
`
`Goldman Ismail Elects MichaelT. Pieja
`to Partnership
`
` <
`
`Bar & Court Admission
`
`State of California
`
`State of New York
`
`State ofIllinois
`
`8
`
`

`

`De ta)
`
`
`
`9
`
`