`
`LISA J. CAMERON
`CURRICULUM VITAE
`
`
`Dr. Cameron is an economist with over 25 years of experience consulting to attorneys
`and companies involved in commercial litigation, regulatory proceedings, and other
`complex matters. Her broad industry expertise includes pharmaceuticals, biologics,
`medical devices, health insurance, consumer products, motor vehicles, e-commerce,
`telecommunications, cryptocurrencies, and energy.
`
`Dr. Cameron has worked on a wide array of valuation, false advertising, competition, and
`transfer pricing matters. She has analyzed damages, liability, and requests for injunctive
`relief. In patent disputes, Dr. Cameron has testified on both commercial success and
`damages. She has also testified in matters involving competition and investment
`incentives before the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission and state public utility
`commissions.
`
`Prior to becoming a consultant, Dr. Cameron was a professor of economics at Carnegie
`Mellon University’s Tepper School of Business, where she taught courses in
`microeconomic theory, regulation, and antitrust policy.
`
`Education
`• PhD in economics, Stanford University
`• BSc in Business/Economics, Cornell University
`
`Areas of Expertise
`• Healthcare and Life Sciences
`• Intellectual Property Damages and General Valuation
`• False Advertising/Product Liability
`• Competition and Regulation
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Regeneron Exhibit 1170.001
`Regeneron v. Novartis
`IPR2021-00816
`
`

`

`LISA J. CAMERON
`CURRICULUM VITAE
`
`
`Testifying Experience
`• The University of Sydney et al. v. ObjectiVision Pty Ltd. (No. NSD 385 of
`2014).
`– Report on Damages, December 2017.
`– Joint Report on Damages with Mr. Jeffrey Aroy, February 2018.
`– Joint Report on Damages with Mr. John Henry Eversgerd, February
`2018.
`• Milwaukee Electric Tool Corporation et al. v. Chervon North America, Inc.
`(Case No. 2-14-cv-01289-JPS).
`– Report on Commercial Success, July 2017.
`• Brigham and Women’s Hospital, Inc. and Investors Bio-Tech, L.P. v.
`Perrigo Company and L. Perrigo Company (Civ. No. 13-cv-1164).
`– Reports on Damages and Commercial Success, April 2016.
`– Deposition, May 2016.
`– Jury Trial, December 2016.
`• Before the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission and the Regulatory
`Commission of Alaska, BP Pipelines (Alaska) Inc., Federal Energy
`Regulatory Commission (FERC) Docket No. IS09-348, RCA Docket P-08-9,
`October 2010.
`• Before the Regulatory Commission of Alaska, In the Matter of the
`Application of Amerada Hess Pipeline Corporation and Phillips
`Transportation Alaska, Inc., for the Transfer of a 1.5% Interest in the Trans
`Alaska Pipeline System Docket No. P-02-10, November 2002.
`• Before the Regulatory Commission of Alaska, In the Matter of the
`Application of BP Pipelines (Alaska), Inc. and Phillips Transportation
`Alaska, Inc. for the Transfer of a 3.0845% Interest in the Trans Alaska
`Pipeline System Docket No. P-01-08, May 2001 and July 2001.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Regeneron Exhibit 1170.002
`Regeneron v. Novartis
`IPR2021-00816
`
`

`

`LISA J. CAMERON
`CURRICULUM VITAE
`
`
`Consulting Experience
`Healthcare and Life Sciences
`• On behalf of a leading biopharmaceutical manufacturer, prepared expert
`reports assessing lost profits and reasonable royalties owed by a rival
`company (which had allegedly infringed the client’s patents to launch a
`closely competing drug). Explained how the activities of payers/PBMs can
`impact drug manufacturers’ profits, both directly (through rebating
`requirements) and indirectly (through copay assistance programs and
`through time-limited full WAC buydown programs that cover the cost of
`units not paid for by insurance.) Quantified these impacts using data on the
`parties’ experience in negotiating with individual formularies, as well as data
`from company financial records and strategic plans.
`• On behalf of a leading biosimilar producer, worked on a patent infringement
`suit initiated by the producer of the reference biologic. Assessed the
`plaintiff’s damages arising from the alleged infringement of six patents and
`rebutted damages analyses proffered by the plaintiff’s economic experts. For
`each of the six patents, quantified the biosimilar producer’s incremental
`benefits from licensing the patent and the plaintiffs’ opportunity costs from
`granting the license. We also analyzed comparable agreements and
`apportionment criteria. The parties settled shortly after Brattle submitted its
`report.
`• Worked on behalf of the University of Sydney, which had been accused of
`wrongfully terminating patent licenses granted to ObjectiVision, an
`Australian start-up producer of medical devices used to screen for glaucoma
`and other eye diseases. Prepared a report rebutting damages claims presented
`by two experts working on behalf of ObjectiVision, as well as joint reports
`with each expert. The report was used in successfully excluding the
`opposing experts’ testimony.
`• In a patent infringement suit against Perrigo, a leading manufacturer of
`store-brand over-the-counter (OTC) drugs, prepared an expert report on the
`reasonable royalty damages that would have been owed by the manufacturer,
`assuming that the patent was valid and infringed. Prepared an additional
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Regeneron Exhibit 1170.003
`Regeneron v. Novartis
`IPR2021-00816
`
`

`

`LISA J. CAMERON
`CURRICULUM VITAE
`
`expert report evaluating the commercial success of products that had
`allegedly infringed the patent at issue. Was deposed and later testified at
`trial.
`• On behalf of Warner Chilcott, a major pharmaceutical company accused of
`“product hopping,” supported multiple experts in their analysis of the
`competitive implications of this practice. Our reports and analyses showed
`that: (i) generic manufacturers can and do rely on a variety of mechanisms
`other than AB-rated substitution to sell their products and (ii) third-party
`payors can and do drive utilization from branded drugs towards cheaper
`therapeutic substitutes and that these shifts take place even when AB-rated
`generic substitutes are not available. Case won on summary judgment.
`• In a False Claims Act case, prepared expert report explaining how an
`insurer’s alleged misrepresentations allowed it to obtain Medicare Part D
`contracts and overcharge the government for services provided. Applied a
`claims adjudication model to hundreds of millions of plan records to
`establish the overcharge amount, which was calculated as the difference
`between government payments under actual coverage and represented
`coverage for the at-issue plans.
`• Working on behalf of the Financial Oversight and Management Board for
`Puerto Rico, conducted analyses of several recently enacted laws related to
`health care in Puerto Rico. Our analyses focused on whether these laws
`could be expected to: (i) impact Puerto Rico’s fiscal plans and budgets by
`reducing competition and (ii) affect the ability of the Puerto Rico’s residents
`to access affordable healthcare.
`• In an arbitration, worked on behalf of the respondent, a foreign producer of
`biosimilar drugs that had partnered with the claimant to pursue US business
`opportunities. The claimant sued the defendant for a portion of the alleged
`value of the venture (i.e., the sum of profits arising from three potential
`biosimilar drug candidates). Prepared two reports demonstrating that
`claimants’ profit projections for the three drug candidates failed to account
`for the toughness of competition and the array of costs associated with
`biosimilar development and commercialization
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Regeneron Exhibit 1170.004
`Regeneron v. Novartis
`IPR2021-00816
`
`

`

`LISA J. CAMERON
`CURRICULUM VITAE
`
`• Worked on behalf of Quidel Corporation, a maker of immunoassays, which
`was involved in a contract dispute with Beckman Coulter Inc (Beckman), a
`producer of laboratory instruments. Under the terms of the contract, the
`parties collaborated on the production and sale of a test for congestive heart
`failure. While Beckman had originally agreed that it would not support or
`sell any competing tests, it later sought to have this exclusivity provision
`voided. Prepared expert report explaining that – in the absence of the
`exclusivity provision – Quidel would have had little incentive if any to
`invest in developing, marketing, and selling the test, which can only be used
`on Beckman machines.
`• Worked on behalf of Horizon Pharmaceuticals in a proceeding before the
`Canadian Patented Medicine Prices Review Board (PMPRB) involving
`Horizon’s orphan drug, PROCYSBI. Prepared expert report explaining: (i)
`the economic considerations associated with pricing orphan drugs; (ii) the
`price control methods typically applied to new drugs in Canada; and (iii)
`how novel price control methodologies that the PMPRB developed for
`PROCYSBI would impact Horizon’s opportunity to earn a fair return on its
`investment in the drug in Canada.
`• On behalf of Boston Scientific, prepared a report rebutting opposing expert’s
`claims about the sources of competitive advantage in the company’s cardiac
`rhythm management (CRM) and vascular intervention (VI) business
`segments.
`• Worked on behalf of 3M, which had allegedly failed to disclose a regulatory
`pricing restriction when it sold off its pharmaceuticals division. Prepared
`testimony that quantified the damages resulting from this alleged non-
`disclosure. Using historical drug pricing data and publicly available policy
`documents, examined trends in the underlying regulatory environment and
`the impact of generic penetration – trends that the buyer should have been
`knowledgeable about prior to purchase. Also assessed the degree to which
`the information in the pricing contract was already encompassed in sales
`forecasts and other disclosures made during the acquisition process. All
`claims were dismissed in court following trial.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Regeneron Exhibit 1170.005
`Regeneron v. Novartis
`IPR2021-00816
`
`

`

`LISA J. CAMERON
`CURRICULUM VITAE
`
`• For AstraZeneca, which paid the co-developer of its blockbuster cholesterol
`drug a royalty based on net sales, prepared testimony that: (i) described the
`economic justification for royalties based on net sales and (ii) explained why
`it was economically appropriate to take a broad view of the deductions from
`gross sales that were used to arrive at the net sales figure.
`• Worked on behalf of CareFusion, a medical device manufacturer whose
`MEDLEY line of infusion pumps was accused of infringing patents related
`to certain safety enhancements. Demonstrated that the incremental value of
`the patented safety enhancements was de minimis, critiqued the allegedly
`comparable licenses set forth by the plaintiff’s expert, and prepared an
`opposing analysis of the Georgia Pacific factors – with a particular focus on
`the issue of convoyed sales.
`• For numerous cases in which generic drug manufacturers alleged that the
`patents on a branded drug were invalid due to obviousness, prepared expert
`reports analyzing the commercial success achieved by the branded drugs.
`These reports explained economic criteria for commercial success,
`empirically evaluated drugs’ success with respect to those criteria, and
`assessed evidence regarding the strength of the nexus between the drug’s
`patented properties and its sales. These analyses involved composition,
`formulation, and method of use patents. Disease categories include including
`various types of cancer, hormone deficiency, acne, rosacea, GERD, and IBS.
`• For numerous cases in which branded drug producers were faced with patent
`challenges by generic companies under the Hatch-Waxman Act, analyzed
`the likely impact of generic entry on the branded drug company’s sales,
`research incentives, and marketing efforts. These analyses were used to
`assess whether “at-risk” generic entry could be expected to cause irreparable
`harm to the branded drug company. Prepared these expert reports on
`irreparable harm for drugs in an array of disease categories, including
`various types of cancer, lung disease, and osteoporosis.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Regeneron Exhibit 1170.006
`Regeneron v. Novartis
`IPR2021-00816
`
`

`

`LISA J. CAMERON
`CURRICULUM VITAE
`
`General Intellectual Property Damages and Other Valuation
`• On behalf of CHERVON, a leading producer of store-brand power tools,
`prepared a report evaluating the commercial success associated with several
`patents held by Milwaukee Electric Tool Corporation (Milwaukee).
`Analyzed reasonable royalty damages that CHERVON would have owed
`Milwaukee, assuming that the at-issue patents had been valid and infringed.
`• On behalf of Uber, prepared testimony on damages associated with its
`alleged misappropriation of Waymo trade secrets related to LiDAR
`technology for use in autonomous vehicles (AVs). Explained that Waymo’s
`claim that the alleged misappropriation harmed Waymo’s first-mover
`advantage in its competition with Uber was highly speculative due to the
`nascent nature of both AV and LiDAR technology, as well as the numerous
`obstacles to AV commercialization and the broad array of companies
`seeking to compete in that space.
`• Worked on behalf of Hewitt, a global human resources company, that had
`allegedly misappropriated a competitor’s trade secrets related to a key
`software product. Prepared testimony evaluating whether the competitor
`would incur irreparable harm. The testimony assisted our client in its
`successful defense against the competitor’s efforts to obtain a preliminary
`injunction that would have barred Hewitt from selling its software products.
`• On behalf of Apple, prepared testimony rebutting an opposing expert’s
`survey analysis that purported to assess consumers’ valuations of the
`iPhone’s Facetime and iMessage features. Demonstrated that this expert’s
`survey results were unreliable because the allegedly infringed patents
`covered the encryption of these features rather than the features themselves.
`Further, explained that the opposing expert’s open-ended survey approach
`for measuring consumer willingness to pay would have been a poor choice
`for establishing the consumers’ valuation of the features at issue, even if
`they had been properly defined.
`• Worked on behalf of craigslist, which alleged that eBay purchased craigslist
`shares and subsequently accessed confidential craigslist data that it used to
`launch a competing business. Prepared testimony estimating damages arising
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Regeneron Exhibit 1170.007
`Regeneron v. Novartis
`IPR2021-00816
`
`

`

`LISA J. CAMERON
`CURRICULUM VITAE
`
`from eBay’s breached promise to assist craigslist with its international
`expansion. Also valued craigslist’s allegedly misappropriated trade secrets
`using documentary evidence and transactional data, including prior offers
`that eBay had made for some of craigslist’s intellectual property.
`• For a major software company, assessed damages associated with the
`company’s alleged infringement of a business methods patent that supported
`one of the software’s features. Empirically demonstrated that use of the
`patented feature had been minimal and was not integral to the commercial
`success of the software package as a whole.
`• For Polaris Inc., a recreational vehicle manufacturer that paid a large
`settlement in a trade secret matter, prepared testimony analyzing the portion
`of settlement payment that was compensatory as opposed to punitive in
`nature. The report was used in a case that allowed for differential tax
`treatment of compensatory and punitive damage payments.
`• On behalf of Procter and Gamble (P&G) in a patent infringement suit
`brought by Lever Brothers, prepared report on damages arising from P&G’s
`infringement of the patent on a popular household product. Calculated
`damages using several approaches, including: (i) an analysis of P&G’s
`willingness to pay for the license based on the difference between P&G’s
`rate of profit when it enjoyed a monopoly (due to infringement of the Lever
`patent) and the rate of profit that it earned from producing the product in a
`competitive market; and (ii) an analysis of the amount Lever would have
`been willing to accept for the license based on company projections prepared
`in the ordinary course of business.
`• For a network services provider that delivers video and other digital media
`content to client websites, prepared testimony on the damages associated
`with its alleged infringement of a competitors’ patented content delivery
`technology. Prepared additional testimony on the commercial success
`achieved by the technology and the nexus between the technology’s sales
`and the patents at issue. Provided economic assessment of whether a
`permanent injunction would be appropriate if the patent were found to be
`infringed.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Regeneron Exhibit 1170.008
`Regeneron v. Novartis
`IPR2021-00816
`
`

`

`LISA J. CAMERON
`CURRICULUM VITAE
`
`• On behalf of Samsung in a patent case before the International Trade
`Commission (ITC), evaluated whether an ITC exclusion order that would
`prevent importation of downstream products containing accused electronic
`chips was warranted. Prepared testimony concluding that the exclusion order
`was not justified because: (i) the component did not account for a significant
`portion of the value of the downstream products and (ii) the harm that the
`exclusion order would cause to downstream producers and consumers far
`exceeded the benefits that such an exclusion would provide to the plaintiff.
`• On behalf of OKI in a patent case before the ITC, prepared testimony
`demonstrating that an ITC order preventing the importation of OKI’s
`accused laser printers was unwarranted because the exclusion would provide
`no remedial relief to the plaintiff’s domestic industry but would impose high
`costs on the defendant’s US operations, employment, expenditures, and
`customers.
`• In several post-Garmin decision ITC cases, prepared testimony evaluating
`whether the plaintiff had met its domestic industry requirement in order to
`achieve standing at the ITC. Analyses involved a range of products,
`including semiconductor chips, cellular phones, and set-top boxes
`• On behalf of The Coca-Cola Company (TCCC), prepared testimony
`supporting multiple experts in valuing intangible assets associated with
`TCCC’s trademarks. Demonstrated that the value of TCCC was driven by its
`on-the-ground operations in ex-US markets, which: (i) ensured consumer
`relevance by adapting TCCC products and marketing messages to address
`local consumer tastes and competitive threats; (ii) maintained strong
`relationships with independently controlled bottlers in those markets; and
`(iii) sustained a viable business environment with local governments and
`regulatory bodies.
`• On behalf of Eaton, a leading manufacturer of industrial equipment,
`supported multiple experts in valuing intangible assets associated with the
`company’s marketing, R&D, and manufacturing operations. Demonstrated
`that the value of the company’s electrical products division was driven by its
`component manufacturing operation, which produces large volumes of over
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Regeneron Exhibit 1170.009
`Regeneron v. Novartis
`IPR2021-00816
`
`

`

`LISA J. CAMERON
`CURRICULUM VITAE
`
`twenty thousand different kinds of products in a highly efficient manner
`while meeting exacting regulatory standards for product quality and
`reliability.
`• On behalf of Amazon, prepared testimony on the expected useful life of its
`technology platform. Demonstrated that the firm’s platform life was sharply
`limited by a lack of significant entry barriers in electronic retailing, a factor
`that forces firms in this sector to constantly innovate in order to retain
`customers.
`• Our client, a departed co-founder of a leading cryptocurrency platform, was
`prevented from selling his holdings of the platform’s cryptocurrency on
`third-party exchanges (TPEs). Working on his behalf in an arbitration,
`prepared several reports demonstrating that this constraint was unduly
`limiting, given the growing importance of TPEs in the cryptocurrency’s
`ecosystem and the vibrancy of the market for that cryptocurrency.
`• For a matter in which United Airlines and American Airlines sought to
`enjoin the City of Chicago from commencing an extensive expansion
`program at O’Hare airport, prepared testimony on behalf of the City
`demonstrating that the economic criteria for obtaining a preliminary
`injunction had not been met. This case was successfully resolved with a
`settlement that allowed the City of Chicago to proceed with its construction
`plans.
`• On behalf of AT&T, assessed payments owed to a major US city for using
`the city’s land to construct and operate a fiber optic cable system.
`• Advised a major gas pipeline company in its negotiations over renewal fees
`for its rights of way in a Native American Nation. Valued several energy
`infrastructure projects that the company proposed to build and operate in the
`Nation, prepared a report on these findings, and presented results in formal
`negotiation sessions.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Regeneron Exhibit 1170.010
`Regeneron v. Novartis
`IPR2021-00816
`
`

`

`LISA J. CAMERON
`CURRICULUM VITAE
`
`
`False Advertising/Product Liability
`• On behalf of GM, prepared testimony rebutting opposing experts’ estimates
`of class members’ overpayments for new cars, which purportedly arose from
`GM’s alleged failure to provide earlier notice of recalls related to ignitions
`and other car components. This testimony explained that: (i) the plaintiffs’
`survey-based approach for assessing overcharge damages could only account
`for demand-side considerations (at best) and (ii) plaintiffs’ failure to take
`supply-side considerations into account made the resulting overpayment
`calculation economically unsound. Brattle assisted the Kirkland & Ellis team
`in securing a settlement that was less than 1% of plaintiffs’ original $17 billion
`damages claim.
`• Worked on behalf Polaris, which had been accused of overcharging
`consumers for its ATVs because it had failed to disclose alleged issues with
`the ATVs’ heat exhaust system. Prepared testimony rebutting both: (i) the
`conjoint survey that plaintiffs’ experts had conducted to determine the
`impact of the alleged defect on consumers’ willingness-to-pay for the
`vehicles; and (ii) the equilibrium model that plaintiffs’ experts used to assess
`the level of the alleged overcharge. Assisted the Kirkland & Ellis legal team
`in obtaining a victory at the class certification stage.
`• On behalf of a pre-paid wireless carrier, prepared testimony rebutting
`opposing experts’ claims that the carrier had misepresented the capabilities of
`its wireless network and thereby caused a purported class of its customers to
`overpay for their 4G/LTE-capable smartphones. Our analysis demonstrated
`that the company had pursued a reasonable and credible build-and-buy
`strategy to expand its 4G/LTE network and that its strategy for advertising its
`4G/LTE network in a forward-looking manner was consistent with standard
`industry practice.
`• On behalf of GM, prepared testimony rebutting opposing experts’ purported
`overcharge damages arising from allegedly defective airbags. This testimony
`explained that the failure of plaintiffs’ experts to appropriately account for
`supply side considerations in calculating the purported but-for world price
`made the resulting overpayment calculation economically unsound.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Regeneron Exhibit 1170.011
`Regeneron v. Novartis
`IPR2021-00816
`
`

`

`LISA J. CAMERON
`CURRICULUM VITAE
`
`• In a Lanham Act matter, worked on behalf of a leading mattress producer,
`which had accused a rival producer of making false claims about its quality
`and discounting practices. Estimated demand for our client, the defendant,
`and other relevant competitors in the mattress market using conjoint
`analysis. Incorporated these demand estimates into a market equilibrium
`model to determine our client’s lost profits. This case settled favorably for
`our client.
`• On behalf of Ford, prepared testimony rebutting opposing experts’ purported
`overcharge damages arising from allegedly defective fuel pumps. This
`testimony explained that the failure of plaintiffs’ experts to appropriately
`account for supply side considerations in calculating the purported but-for
`world price made the resulting overpayment calculation economically
`unsound.
`• Worked on behalf of the multinational food and beverage company
`Mondelez, which had been accused of making false claims with respect to
`the nutritional benefits of its popular breakfast products. Critiqued the
`opposing experts’ analyses, which purported to assess the market price
`premium that the company had been able to command due to the alleged
`false claims. Demonstrated that while plaintiffs’ experts asserted that they
`were assessing a market price premium, they only considered consumer
`willingness-to-pay (demand) and failed to address the supply side in their
`analyses. As a result, plaintiffs had failed to describe a workable approach
`for determining this alleged price premium on a class-wide basis.
`• Worked on behalf of Molson Coors in a Lanham Act dispute with Anheuser
`Busch (AB) over a high profile advertising campaign in which AB had
`allegedly deceived consumers of light beer into believing that the Molson
`Coors’ Miller Lite and Coors Light beer that they drink contains corn syrup.
`Supported multiple experts in establishing liability and damages. Our
`liability reports used evidence from the likelihood of deception experiments,
`social media studies, customer complaints, and company documents to
`demonstrate that the campaign had deceived customers and that the impact
`was material. Our damages report used a sophisticated econometric model to
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Regeneron Exhibit 1170.012
`Regeneron v. Novartis
`IPR2021-00816
`
`

`

`LISA J. CAMERON
`CURRICULUM VITAE
`
`demonstrate that the corn syrup campaign had reduced Miller Lite and Coors
`Light sales and profits.
`• Worked on behalf of NBTY, a producer of branded nutritional supplements,
`which had been accused of collecting a market price premium on its Ester-C
`product due to alleged false claims appearing on the product label. Prepared
`testimony demonstrating that the plaintiff’s proposed use of a conjoint
`analysis to assess the price premium was unworkable because conjoint
`survey data only take into account demand-side factors – whereas a price
`premium would be the product of both supply and demand factors.
`• In a class action lawsuit involving a major manufacturer of commercial
`trucks, analyzed differences in engine repair rates between class and
`comparable trucks. Provided damages analysis based on the difference in the
`market price of the trucks before and after the defect became known.
`• In a matter involving a major automobile manufacturer’s alleged false
`advertising of its engines as eco-friendly, assessed consumer exposure to the
`alleged false claims. Reviewed the company’s market and consumer
`research conducted prior to the launch of the vehicles at issue, as well as
`marketing strategy related to the launch. Reviewed the company’s print,
`radio, TV, and social media advertisements and performed content
`
`focused on eco-friendly claims.
`• In a matter relating to a high profile data breach, prepared reports explaining
`how to quantify the damage sustained by individuals whose personal data
`was stolen. Our analysis used dark web sales of personal data as an objective
`measure of consumer losses due to breach.
`• In a product liability matter involving the gasoline additive MTBE, prepared
`a report analyzing whether it was economically feasible for our client, a
`refinery, to forego providing the regionally dominant (MTBE-based)
`reformulated gasoline and instead “go it alone” by supplying its customers
`with a more environmentally-friendly gasoline product.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Regeneron Exhibit 1170.013
`Regeneron v. Novartis
`IPR2021-00816
`
`

`

`LISA J. CAMERON
`CURRICULUM VITAE
`
`Competition and Regulatory Proceedings
`• On behalf of Epic, prepared testimony on a survey that was conducted to
`determine whether Apple could profitably raise prices on in-app purchases
`(IAPs) made through the Apple App Store. The survey results were used to
`show that Apple could profitably introduce a long-term 5 percent price
`increase with respect to these IAPs.
`• On behalf of BP, a part-owner of the Trans-Alaskan Pipeline System
`(TAPS), analyzed how a proposed change in the allocation of TAPS
`revenues would affect the incentives of BP and the other TAPS owners to
`invest in the pipeline and to compete in the provision of transportation
`services. Prepared two written expert reports and provided oral testimony at
`the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission on behalf of BP. The testimony
`and reports, which demonstrated that the change would improve investment
`incentives and have no significant competitive impact, was cited by FERC in
`its order approving the change and was the basis of a $340 million
`settlement in favor of the client.
`• On behalf of Georgia Pacific, prepared testimony rebutting claims that the
`firm had exercised monopsony power against lumber harvesters. The
`testimony explained the economics of the lumber industry supply chain,
`demonstrating that the client did not possess monopsony power over the
`plaintiffs. It also showed that the prices paid to harvesters had remained
`stable throughout the alleged monopsony period and were consistent with
`prices paid in other regions where monopsony activity had not been alleged.
`• On behalf of SoundExchange, which collects fees from music streaming
`services for the performance of sound recordings, conducted a conjoint
`survey to estimate the value that consumers place on key attributes of music
`streaming services, such as their ability to select songs on demand. Based on
`this analysis, prepared testimony for a Copyright Royalty Board (CRB)
`proceeding to set sound recording performance fees paid by Pandora and
`similar music services for the years 2016–2020.
`• On behalf of a coalition of webcasters, prepared an expert report on the
`appropriate royalty rate for a then-novel form of intellectual property (i.e., a
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Regeneron Exhibit 1170.014
`Regeneron v. Novartis
`IPR2021-00816
`
`

`

`LISA J. CAMERON
`CURRICULUM VITAE
`
`compulsory license to publicly perform sound recordings). The report, which
`was used in a Copyright Royalty Board (CRB) rate-setting proceeding,
`identified comparables for use in setting an upper bound on the royalty rate
`and refined this estimated upper bound with a quantification of the
`promotional value associated with webcasting.
`• On behalf of the producers of a leading herbicide, determined the
`economically appropriate license fee for data that the producers had cited in
`their application to obtain US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)
`approval for selling the herbicide in the US. This analysis was used in a
`Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA) proceeding, in
`which an arbitration panel was tasked with determining the appropriate
`compensation for a compulsory license to such data.
`• Assisted the Public Utilities Commission of New Hampshire in evaluating
`various aspects of a proposed divestiture of power plants currently owned by
`Public Service Company of New Hampshire (PSNH). Analyzed the
`competitiveness of the local energy market, evaluated the economic impact
`of the divestiture on ratepayers, and assisted with the development of an
`auction design and implementation plan for use in effecting the divestiture.
`• For a coalition of energy transporters and consumers, analyzed the economic
`impact of fees that Native American tribes can charge energy transporters
`traversing their lands. Presented analysis in public hearings involving
`multiple stakeholders. Submitted written reports to the Departments of
`Energy and the Interior, which incorporated findings into a Congressionally
`mandated study of current tribal compensation policy.
`• On behalf of ConocoPhillips, a part-owner of TAPS, analyzed how
`ConocoPhillips’ proposed purchase of additional TAPS capacity from
`Amerada Hess would impact tariff competition on the pipeline. My affidavit,
`which demonstrated no significant competitive impact, was cited by the
`Regulatory Commission of Alaska in its order approving this purchase.
`• On behalf of BP, analyzed how the proposed sale of some BP TAPS
`capacity to ConocoPhillips would impact tariff competition on the pipeline.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Regeneron Exhibit 1170.015
`Regeneron v. Novartis
`IPR2021-00816
`
`

`