4/10/2020
`
`Print | Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan, LLP
`
`Sam Stake
`
`Partner
`San Francisco Office
`Direct Tel: +1 415-875-6387
`Direct Fax: +1 415-875-6700
`samstake@quinnemanuel.com
`
`Biography
`
`Sam Stake is a partner in Quinn Emanuel’s San Francisco office. He joined the firm in 2008. His
`
`practice focuses on resolving complex intellectual property and other commercial disputes, with an
`
`emphasis in patent, trade secret, privacy, product liability, antitrust, and contract issues. His work has
`
`spanned many fields and industries, including robotics, blockchain, biotech, AI, cloud, radiotherapy,
`
`UI/UX, medical devices, neurosurgery, integrated circuits, optics, and computer security. He has
`
`represented companies and individuals in federal and state courts across the United States, in
`
`international arbitration before the ICC and AAA, and in many federal appellate matters.
`
`Representative Clients
`
`Fitbit
`
`DJI
`
`Genentech
`
`Google
`
`Mazor Robotics
`
`MediaTek
`
`Proofpoint
`
`Salesforce
`
`Samsung
`
`Symantec
`
`Varian Medical
`
`Zendesk
`
`https://www.quinnemanuel.com/printbio/?pid=17207&lan=english
`
`1/3
`
`BlackBerry's Exhibit No. 2014
`Page 1 of 3
`
`

`

`4/10/2020
`
`Print | Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan, LLP
`
`Notable Representations
`
`Represented Varian Medical Systems in a global patent litigation dispute against its primary
`
`competitor Elekta involving numerous patents on cancer treatment technologies across
`
`numerous jurisdictions including the International Trade Commission, District of Delaware,
`
`Northern District of California, Germany, and the United Kingdom.  Obtained a highly favorable
`
`settlement for Varian, after an ITC victory on behalf of Varian in which Elekta was found to
`
`infringe multiple, valid patents owned by Varian. 
`
`Represented Twitter and Glam Media in a patent litigation brought in the Northern District of
`
`California involving software for distributed processing of large data sets.  The Court granted
`
`Twitter’s and Glam Media’s motion for judgment on the pleadings, finding the patents-in-suit
`
`invalid for failure to claim patent-eligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. § 101.
`
`Represented Samsung in a series of patent, design patent, and trade dress disputes with Apple in
`
`the Northern District of California and Federal Circuit.
`
`Represented Symantec as trial counsel in a patent action filed by Finjan in the District of
`
`Delaware involving two patents relating to network security and antivirus software.  Finjan was
`
`seeking over $1 billion in past damages and running royalties against most of Symantec’s antivirus
`
`offerings.  Following a three-week jury trial, obtained a complete defense verdict, with a finding of
`
`non-infringement and invalidity for all asserted claims.  Finjan had previously prevailed on the
`
`same patents in the same venue against another defendant.
`
`Represented Samsung in its dispute with Huawei related to twenty-two 3G and 4G standard
`
`essential patents and a wide range of competing FRAND defenses and claims.
`
`Representing Salesforce in patent litigation brought in the District of Nevada involving relational
`
`database technology.
`
`Represented Salesforce in a patent litigation brought in the District of Delaware involving
`
`database related technology.  After a successful Markman hearing, the case settled on favorable
`
`terms.
`
`Represented Salesforce, Zendesk, Riot Games, and NetSuite in patent infringement actions in the
`
`Eastern District of Texas involving application distribution and cloud computing related
`
`technologies filed by Uniloc.  Obtained settlements on favorable terms after successful motion to
`
`dismiss claims as patent ineligible under 35 U.S.C. § 101.
`
`Represented neurosurgical device manufacturer Mazor Robotics in a three-patent suit filed by
`
`Neutar.   The case settled extremely favorably.
`
`Secured only the second writ of mandamus ever to be issued by the Federal Circuit in the seminal
`In re Genentech case in relation to a motion to transfer venue from the Eastern District of Texas to
`
`the Northern District of California.  Later won summary judgment of non-infringement on all
`
`https://www.quinnemanuel.com/printbio/?pid=17207&lan=english
`
`2/3
`
`BlackBerry's Exhibit No. 2014
`Page 2 of 3
`
`

`

`4/10/2020
`
`Print | Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan, LLP
`
`claims of two patents asserted by Sanofi-Aventis Deutschland against two highly successful anti-
`
`cancer products.  The Federal Circuit affirmed.
`
`Practice Areas
`
`Patent Litigation
`
`Trade Secret Litigation
`
`Intellectual Property Litigation
`
`Antitrust and Competition
`
`Litigation Representing Plaintiffs
`
`International Trade Commission Proceedings
`
`International Arbitration
`
`Domestic U.S. Arbitration
`
`Life Sciences Litigation
`
`Product Liability and Mass Torts Litigation
`
`Data Privacy & Security
`
`Artificial Intelligence
`
`Education
`
`Georgetown University Law Center
`(J.D., cum laude, 2008)
`
`Harvard University
`(B.A., cum laude, 2003)
`
`Admissions
`
`The State Bar of California; United States Court of Appeals: Ninth Circuit, Federal Circuit; United
`States District Court: Northern District of California, Central District of California
`
`https://www.quinnemanuel.com/printbio/?pid=17207&lan=english
`
`3/3
`
`BlackBerry's Exhibit No. 2014
`Page 3 of 3
`
`