`
`APPENDIX A
`
`APPENDIX A
`
`

`

`
`
`848 N. Rainbow Blvd. #2628 • LAS VEGAS, NV 89107-1103
`PHONE 702.736.8660 • FAX 702.541.9509 • EMAIL TOM@GAFFORD.COM
`THOMAS A. GAFFORD
`Gafford Technology
`
`
`December 23, 2016
`SUMMARY OF QUALIFICATIONS
`
`
`• Extensive knowledge of analog and digital electronic circuitry, digital computer technology,
`computer peripherals and computer system design, control systems, operating systems, and
`transaction processing software.
`
` •
`
` Skilled articulation of technical material for both non-technical and technical audiences, with
`special attention to claim construction issues.
`
`
`EDUCATION
`
`
`
`
`
`
`• In-depth analysis of electronic and computer apparatus and functionality.
`
`University of Washington
`Earned Bachelor of Science in Electrical Engineering, 1972
`Key areas of concentration included digital and analog circuit analysis and electromagnetics.
`
`Seattle, Washington
`
`Stanford University
`Enrolled in Master of Science in Electrical Engineering, 1972-73.
`Coursework included logic, circuit and computer design, computer architecture, LISP and ALGOL
`programming, software algorithm design, and system programming.
`
`Palo Alto, California
`
`
`PROFESSIONAL EXPERIENCE
`
`
`
`
`
`
`1986- Gafford Technology
`Founder and Owner
`Now
`Firm undertakes R&D projects, provides computer system-related services, and offers analysis and
`presentation services that clearly and concisely explain computer and electronic technology to
`assist clients in litigation efforts.
`
`Las Vegas, Nevada
`
`Specific services include consulting in computer system design, software selection, and network
`configuration; providing expert factual analysis, claim interpretation assistance, prior art
`investigation and testimony in patent and hardware / software systems litigation; conducting R&D
`projects in peripheral switch design and application of hardware design language tools to
`peripheral interconnection design. Firm has manufactured and sold peripheral switching
`equipment.
`
`1983- Softix, Incorporated
`Co-Founder and Head of Engineering
`1986
`Firm designed and produced reliable and easily maintained systems to control and sell
`entertainment tickets by ticket agencies and large arena complexes in the United States, Canada,
`
`Campbell, California
`
`Papst Licensing GmbH & Co. KG's Patent Owner Response - Ex. 2008A, p. 1
`
`

`

`Australia, and Hong Kong. The firm was sold in 1987.
`
`Responsibilities included co-managing software development efforts; developing architecture,
`design, sales, contracting, production, and field support of large-scale software and hardware
`systems; analyzing, debugging, and writing software application and driver programs for feature
`enhancements and system integration.
`
`Also responsible for selection, evaluation, integration, installation, customer staff training, and
`repair support of all hardware components of dual minicomputer systems; for research into
`graphic printing systems suitable for ticket sales; for development of peripheral switch equipment
`for evolving system requirements; for the manufacture and sale of peripheral switching equipment.
`
`1976- G Systems
`Founder and Owner
`1983
`Firm managed hardware and software design and development of computer transaction processing
`systems for a variety of applications and customers, as well as consulting in other hardware design
`projects.
`
`Santa Clara, California
`
`Projects included design of hardware and software interfaces for disk controller; co-design of
`mainframe computer and design of mainframe computer elements; design of replacement printer
`which substituted all traditionally hard-wired functions with software functionality in
`communication and mechanism controls; design of peripheral switches incorporated into system
`product; writing of communications software and device drivers. Assisted legal team in patent
`litigation as technical expert in disk control systems.
`
`
`1973- Stanford University Artificial Intelligence Laboratory
`Engineer
`1976
`Position was responsible for computer engineering projects including support of robotics research.
`
`Palo Alto, California
`
`Duties included design, construction, and debugging motor controls and sensor electronics for a
`robotic arm and its computer interfaces; maintenance and enhancement of large assembly-
`language software system used for logic design and PC board layout; maintenance of hardware for
`mainframe timesharing system for lab staff, including ARPANET connection and Xerographic
`printing equipment.
`
`1971- University of Washington
`Psychology Department
`1972
`Engineer
`
`Designed and built computer equipment and systems in support of psychological research projects.
`
`Seattle, Washington
`
`Tacoma, Washington
`
`
`1967- United States Air Force
`1970 McChord Air Force Base
`Sergeant and Instructor
`Maintenance technician for air defense computer system; electronics instructor in on-the-job
`training programs; specialist in analysis and repair of problems in areas beyond standard training
`and documentation.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`PATENTS
`August 15, 1997
`
`United States Patent #5,621,899
`Method for Operating a Repeater for Distributed Arbitration Digital Data Buses
`
`November 4, 1997
`
`United States Patent #5,684,966
`Switch for Distributed Arbitration Digital Data Buses
`
`
`
`2
`
`Papst Licensing GmbH & Co. KG's Patent Owner Response - Ex. 2008A, p. 2
`
`

`

`
`May 26, 1998
`
`United States Patent #5,758,109
`Repeater/Switch for Distributed Arbitration Digital Data Buses
`
`November 11, 2000
`
`United States Patent #6,154,799
`Repeater/Switch for Distributed Arbitration Digital Data Buses
`
`
`
`
`
`
`ADDITIONAL PROFESSIONAL ACTIVITIES
`Institute of Electrical and Electronic Engineers Life Member
`
`CASE EXPERIENCE
`
`Cases are grouped into four areas. All cases listed required extensive research and technical analysis. Where expert
`testimony at trial also occurred, it is noted. The party who is my client is underlined. Cases marked ‘trial’ at the
`right margin included deposition unless specifically noted, cases marked ‘arbitration testimony’ do not.
`
`
`
`CIRCUIT DESIGN
`Experience in this area involves low-level analysis of electronic circuits, usually without regard for any larger
`system in which the circuits might be used.
`
`Date
`
`01/94 to 07/94
`
`
`11/95 to 03/96
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Case
`
`Wang v. Mitsubishi
`Patent litigation relating to memory modules.
`
`deposition, trial
`
`Waffer v. Fritz Forwarding
`arbitration hearing
`Litigation involving value of computer monitors based on service history and
`construction quality.
`
`United Technology Automotive v. National Semiconductor
`Patent litigation relating to power control integrated circuits.
`
`Oneac v. Raychem
`Patent litigation relating to circuits for telephone line surge suppression.
`
`deposition
`
`Harris Semiconductor v. Hyundai
`Patent litigation involving static ram IC circuitry.
`
`Xerox v. Hewlett-Packard
`Patent litigation relating to electrical circuitry of thermal inkjet printheads.
`
`deposition
`
`ICS v. Realtek, ICS v. Cypress, Cypress v. ICS
`Patent litigation involving clock generator IC circuits.
`
`deposition, tutorial, Markman
`
`Altera v. Xilinx, Xilinx v. Altera
`Patent litigation involving FPGA circuitry.
`
`Cascades v. Hynix
`Patent litigation involving DRAM circuitry.
`
`Zenith et al. v. Viewsonic and Craig et al.
`
`3
`
`
`11/96 to 12/97
`
`
`05/97 to 09/98
`
`
`06/97 to 06/97
`
`
`12/98 to 03/00
`
`
`02/01 to 09/02
`
`
`05/01 to 07/01
`
`
`05/11 to 04/12
`
`
`01/14 to 04/14
`
`
`Papst Licensing GmbH & Co. KG's Patent Owner Response - Ex. 2008A, p. 3
`
`

`

`
`
`03/14 to 07/14
`
`
`Patent infringement litigation regarding ATSC compliant TV receivers
`
`Cresta Technology Corporation v. Maxlinear Inc.
`Patent litigation invoving RF tuner design
`
`
`
`4
`
`Papst Licensing GmbH & Co. KG's Patent Owner Response - Ex. 2008A, p. 4
`
`

`

`CASE EXPERIENCE
`
`
`
`
`
`Case
`
`
`CONTROL OF SYSTEMS
`Case experience in this area involves design of electronics that control other systems; the electronics may or may not
`include computers or software, since the emphasis is on the control design.
`
`Dates
`
`11/85 to 01/87
`
`
`
`06/87 to 01/90
`
`
`02/88 to 10/89
`
`
`
`03/88 to 10/88
`
`
`
`02/90 to 01/93
`
`
`
`09/90 to 02/93
`
`
`11/90 to 03/91
`
`
`07/91 to 01/93
`
`
`08/91 to 07/92
`
`
`
`01/92 to 05/92
`
`
`01/92 to 11/92
`
`
`
`03/92 to 12/92
`
`
`11/92 to 04/95
`
`
`
`
`
`IJR v. Colt Industries
`Patent litigation relating to circuitry controlling Electrical Discharge Machining
`equipment.
`
`BRC v. Shoup
`Patent litigation relating to control of electronic voting machines.
`
`IJR v. Sodick
`Further patent infringement litigation involving same technology as above, with emphasis
`on extensive analysis of software.
`
`Westek v. Tri-Lite
`deposition, trial
`Patent infringement litigation relating to touch sensitive lamp dimmer modules. Managed
`creation of animated model of patented invention and accused infringing circuit.
`
`FMC v. Hennessy
`Trade secret litigation involving technology of automotive wheel service equipment and
`associated electronics and optics.
`
`Telepanel v. Pricelink, ERS v. Telepanel
`Patent infringement litigation involving retail shelf price electronic display systems.
`
`Astro Med. v. Western Graphtec
`Patent infringement litigation in the area of thermal printing chart recorders.
`
`deposition
`IGT v. Bally
`Patent infringement litigation involving microcomputer-controlled gaming machines.
`
`Intermedics v. Ventritex
`Trade secret litigation involving analog and digital circuitry used in pacemaker and
`defibrillation devices.
`
`Qume v. Ultra-Stor
`Trade secret litigation involving microcomputer disk drive controllers.
`
`deposition
`Eswaran v. AT&T
`Patent infringement litigation involving microcomputer controlled telephone answering
`machines.
`
`Honeywell v. Seatt
`Patent infringement case involving microcomputer-controlled thermostats.
`
`deposition
`
`Lemelson v. Mitsubishi
`Patent litigation relating to machine vision and computer information storage and
`retrieval.
`
`5
`
`Papst Licensing GmbH & Co. KG's Patent Owner Response - Ex. 2008A, p. 5
`
`

`

`02/93 to 08/94
`
`
`08/93 to 06/94
`
`
`10/93 to 09/94
`
`
`04/94 to 01/95
`
`
`05/94 to 05/95
`
`
`7/94 to 12/94
`
`
`10/94 to 04/96
`
`
`12/94 to 02/95
`
`
`03/95 to 11/95
`
`
`03/95 to 10/95
`
`
`07/95 to 09/96
`
`
`07/95 to 07/00
`
`
`07/95 to 06/01
`
`
`07/95 to 01/96
`
`
`06/96 to 08/00
`
`
`02/97 to 11/98
`
`
`
`06/97 to 09/05
`
`
`06/97 to 01/98
`
`
`
`
`Lockwood v. American Airlines
`Patent infringement litigation involving transaction processing systems and terminals.
`
`Maxtor v. NEC
`Patent litigation relating to disk drive electronics.
`
`Octel et al. v. Theis
`Patent litigation relating to voice message storage and retrieval.
`
`trial
`
`A&L Technologies v. Resound
`deposition, trial
`Patent litigation involving electronics for the control of hearing aid amplifiers.
`
`Fonar v. General Electric
`deposition, trial
`Patent litigation involving the control of magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) equipment.
`
`Golden Enterprises v. AT&T
`Trade secret litigation involving the control of voice prompting systems.
`
`deposition
`
`Golden Enterprises v. Rockwell
`Patent litigation relating to the control of telephone announcement systems.
`
`Midtronics v. Telecom Assistance Group
`Patent litigation involving control electronics for battery chargers.
`
`Worldtronics v. Black & Decker
`Patent litigation relating to appliance timing and control.
`
`deposition
`
`Tidel v. Mallory
`Litigation relating to remote sensing of fluid storage and delivery systems.
`
`Global Gaming v. IGT
`deposition, trial
`Patent litigation involving computerized slot machine control technology.
`
`Quantum Group v. American Sensors et al.
`Patent litigation involving carbon monoxide detector control technology.
`
`Sudbury Systems v. Dictaphone
`Patent litigation involving voice storage and retrieval control technology.
`
`deposition
`
`deposition
`
`Alevy v. Fairplan
`Litigation relating to the value of appliance monitoring computers.
`
`IMS v. Haas, et al.
`Patent litigation in technology relating to machine tool controls.
`
`deposition, trial
`
`deposition
`Foxboro v. Honeywell
`Patent and contract litigation in technology relating to industrial process control
`communication systems.
`
`Fulhorst v. UTA et al.
`Patent litigation in technology relating to automobile alarm control circuits.
`
`Card-Monroe v. Tuftco
`Patent litigation in technology for carpet tufting machine controls.
`
`deposition
`
`6
`
`Papst Licensing GmbH & Co. KG's Patent Owner Response - Ex. 2008A, p. 6
`
`

`

`07/97 to 03/99
`
`
`01/98 to 08/98
`
`
`
`01/98 to 11/98
`
`
`01/99 to 05/99
`
`
`06/99 to 11/99
`
`
`03/99 to 03/00
`
`
`01/00 to 06/00
`
`
`01/00 to 05/00
`
`
`
`03/00 to 07/00
`
`
`03/00 to 06/00
`
`
`04/00 to 08/03
`
`
`04/00 to 03/01
`
`
`05/00 to 06/03
`
`
`10/00 to 10/01
`
`
`11/00 to 04/02
`
`
`02/01 to 06/01
`
`
`03/01 to 10/02
`
`
`06/01 to 06/01
`
`
`
`Worldtronics v. High Performance Appliances
`Patent litigation in technology relating to appliance timing and control.
`
`Quorum v. Emerson Electric
`Patent litigation brought against Quorum International in technology relating to AC
`motor control.
`
`Honeywell v. Foxboro
`deposition, trial
`Patent litigation in technology relating to industrial process control sensor systems.
`
`Relume v. Philips et al.
`Patent litigation relating to control of LED traffic signal lamp power supplies.
`
`Regent Lighting v. DESA
`Patent litigation relating to control of motion sensitive outdoor lighting.
`
`Midtronics v. Actron
`Patent litigation relating to electronic control of automobile battery testing equipment.
`
`UTA v. Praxair et al.
`Insurance litigation involving value of instrumentation electronics.
`
`Fonar v. Healthsouth
`Patent litigation involving the control electronics of magnetic resonance imaging (MRI)
`equipment.
`
`Dark Horse v. Sega
`Patent litigation involving control of arcade game machines.
`
`Lemelson v. Maxim
`Patent litigation involving control of semiconductor process equipment.
`
`Chamberlain v. Lynx
`Patent litigation involving garage door controls.
`
`Calabrese v. Bosch, et al.
`Patent litigation involving industrial data communication system.
`
`Snap-On v. Hunter, Hunter v. Snap-On
`Patent litigation involving controls for automotive repair instruments.
`
`deposition
`
`SSK v. Clapper Industries
`Trade secret litigation involving gaming machine controls.
`
`Beery v. Thomson C.F.
`Patent litigation involving television channel selection systems.
`
`Laser Sight v. Visx, Visx v.Laser Sight
`Patent litigation involving vision correction machine controls.
`
`Digi v. Stallion
`Patent litigation involving serial communications controllers.
`
`Phone-Tel
`Negotiations over telecommunication system control patents with Verizon.
`
`Markman
`
`deposition
`
`7
`
`Papst Licensing GmbH & Co. KG's Patent Owner Response - Ex. 2008A, p. 7
`
`

`

`
`06/01 to 06/02
`
`
`06/01 to 06/03
`
`
`09/01 to 05/03
`
`
`01/02 to 08/02
`
`
`01/02 to 04/02
`
`
`01/02 to 03/03
`
`
`03/02 to 09/02
`
`
`09/02 to 09/03
`
`
`02/03 to 04/03
`
`
`03/03 to 10/04
`
`
`04/05 to 04/05
`
`
`
`08/05 to 09/05
`
`
`09/05 to 01/11
`
`
`
`10/05 to 10/06
`
`
`01/06 to 05/06
`
`
`04/06 to 10/08
`
`
`04/06 to 12/06
`
`
`12/06 to 05/08
`
`
`Soundview v. Sony et al.
`Patent litigation involving parental control circuit for TV.
`
`deposition
`
`Lear Automotive
`Consulting for patent enforcement in automotive electronics related portfolio.
`
`Schneider Automation v. Opto-22 Corp.
`Patent litigation involving web accessible programmable controllers.
`
`deposition
`
`Cacheflow et al. v. NCT
`Patent litigation involving file caching system controls.
`
`Emhart v. Bottero
`Patent litigation involving control of glass bottle making machinery.
`
`St. Clair v. Sony Corp.
`deposition, trial
`Patent litigation involving digital camera software and hardware control apparatus.
`
`Advanced Communication v. Premiere Retail
`Patent litigation involving store promotion display media control systems.
`
`Jackson v. Nortel et al.
`Patent litigation involving telephone line remote control apparatus.
`
`deposition
`
`Catalina v. Coolsavings
`Markman
`Patent litigation involving an automated sales coupon dispensing control system.
`
`St. Clair v. Casio et al.
`deposition, trial
`Patent litigation involving digital camera software and hardware control apparatus.
`
`deposition
`Solaia v. Rockwell et al.
`Patent litigation relating to interface between spreadsheet programs and industrial control
`systems.
`
`Guidant v. St. Jude
`Patent litigation relating to control of cardiac pacemakers.
`
`deposition, trial
`Midtronics v. DHC, WEL, Argus
`Patent litigation relating to electronic control of automobile and stationary battery testing
`equipment.
`
`Fortunet v. Planet Bingo and Melange
`Patent litigation relating to control of gambling terminals.
`
`EMD v. Wi-Tronix
`Trade secret litigation relating to control of locomotive data systems.
`
`Positive Technologies v. Benq, et al.
`Patent litigation involving to flat panel display control.
`
`In re NCT
`Patent re-exam proceedings for claims involving file caching system controls.
`
`St. Clair v. Kodak
`
`deposition
`
`deposition
`
`deposition
`8
`
`Papst Licensing GmbH & Co. KG's Patent Owner Response - Ex. 2008A, p. 8
`
`

`

`
`
`02/07 to 03/08
`
`
`06/08 to 5/13
`
`
`07/08 to 01/09
`
`
`07/08 to present
`
`
`07/08 to 09/08
`
`
`11/08 to 4/10
`
`
`05/10 to 4/11
`
`
`03/11 to 06/11
`
`
`
`03/11 to 5/15
`
`
`11/11 to present
`
`
`04/12 to 12/12
`
`
`04/12 to present
`
`
`02/13 to present
`
`
`05/13 to 01/14
`
`
`01/14 to 01/14
`
`
`04/14 to 11/15
`
`
`06/14 to 07/14
`
`
`
`
`
`Patent litigation involving digital camera software and hardware control apparatus.
`
`Visto Corporation v. Good Technology, Research In Motion, Microsoft
`Patent litigation involving network synchronization of handheld computers to servers
`
`Copper v. Sony, Nintendo
`Patent litigation involving wireless control of apparatus
`
`TD&L v. DirecTV et al.
`Patent litigation involving television channel selection systems.
`
`TD&L v. Motorola, General Instrument, Echostar et al.
`Patent litigation involving television channel selection systems.
`
`Cisco
`Patent litigation involving control of power delivery over Ethernet
`
`St. Clair v. Samsung, et al.
`deposition
`Patent litigation involving digital camera software and hardware control apparatus.
`
`Positive Technologies v. Sony, et al.
`Patent litigation relating to flat panel display control.
`
`Greatcall v. Dyna
`hearing
`Dispute submitted for arbitration involving design of cellular telephone terminals and
`systems.
`
`Personalized Media Communications v. Echostar, et al.
`deposition
`Patent litigation involving control of satellite broadcast systems and components.
`
`MyKey v. Guidance et al.
`deposition, markman, trial (ITC)
`Patent litigation involving control of forensic storage apparatus
`
`Patent Harbor v. Funai
`Patent litigation involving control of DVD recorders
`
`Honeywell v. ICM Controls
`Patent litigation involving control of HVAC equipment
`
`ICM Controls v. Honeywell
`Patent litigation involving control of HVAC equipment
`
`J2 v. Nextiva
`Patent litigation involving control of fax server systems
`
`Pentair v. Hayward
`Patent litigation involving control of pool pumps
`
`Masimo v. Shenzen Mindray
`Patent infringement litigation regarding control of medical devices
`
`Gatekeeper v. Carttronics
`Patent litigation involving shopping cart management systems
`
`deposition, trial
`
`9
`
`Papst Licensing GmbH & Co. KG's Patent Owner Response - Ex. 2008A, p. 9
`
`

`

`MLR v. Dell
`Patent litigation involving control of wireless communications radios
`
`IPT v. HP et al.
`Patent litigation involving control of page printing
`
`Universal Remote Control v. Universal Electronics Inc.
`IPR involving UEI's patents for TV remote controls
`
`3M v. HM Electronics, Inc.
`IPR involving 3M's patent for a quick service restaurant intercom system.
`
`JDS Technologies v. Avigilon
`IPR involving JDS’ patent for networked video cameras.
`
`Tricklestar v. Embertec
`IPR involving standby power saving technology.
`
`Lenovo v. Filtalert
`IPR involving computer air filter management technology.
`
`Unified v. Berman
`IPR involving video overlay apparatus
`
`09/14 to 12/14
`
`
`02/15 to present
`
`
`3/15 to 7/15
`
`
`8/15 to present
`
`
`12/15 to present
`
`
`04/16 to present
`
`
`04/16 to present
`
`
`07/16 to present
`
`
`
`
`
`
`10
`
`Papst Licensing GmbH & Co. KG's Patent Owner Response - Ex. 2008A, p. 10
`
`

`

`CASE EXPERIENCE
`
`
`
`
`
`Case
`
`
`COMPUTER DESIGN
`Case experience in this area involves design of the computer itself, usually without regard to how the computer may
`be used.
`
`Dates
`
`01/81 to 02/82
`
`
`06/89 to 09/90
`
`
`
`08/91 to 02/93
`
`
`03/93 to 12/94
`
`
`06/94 to 01/95
`
`
`06/95 to 03/96
`
`
`08/95 to 08/98
`
`
`04/97 to 07/98
`
`
`04/97 to 12/97
`
`
`06/00 to 07/03
`
`
`06/02 to 01/05
`
`
`
`05/05 to 04/06
`
`
`
`07/05 to 06/06
`
`
`
`10/05 to 10/07
`
`
`01/06 to 03/06
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Microcomputer Systems v. DEC
`Patent infringement litigation involving computer disk storage control apparatus.
`
`trial
`
`Motorola v. Hitachi
`trial
`Patent and contract litigation involving microcomputer design. Assistance in preparation
`of industry leaders as testifying experts in issues involving microprocessor architecture
`and circuit design.
`
`deposition
`T.I. v. Daewoo
`Patent infringement litigation involving personal computer and microprocessor design.
`
`Lemelson v. Apple Computer
`Patent litigation relating to computer image storage and retrieval apparatus.
`
`deposition
`
`T.I. v. AST
`Patent litigation involving design of personal computers.
`
`MTI v. CMD, et al.
`Patent litigation involving RAID storage system design.
`
`ACM v. LADWP
`Litigation relating to the value of used computer equipment.
`
`Zeny v. Acer
`Trade secret litigation in technology of PC motherboard design.
`
`Matra v. IBM
`Contract litigation in technology relating to PC motherboard design and manufacturing.
`
`Orbsak v. General Instrument
`Patent litigation involving digital broadcast multiplexing apparatus.
`
`Intergraph v. Hewlett Packard, et al.
`Patent litigation relating to computer cache memory system design.
`
`deposition
`
`Ampex v. Kodak
`Patent litigation relating to an image manipulation system.
`
`Optima v. Sonic Solutions, et al.
`Patent litigation relating to a CD writing system.
`
`TPL v. NEC, et al.
`Patent litigation relating to microprocessor design.
`
`Microlinc v. Intel et al.
`Patent investigation as to infringement of claims involving high speed bus design.
`
`11
`
`Papst Licensing GmbH & Co. KG's Patent Owner Response - Ex. 2008A, p. 11
`
`

`

`Orbsak
`Prior art investigation involving digital broadcast multiplexing apparatus.
`
`AMD v. Samsung, Samsung v. AMD
`Patent litigation involving various computer system and circuit issues
`
`Acqis v. Appro et al.
`Patent infringement litigation regarding modular computer design
`
`deposition, trial
`
`Xpoint v. AMD et al.
`Patent infringement litigation relating to I/O system design
`
`USEI v. Digi et al.
`Patent infringement litigation relating to network controller design
`
`HTC v. TPL et al.
`Patent infringement litigation relating to CPU design
`
`Acqis v. Ericsson et al.
`Patent infringement litigation regarding modular computer design
`
`AMD and ATI Technologies, Ulc. v. LG Electronics et al.
`patent infringement litigation regarding processor design
`
`deposition, trial
`
`
`
`
`01/06 to 01/07
`
`
`07/08 to 04/10
`
`
`01/09 to 02/11
`
`
`09/10 to 03/11
`
`
`10/12 to 04/13
`
`
`05/13 to 10/13
`
`
`07/13 to present
`
`
`03/14 to present
`
`
`
`
`
`
`12
`
`Papst Licensing GmbH & Co. KG's Patent Owner Response - Ex. 2008A, p. 12
`
`

`

`CASE EXPERIENCE
`
`COMPUTER SOFTWARE
`Case experience in this area emphasizes large software systems without regard to the computer on which they may
`run.
`
`Dates
`
`02/89 to 11/92
`
`
`10/91 to 07/92
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Case
`
`U.S. v. Anthony Fairchild
`Issues related to destruction of data as a result of software installation and operation.
`
`trial
`
`deposition
`Maho v. Banner Aeronautical
`Wrongful termination defense in issues related to shift from batch-type system design and
`operation procedures to current generation software system design and operational
`procedures.
`
`CHA v. PCC
`Issues relating to computer media discovery.
`
`Qantel v. Signature Systems, et al.
`Trade secret litigation relating to operating system, communication protocol design, and
`compiler development.
`
`deposition
`FMC v. Cowart
`Trade secret litigation relating to image processing and database analysis systems.
`
`Crane v. Durametallic, et al.
`Trade secret litigation involving gas seal analysis software.
`
`Robertson Machine v. Serpa
`Trade secret litigation in matters relating to NC programming information.
`
`Retrac v. ETM
`deposition, trial
`Trade secret litigation in matters relating to transaction processing software.
`
`Power Quest v. V-Communications
`Patent litigation in matters relating to disk partitioning software.
`
`Interactive Systems v. DSL Transportation
`Contract litigation in matters relating to software development practices.
`
`Soft Art v. Microsoft
`Trade secret litigation relating to accessibility of spell checking software.
`
`deposition
`
`deposition
`
`deposition
`GEAC v. HCL
`Software contract relating to completion and quality of a large commercial software
`project.
`
`OAS v. Design Collection
`Software performance litigation.
`
`Newport v. Warenet
`Trade secret litigation relating to web site software.
`
`deposition
`
`13
`
`
`01/93 to 01/94
`
`
`03/93 to 12/94
`
`
`
`11/93 to 01/94
`
`
`06/96 to 12/97
`
`
`01/98 to 01/99
`
`
`05/98 to 07/99
`
`
`05/98 to 10/03
`
`
`07/98 to 08/98
`
`
`03/99 to 04/99
`
`
`07/99 to 06/01
`
`
`
`10/00 to 12/00
`
`
`01/02 to 12/02
`
`
`
`
`Papst Licensing GmbH & Co. KG's Patent Owner Response - Ex. 2008A, p. 13
`
`

`

`12/03 to 07/04
`
`
`12/05 to 10/07
`
`
`08/10 to 03/11
`
`
`08/11 to 05/12
`
`
`12/11 to 02/13
`
`
`
`10/12 to 09/14
`
`
`10/12 to present
`
`
`10/12 to 12/12
`
`
`01/13 to 01/14
`
`
`
`11/13 to 05/14
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Default Proof v. Home Depot, et al.
`Patent litigation relating to transaction processing and debit card systems
`
`deposition
`
`Premier International v. Apple Computer
`Patent litigation relating to electronic media organization, purchase and presentation
`
`Datatern, Inc.
`Assisted client in database software licensing campaign.
`
`Kelora v. eBay et al.
`Patent litigation relating to a client-server based searching method
`
`
`
`Wellogix v. ADP, Inc.
`Patent litigation relating to a method of managing project invoices
`
`Walker Digital v. Google et al.
`Patent litigation relating to display of photos in vehicle guidance systems.
`
`deposition
`
`Tesseron v. Oce
`Patent litigation relating to a document printing system
`
`Rovi v. Mitsubishi, LG et al.
`Patent litigation relating to control of video on demand playback
`
`CSG v. TOA
`Patent litigation relating to a method of scheduling technician workload
`
`Chipotle v. Maxim
`Patent litigation relating to secure e-Commerce
`
`
`
`14
`
`Papst Licensing GmbH & Co. KG's Patent Owner Response - Ex. 2008A, p. 14
`
`