UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`NETFLIX, INC.,
`
`Petitioner,
`
`v.
`
`CONVERGENT MEDIA SOLUTIONS, LLC,
`
`Patent Owner.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Case IPR2016-01812
`Patent 8,640,183 B2
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`AFFIDAVIT OF MATTHEW C. BERNSTEIN IN SUPPORT OF
`PETITIONERS' MOTION FOR PRO HAC VICE ADMISSION
`UNDER 37 C.F.R. §42.10(c)
`
`
`
`
`Netflix, Exhibit 1039
`Netflix v. CMS, IPR2016-01812
`
`

`

`I, Matthew C. Bernstein, being duly sworn and upon oath, hereby apply to
`
`appear pro hac vice before the Office in inter partes review proceedings under the
`
`following PTAB Case Nos.:
`
`i. Netflix, Inc. and Roku, Inc. v. Convergent Media Solutions, LLC
` Case:
`IPR2016-01761
`
`ii. Roku, Inc. v. Convergent Media Solutions, LLC
` Case:
`IPR2016-01762
`
`iii. Netflix, Inc. v. Convergent Media Solutions, LLC
` Cases:
`IPR2016-01811
`
`
`
`IPR2016-01812
`
`
`
`IPR2016-01813
`
`
`
`IPR2016-01814
`
`I hereby attest to the following:
`
`1.
`
`I am a member in good standing of the state Bar of California, the
`
`Southern, Central, and Northern Districts of California, the Eastern
`
`District of Texas, as well as the United States Court of Appeals for the
`
`Federal Circuit.
`
`2.
`
`I have never 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.
`
`1
`
`Netflix, Exhibit 1039
`Netflix v. CMS, IPR2016-01812
`
`

`

`Affidavit of Matthew C. Bernstein
`
`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 37 C.F.R. Part 42.
`
`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.P.R. § 11.19(a).
`
`7.
`
`I have applied, and have been admitted by the Office, to appear pro hac
`
`vice before the Office in the last three (3) years. I have applied to appear
`
`before the PTAB in the following PTAB proceedings:
`
`i. HTC Corporation et al. v. Advanced Audio Devices, LLC
`Cases:
`IPR2014-01154 (Patent 6,587,403 B1)
`
`IPR2014-01155 (Patent 7,289,393 B2)
`
`IPR2014-01156 (Patent 7,817,502 B2)
`
`IPR2014-01157 (Patent 7,933,171 B2)
`
`IPR2014-01158 (Patent 8,400,888 B2)
`
`ii. HTC Corporation et al. v. NFC Technology, LLC
`Cases:
`IPR2014-01198 (Patent 6,700,551 B2)
`
`
`IPR2014-01199 (Patent 7,665,664 B2)
`IPR2015-00384 (Patent 7,665,664 B2)
`
`
`
`Starbucks Corporation v. Ameranth, Inc.
`Cases:
`CBM2015-00091 (Patent 6,384,850)
`CBM2015-00099 (Patent 6,871,325)
`
`
`
`iii.
`
`
`
`iv. Microsoft Corporation v. Bradium Technologies LLC
`Cases:
`IPR2015-01432 (Patent 7,139,794)
`
`
`IPR2016-00448 (Patent 7,908,343)
`
`
`IPR2016-00449 (Patent 8,924,506)
`
`
`IPR2016-01897 (Patent 9,253,239)
`
`
`
`2
`
`
`
`
`Netflix, Exhibit 1039
`Netflix v. CMS, IPR2016-01812
`
`

`

`8.
`
`I am an experienced litigation attorney with more than 18 years of
`
`Affidavit of Matthew C. Bernstein
`
`experience representing clients in patent cases involving computer
`
`hardware and software, semiconductors, Internet and e-commerce, hand
`
`held computers, and other mobile devices. I regularly litigate patent
`
`cases in various forums including United States Court of Appeals for the
`
`Federal Circuit, various 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, and appeals. My biography is attached
`
`hereto as Appendix A.
`
`9.
`
`I have an established familiarity with the subject matter at issue in this
`
`proceeding, having represented Petitioner as lead counsel in court
`
`proceedings against Patent Owner involving the same technology
`
`(Convergent Media Solutions, LLC v. AT&T, Inc., 3:15-cv-2156-M (N.D.
`
`Tex.)).
`
`10.
`
`I am familiar with the technologies and issued claims in the 8,527,640;
`
`8,640,183; 8,689,273; 8,850,507; 8,893,212 and 8,914,840 Patents. I am
`
`familiar with the prior art references cited in PTAB Case Nos. IPR2016-
`
`01761 - 01762 and IPR2016-01811 - 01814 and the associated invalidity
`
`grounds before the PTAB.
`
`3
`
`Netflix, Exhibit 1039
`Netflix v. CMS, IPR2016-01812
`
`

`

`Affidavit of Matthew C. Bernstein
`
`I hereby declare that all statements made of my own knowledge are true and
`
`that all statements made on information and belief are believed to be true. I further
`
`declare 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 the Title 18 of the United States Code.
`
`Respectfully submitted,
`
`
`
`
`Matthew C. Bernstein
`Perkins Coie LLP
`11988 El Camino Real, Suite 350
`San Diego, CA 92130
`
`4
`
`
`
`Dated: March 1, 2017
`
`
`
`
`
`Netflix, Exhibit 1039
`Netflix v. CMS, IPR2016-01812
`
`

`

`Professional Biography
`
`|
`MATTHEW BERNSTEIN PARTNER
`
`San Diego Office Managing Partner; Taipei Office Co-Managing Partner
`
`SAN DIEGO
`11988 El Camino Real, Suite 350
`San Diego, CA
`+1.858.720.5721
`MBernstein@perkinscoie.com
`
`TAIPEI
`Taipei 101 Tower, Suite F, 45th Floor, No.
`7, Sec. 5, Xinyi Road
`+886.2.8101.2031
`MBernstein@perkinscoie.com
`
`Matthew is the managing partner for the San Diego office and is a partner in the firm's Patent Litigation group. His
`practice focuses on patent litigation and patent trial work. He has represented both plaintiffs and defendants extensively,
`in district courts throughout the country and before the International Trade Commission. Matthew recently tried five
`patent jury cases in district court and a patent case at the ITC.
`
`Some of Matthew’s recent patent litigation successes include:
`
`Successfully defended a software company in the second-largest patent infringement case in U.S. history.
`
`Successfully defended Taiwanese handset manufacturer in ITC action, including obtaining a finding of no liability at
`hearing / trial and at the Federal Circuit.
`
`Obtained stipulated judgment of noninfringement for two streaming clients in the District of Delaware following a
`successful early Markman hearing.
`
`Obtained zero dollar dismissals with prejudice for clients in the Eastern District of Texas, District of Delaware,
`Southern District of Texas, and Southern District of California.
`
`Obtained a jury verdict of infringement, willful infringement, significant damages and validity against a major
`semiconductor company, and then obtained a permanent injunction, enhanced damages, and attorneys’ fees from
`the district court.
`
`Obtained a jury verdict on liability and significant damages for a computer hardware company, and then obtained
`injunction, enhanced damages, and attorneys’ fees from the district court.
`
`He has litigated and counseled clients in a wide variety of technologies and industries, including computer software and
`hardware, mobile, electronics, e-commerce, medical devices, media, automotive systems, weapons systems,
`biotechnology, and others. In addition to his patent infringement work, Matthew also represents clients in trademark,
`trade secret, trade dress, copyright, and government contract matters.
`
`Matthew’s intellectual property and litigation skills have been recognized in both San Diego and nationally. He has been
`named a Top Attorney, Best Lawyer, Best of the Bar, and Super Lawyer.
`
`PROFESSIONAL RECOGNITION
`
`Named in The Best Lawyers in America , Practicing in: Litigation - Intellectual Property and Patent, 2015
`
`Named in Best Lawyers, San Diego, Practicing in: Litigation - Intellectual Property, 2015 - 2016
`
`San Diego Business Journal's, Best of the Bar, 2014 - 2016
`
`Super Lawyer (Intellectual Property), 2013 - 2016
`
`Named a "Top Attorney" (Intellectual Property Litigation) in San Diego by the San Diego Daily Transcript , 2007 -
`
`APPENDIX A
`
`Netflix, Exhibit 1039
`
`

`

`Named a "Top Attorney" (Intellectual Property Litigation) in San Diego by the San Diego Daily Transcript , 2007 -
`2013, 2015; San Diego Top Attorney Emeritus in 2014
`
`Recipient of the Wiley W. Manual award for Pro Bono Service
`
`PROFESSIONAL LEADERSHIP
`
`State Bar of California
`
`San Diego County Bar Association
`
`American Bar Association
`
`American Intellectual Property Law Association
`
`Intellectual Property Owners Association
`
`The Fellows of the American Bar Foundation
`
`RELATED EMPLOYMENT
`
`Fish & Richardson P.C., San Diego, CA, Partner
`
`DLA Piper (formally Gray Cary Ware & Freidenrich), San Diego, CA, Associate
`
`United States Agency for International Development, Washington, D.C., Law Clerk
`
`EXPERIENCE
`
`PATENT LITIGATION
`
`CLOUDING IP, LLC, V. MICROSOFT CORPORATION
`U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware
`Lead counsel for Microsoft in 15 patent case related to cloud computing.
`
`NONEND INVENTIONS, N.V. V. MICROSOFT CORPORATION, ET AL.
`U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Texas
`Lead counsel for Microsoft, HTC America, HP, and Fujitsu in patent case related to media streaming.
`
`BRADIUM TECHNOLOGIES LLC V. MICROSOFT CORPORATION
`U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware
`Lead counsel for Microsoft in patent case related to mapping software.
`
`AMERANTH, INC. V. STARBUCKS CORP.
`U.S. District Court for the Southern District of California
`Lead counsel for Starbucks in patent litigation related to online menu generation and mobile payment.
`
`STARBUCKS CORP. V. NEOMEDIA TECHNOLOGIES, INC.
`U.S. District Court for the Western District of Washington
`Lead counsel for Starbucks in patent litigation related to QR codes.
`
`NFC TECHNOLOGY LLC V. HTC AMERICA, INC. ET AL.
`U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Texas
`Lead counsel for HTC America in patent litigation related to near field communications.
`
`ADVANCED AUDIO DEVICES, LLC V. HTC AMERICA, INC.
`U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois
`Lead counsel for HTC America in patent litigation related to audio playlists.
`
`ROTHSCHILD STORAGE RETRIEVAL INNOVATIONS, LLC. V. HTC CORPORATION, ET AL.
`U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California
`
`APPENDIX A
`
`Netflix, Exhibit 1039
`
`

`

`Lead counsel for HTC America and HTC Corp. in patent case related to distributing wireless images.
`
`E-WATCH, INC., ET AL. V. APPLE, INC., ET AL.
`U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Texas
`Lead counsel for HTC America and HTC Corp. in patent litigation related to mobile image systems.
`
`CHINOOK LICENSING DE, LLC V. HULU, LLC
`U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware
`Lead counsel for Hulu in patent litigation related to online recommendations.
`
`TRANSVIDEO ELECTRONICS, LTD. V. HULU, LLC
`U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware
`Lead counsel for Hulu in patent litigation related to video distribution systems.
`
`TRANSVIDEO ELECTRONICS, LTD. V. NETFLIX, INC.
`U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware
`Lead counsel for Netflix in patent litigation related to video distribution systems.
`
`ZIPLINK, INC. V. MICROSOFT CORPORATION
`U.S. District Court for the District of Connecticut
`Lead counsel for Microsoft in patent litigation related to anti-spoofing and anti-spam technologies.
`
`OROSTREAM LLC V. NHL INTERACTIVE CYBERENTERPRISES, LLC
`U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Texas
`Lead counsel for NHL Interactive in patent litigation related to distributing media content.
`
`OROSTREAM LLC V. ZUFFA, LLC
`U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Texas
`Lead counsel for Zuffa in patent litigation related to distributing media content.
`
`INMOTION IMAGERY TECHNOLOGIES, LLC V. CYBERLINK.COM CORP. D/B/A TEXAS CYBERLINK CORP
`U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Texas
`Lead counsel for Cyberlink in patent litigation related to video indexing system.
`
`OVERLAND STORAGE, INC., V. QUALSTAR CORPORATION
`U.S. District Court for the Southern District of California
`Lead counsel for Qualstar in patent litigation related to media libraries.
`
`ORIENTVIEW TECHNOLOGIES LLC, V. JUST FABULOUS, INC.
`U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware
`Lead counsel for Just Fabulous in patent litigation related to online marketing.
`
`TIERRAVISION INC. V. MICROSOFT CORPORATION
`U.S. District Court for the Southern District of California
`Lead counsel for Microsoft in patent litigation related to mobile mapping functionality.
`
`TRANSCENIC INC. V. GOOGLE INC., ET AL.
`U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware
`Lead counsel for Microsoft in patent litigation related to street level imagery.
`
`LODSYS, LLC V. HULU
`U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Texas
`Lead counsel for Hulu in patent litigation related to online reviews.
`
`FIGA V. HTC CORPORATION
`U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts
`Lead counsel for HTC in patent litigation related to caller-id functionality on mobile phones.
`
`LBS INNOVATIONS, LLC V. AARON BROTHERS, INC., ET AL.
`U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Texas
`Lead counsel for Adams Golf in patent litigation related to online store locators.
`
`LBS INNOVATIONS LLC V. BP AMERICA INC., ET AL.
`
`APPENDIX A
`
`Netflix, Exhibit 1039
`
`

`

`LBS INNOVATIONS LLC V. BP AMERICA INC., ET AL.
`U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Texas
`Lead counsel for McDonald's, Starbucks, Target, Costco, U.S. Bank and others in patent litigation related to online store
`locators.
`
`LBS INNOVATIONS, LLC V. SALLY BEAUTY SUPPLY LLC, ET AL
`U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Texas
`Lead counsel for Sally Beauty in patent litigation related to online store locators.
`
`COMPRESSION TECHNOLOGY SOLUTIONS LLC V. CA. INC., ET AL.
`U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri
`Lead counsel for Quest Software in patent litigation related to data compression.
`
`ZIPLINK, INC. V. TIME WARNER CABLE INC.
`U.S. District Court for the District of Connecticut
`Lead counsel for Time Warner in patent litigation related to anti-spoofing and anti-spam technologies.
`
`STYLEPATH, INC. V. JUST FABULOUS, INC.
`U.S. District Court for the Central District of California
`Lead counsel for Just Fabulous in patent litigation related to online marketing.
`
`E.DIGITAL CORPORATION V. INTEL CORPORATION
`U.S. District Court for the Southern District of California
`Counsel for Intel in patent litigation related to flash memory.
`
`FLASHPOINT TECHNOLOGY INC. V. HTC CORPORATION, ET AL.
`U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware
`Counsel for HTC in patent litigation concerning 10 patents related to mobile technologies; pending.
`
`FLASHPOINT TECHNOLOGY INC. V. HTC CORPORATION, HTC AMERICA INC., ET AL.
`U.S. International Trade Commission
`Counsel for HTC in patent litigation concerning camera functionality in smart phones; win at trial and initial ID. ITC
`proceeding 337-TA-726
`
`FUJINON CORPORATION V. HTC CORPORATION AND HTC AMERICA INC.
`U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Texas
`Counsel for HTC in patent litigation concerning optical lens structures found in cellular phones; pending.
`
`LARGAN PRECISION, COMPANY LTD. V. FUJINON CORPORATION
`U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California
`Counsel for Largan in patent litigation concerning optical lens structures; dismissed.
`
`TREEFROG DEVELOPMENTS, INC. D/B/A LIFEPROOF V. SEIDIO, INC.
`U.S. District Court for the Southern District of California
`Counsel for LifeProof in patent litigation related to iPhone cases.
`
`TREEFROG DEVELOPMENTS, INC. D/B/A LIFEPROOF V. JOY FACTORY, INC.
`U.S. District Court for the Southern District of California
`Counsel for LifeProof in patent litigation related to iPhone cases.
`
`TREEFROG DEVELOPMENTS, INC. D/B/A LIFEPROOF V. KLEARKASE, LLC, ET AL.
`U.S. District Court for the Southern District of California
`Counsel for LifeProof in patent litigation related to iPhone cases.
`
`ATEN INTERNATIONAL COMPANY, LTD. V. BELKIN CORPORATION
`U.S. District Court for the Central District of California
`Counsel for ATEN in patent litigation related to KVM switches.
`
`NONEND INVENTIONS, N.V. V. AMAZON.COM, INC., ET AL
`U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Texas
`Counsel for Amazon in patent case related to streaming and sharing media.
`
`CLOUDING IP, LLC, V. AMAZON.COM, INC. AND AMAZON WEB SERVICES, LLC
`
`APPENDIX A
`
`Netflix, Exhibit 1039
`
`

`

`U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware
`Counsel for Amazon in multiple patent case related to cloud computing.
`
`CLOUDING IP, LLC, V. RACKSPACE HOSTING, INC., ET AL.
`U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware
`Counsel for Rackspace in multiple patent case related to cloud computing.
`
`CLOUDING IP, LLC, V. DROPBOX, INC.
`U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware
`Counsel for Dropbox in multiple patent case related to cloud computing.
`
`SIMPLEAIR, INC., V. MICROSOFT CORPORATION, ET AL.
`U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Texas
`Counsel for HTC in two patent case related to remote notification technology for mobile devices; plaintiff voluntarily
`dismissed claims against HTC.
`
`LUCENT TECHNOLOGIES V. MICROSOFT CORPORATION*
`U.S. District Court for the Southern District of California
`Federal Circuit Court of Appeals
`Defended Microsoft in patent litigation jury trial related to audio encoders and decoders.
`
`Z4 TECHNOLOGIES, INC. V. MICROSOFT CORPORATION AND AUTODESK INC.*
`U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Texas
`Federal Circuit Court of Appeals
`Defended Microsoft in patent litigation jury trial related to software anti-piracy.
`
`MICROTUNE, L.P. V. BROADCOM CORP.*
`U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Texas
`Represented Microtune in patent litigation jury trial related to integrated TV tuners.
`
`CROSSROADS SYSTEMS, INC. V. CHAPARRAL NETWORK STORAGE, INC.*
`U.S. District Court for the Western District of Texas
`Federal Circuit Court of Appeals
`Represented Crossroads Systems in patent litigation jury trial related to storage routers.
`
`CROSSROADS SYSTEMS, INC. V. PATHLIGHT TECHNOLOGY, INC.*
`U.S. District Court for the Western District of Texas
`Represented Crossroads Systems in patent litigation jury trial related to storage routers.
`
`POLAROID CORP. V. HEWLETT-PACKARD CO.*
`U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware
`Defended Hewlett-Packard in patent litigation related to image enhancement algorithms.
`
`PRODUCT ACTIVATION CORP. V. AUTODESK, INC.*
`U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Texas
`Defended Autodesk in patent litigation related to software anti-piracy.
`
`HÅKAN LANS AND UNIBOARD AKTIEBOLAG V. HEWLETT-PACKARD CO.*
`U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia
`Federal Circuit Court of Appeals
`Defended Hewlett-Packard in patent litigation related to digital graphics.
`
`DIGITAL DEVELOPMENT CORP. V. HEWLETT-PACKARD CO.*
`U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California
`Defended Hewlett-Packard in patent litigation related to computer data integrity.
`
`TYPERIGHT KEYBOARD CORP. V. MICROSOFT CORPORATION*
`U.S. District Court for the Southern District of California
`Defended Microsoft in patent litigation related to ergonomic keyboards.
`
`ORION IP LLC V. AMERICAN SUZUKI MOTOR CORP.*
`U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Texas
`
`APPENDIX A
`
`Netflix, Exhibit 1039
`
`

`

`Defended American Suzuki Motor Corp. in patent litigation related to online advertising and online parts ordering.
`
`ALPHATEC SPINE, INC. V. X-SPINE SYSTEMS, INC.*
`U.S. District Court for the Southern District of California
`Lead counsel for patent holder Alphatec Spine in patent litigation related to cervical plate and fixation systems.
`
`ALPHATEC SPINE, INC. V. THEKEN SPINE LLC, ET AL.*
`U.S. District Court for the Southern District of California
`Lead counsel for patent holder Alphatec Spine in patent litigation related to cervical plate and fixation systems. The
`case favorably settled.
`
`SEQUAL TECHNOLOGIES, INC. V. INOGEN, INC.*
`U.S. District Court for the Southern District of California
`Represented patent holder Sequal in patent litigation related to portable oxygen concentrators. The case favorably
`settled.
`
`INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY LITIGATION
`
`LORILLARD TOBACCO CO. V. B&L LIQUOR*
`U.S. District Court for the Central District of California
`Represented Lorillard Tobacco in litigation involving trademark and counterfeit.
`
`LORILLARD TOBACCO CO. V. J&J LIQUOR*
`U.S. District Court for the Central District of California
`Represented Lorillard Tobacco in trademark and counterfeit litigation.
`
`DR. SEUSS ENTERPRISES, L.P. V. SOFT THINGS, INC.*
`U.S. District Court for the Southern District of California
`Represented Dr. Seuss Enterprises in trademark, trade dress and copyright litigation.
`
`METABOLIFE INTERNATIONAL, INC. V. ONTRACK WELLNESS, INC.*
`U.S. District Court for the Southern District of California
`Represented Metabolife International in trademark and trade dress litigation.
`
`ORINCON CORP. V. INTELLIGENT AUTOMATION CORP.*
`Superior Court of California, San Diego County
`Represented Orincon in trade secret and unfair competition litigation.
`
`MICROTUNE INC. V. BROADCOM*
`U.S. District Court for the Western District of Texas
`Represented Microtune in antitrust litigation.
`
`MICROTUNE INC. V. SILICON WAVE INC.*
`Superior Court of California, San Diego County
`Represented Microtune in breach of contract litigation.
`
` *
`
` Prior Experience
`
`NEWS
`
`08.15.2016
`Best Lawyers® 2017 Recognizes 252 Perkins Coie Attorneys
`Press Releases
`Perkins Coie is proud to announce that 252 of its attorneys were selected by their peers for inclusion in the 2017 edition
`of The Best Lawyers In America ®, the oldest and most respected peer-review publication in the legal profession.
`
`08.17.2015
`Best Lawyers® 2016 Recognizes 245 Perkins Coie Attorneys
`
`APPENDIX A
`
`Netflix, Exhibit 1039
`
`

`

`Press Releases
`Perkins Coie is proud to announce that 245 of its attorneys were selected by their peers for inclusion in the 2016 edition
`of The Best Lawyers In America ®, the oldest and most respected peer-review publication in the legal profession; a
`more than 10 percent increase over the 221 firm attorneys recognized by Best Lawyers in the 2015 edition.
`
`08.18.2014
`Best Lawyers® 2015 Recognizes 221 Perkins Coie Attorneys
`Press Releases
`Perkins Coie is proud to announce that 221 of its attorneys were selected by their peers for inclusion in the 2015 edition
`of The Best Lawyers In America ®, the oldest and most respected peer-review publication in the legal profession.
`
`08.07.2013
`Perkins Coie Partners Named to The Daily Transcript's 2013 Top Attorneys List
`Press Releases
`Perkins Coie is pleased to announce that two partners in the firm’s San Diego office have been named by their peers to
`The Daily Transcript's 2013 Top Attorneys list.
`
`08.02.2012
`Perkins Coie Attorneys Named to The Daily Transcript's 2012 Top Attorneys List
`Press Releases
`Perkins Coie is pleased to announce that four partners in the San Diego office have been named by their peers to The
`Daily Transcript's 2012 Top Attorneys list. The annual listing recognizes the best lawyers in 14 categories that cover the
`private, corporate, academic, and government practice in San Diego County.
`
`PUBLICATIONS
`
`12.13.2015
`35 U.S.C. § 101: Post-Alice Landscape
`Attorney Publications
`NTUT Journal of Intellectual Property Law and Management
`
`07.15.2015
`Judge Mayer’s Quest for Section 101 Reform in the U.S.
`Attorney Publications
`Managing Intellectual Property: The Global IP Resource
`
`5.17.2010
`How has the change in pleading requirements, implemented by recent Supreme Court decisions, affected patent
`infringement cases? And how can companies overcome this strategy for dismissal by patent infringers?
`Attorney Publications
`Expert Insights: Intellectual Property
`
`Spring 2009
`Mental Illness and Substance Abuse: Ethical Obligations for those Not Suffering the Impairment
`General Publications
`AIPLA Course Materials
`
`02.25.2010
`Beware Patent Markers
`Articles
`San Diego Daily Transcript
`
`PRESENTATIONS
`
`07.14.2015
`Post Alice Landscape: A Litigator's View on Alice's Impact on Patent Litigation and Prosecution
`Speaking Engagements
`OPLA / Portland, Oregon
`
`05.22.2014
`
`APPENDIX A
`
`Netflix, Exhibit 1039
`
`

`

`How to Deal with U.S. Patent Lawsuits
`Speaking Engagements
`Taipei, Taiwan / Taichung, Taiwan
`
`01.29.2014
`2014 Advanced Complex Litigation Series
`Speaking Engagements
`San Diego, CA
`
`06.26.2013
`Patent Litigation Post AIA: Updated Statistics and Corresponding Strategies
`Speaking Engagements
`JICN & RBA / Tokyo, Japan
`
`06.21.2013
`IP Value Seminar
`Speaking Engagements
`III Institute for Information Technology / Taipei, Taiwan
`
`06.14.2013
`Patent Litigation & Inter Parties Review ("IPR"): IPR as Litigation Strategy
`Speaking Engagements
`Ji2 / Taipei, Taiwan
`
`AREAS OF FOCUS
`
`PRACTICES
`Patent Litigation
`Trademark & Copyright Litigation
`Taiwan Practice
`ITC Litigation
`Post-Grant Overview
`Japan Practice
`
`INDUSTRIES
`Internet & E-Commerce
`Communications
`Food & Beverage
`Interactive Entertainment
`Media Law
`Medical Device
`Retail & Consumer Products
`Semiconductor
`Blockchain Technology & Digital Currency
`
`BAR AND COURT ADMISSIONS
`
`California
`U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit
`U.S. District Court for the Central District of California
`U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California
`
`APPENDIX A
`
`Netflix, Exhibit 1039
`
`

`

`U.S. District Court for the Southern District of California
`U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Texas
`
`EDUCATION
`
`The George Washington University Law School, J.D., 1998
`Tufts University, B.A., 1995
`
`© 2017 Perkins Coie LLP
`
`APPENDIX A
`
`Netflix, Exhibit 1039
`
`