Title Here - Fish

2/27/20 An Introduction to our Appellate Practice Prepared for: Overview Firm Background Litigation/Appellate Expertise Representative Appeals Selected Attorneys 2

Fish Background 3 Over 100 years of Excellence Since our founding in 1878, we have been an IP-focused law firm. Our attorneys have represented many of historys leading innovators. 1878 Founded in Boston

1883-1893 Fish successfully defends Alexander Graham Bell in more than 600 telephone patent cases 1913 Fish helps Wright Brothers prevail over Glenn Curtis in infringement case involving

1906 Flying Machine patent 4 Modern Excellence Repeatedly recognized by industry publications for firm wide and individual attorney excellence. Top Patent Litigation Firm for 10 Consecutive Years by Corporate Counsel

Top Ranking in Patent Prosecution by Managing Intellectual Property Named a top trademark law firm by World Trademark Review Elite Ranking in All

IP Disciplines by Best Lawyers and US News & World Report 5 Seamless International Capacity 11 Offices Nationwide, 1 European Office Twin Cities Silicon Valley Southern

California Boston New York Delaware Washington, D.C. Atlanta Dallas Austin Houston United States

Germany Munich 6 400+ Professionals 357 Attorneys 213 U.S. Registered

Patent Attorneys & Agents 51 Technology Specialists 72 Former Circuit Clerks 77 Ph.D.s

7 Inclusivity. Opportunity. Innovation. As a firm that serves the worlds greatest visionaries, Fish knows that innovation often results from seeing the world in a different way. We recognize that diverse backgrounds provide unique perspectives that result in new and better solutions. Women and minorities currently make up 34 percent of our attorney population and 37 percent of our professional legal staff. Having a diverse team that reflects the diversity of the public arena enhances the quality of legal services we provide to our clients and helps strengthen our standing as a premier IP law firm.

8 Recognized Leader in Diversity Top Law Firm for Diversity (American Lawyer Diversity Scorecard, 2015) Best Places to Work for LGBT Equality (Human Rights Campaign Corporate Equality Index, 2015) Top 25 Best Law Firms for Diversity: Diversity for Military Veterans (Vault, 2015) Top 100 Law Firms for Minority Attorneys and The 25 Best Law Firms for Asian-American Attorneys (Law 360, 2015) Top 25 Best Law Firms for Diversity: Diversity for Individuals

with Disabilities (Vault, 2014) Do Good, Do Well List (Minority Corporate Counsel Association, 2013 & 2014) 9 Litigation/Appellate Expertise 10 #1 in Patent Litigation Experience For eleven straight years, Fish has handled more patent

litigation than any other firm, as highlighted in Corporate Counsel magazine. With 199 patent cases in 2013, we handled 96 more cases than our nearest competitor. Having the most experience gives Fish the tools to efficiently handle your patent litigation matters.

11 Recognized Leader Patent Litigation Patent Litigation Law Firm of the Year (U.S. News & Best Lawyers, 2015) IP Litigation Powerhouse (BTI Consulting Group, 2011, 2015) Tier 1 National Ranking for Patent Litigation in Managing Intellectual Propertys Survey (2011-2015) Top Tier 1 National Rankings in Patent Litigation (The Legal 500, 2012-2015) Intellectual Property Hot List (National Law Journal, 2012, 2013, 2014, 2015) #1 Patent Litigation Firm (Corporate Counsel, 2004-2014)

Appellate Hot List (National Law Journal, 2008, 2009, 2013, 2014) IP Practice Group of the Year (Law360, 2012-2014) IP Litigation Law Firm of the Year (U.S. News & Best Lawyers, 2013, 2014) Go-To Intellectual Property Law Firm for Top Fortune 500 Companies (Corporate Counsel, 2012-2013) 12 Finalist, Litigation Department of the Year Fish was twice named as a finalist in the bi-annual Litigation Department of the Year contest by The American Lawyer (2014, 2010). 2014

2010 13 Fishs Appellate Practice Named to the Appellate Hot List by the National Law Journal in 2014, 2013, 2009, 2008. 14

Fishs Appellate Practice 15 Our Appellate Philosophy Brief writing is key to success on appeal. The ability to master technical subject matter while communicating it clearly is the key to brief writing in a patent case. The trial team is key to an efficient appeal and to making sure nothing is missed. A fresh look on appeal is important, so it is important to brief in new minds on appeal, and to mock briefs and oral argument.

Our reputation with the Federal Circuit is more important than any of the points above. You benefit now because of our reputation, and others will benefit in the future. 16 Representative Appellate Clients 17 Representative Appeals 18

Representative Appeals Certain Inkjet Ink Cartridges With Printheads And Components Thereof (Fed. Cir. May 30, 2013) (337-TA-723) Represented complainant Hewlett-Packard in this five-patent ITC investigation (and subsequent Federal Circuit appeal) relating to HPs inkjet printing technologies. The judge found a violation and issued a General Exclusion Order, which would prevent any party from importing into the U.S. goods that infringe the asserted patents. The ITC more commonly issues a Limited Exclusion Order, which excludes only the goods of the parties that were respondents in the ITC litigation. A General Exclusion Order is a much broader remedy because it applies to anyone seeking to import goods that infringe the patents, whether or not they were involved in the ITC litigation, which

included named seven proposed respondents. The Federal Circuit dismissed respondent APMs appeal and affirmed the ITCs imposition of a General Exclusion Order. 19 Representative Appeals Fresenius USA, Inc. v. Baxter International Inc. (2012-1334, -1335) Fish won a Federal Circuit decision in a patent infringement case for Fresenius USA, Inc. and Fresenius Medical Care Holdings, Inc. against Baxter International and Baxter Healthcare Corporation regarding a patent for a hemodialysis machine. The decision held that federal trial and appellate courts are required by statute to dismiss pending patent cases if

the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (PTO) has cancelled the asserted claims through reexamination. 20 Representative Appeals Prometheus Laboratories Inc. v. Mayo Collaborative Services, et al. Fish defended Mayo in an action for patent infringement over metabolite assays for 6-mercaptopurine drugs. We argued and obtained summary judgment of invalidity for the client. Appealed to the Supreme Court, which ruled unanimously in favor of Mayo, finding the Prometheus patents described a law of nature, not patentable under Section 101 of U.S. patent law.

3M v. Avery Dennison (673 F.3d 1372) (Fed. Cir. Mar. 26, 2012) Helped to expand declaratory judgment jurisdiction, the leading decision controlling whether licensing negotiations can trigger declaratory judgment jurisdiction, holding that notifying another party licenses are available creates a sufficient case or controversy to form the basis of a declaratory judgment complaint. 21 Representative Appeals Allergan Inc. v. Sandoz Inc. (2013 WL 1810852) - Maintained patent protection for Allergan over its glaucoma drug COMBIGAN, which has

$200 million in annual sales. The District Court for the E.D. Tex. found Allergans claims in four patents valid and infringed by copies of COMBIGAN that four generic drug makers, Sandoz, Alcon, Apotex, and Watson, sought to market under the Hatch-Waxman Act. The Federal Circuit agreed (over a dissent from Judge Dyk) in a precedential opinion that one key patent was valid and infringed. That patent will prevent the generics companies from selling their own version of the drug until 2022. The win allows Allergan to maintain exclusivity over the drug and to continue funding research and development into new and better drugs. 22 Representative Appeals

Function Media, L.L.C. v. Kappos (2013 WL 828565) - Successfully represented client Google in this appeal of a Patent Office decision and got the Federal Circuit to invalidate all the claims of two different Function Media-owned patents related to web-based advertising that it had asserted against Google in litigation. Fish represented Google at the Patent Office and on appeal. The appeal was complex because the action originally involved four separate Patent Office reexamination proceedings and a parallel litigation in the district court for the E.D. Tex. Function Media had demanded $600 million from Google, but Fishs win at the Federal Circuit absolved Google from any possible liability. 23

Representative Appeals Intel Corp. v. Negotiated Data Solutions, Inc. (nData) (703 F.3d 1360) (Fed. Cir. Dec. 17, 2012) - By the precedential decision in this case, Fish succeeded in ending a patent infringement suit against its client Intel that involved interpretation of the patent laws and of a 37-year-old license between Intel and nDatas predecessor-in-interest. The question was whether a reissue patent was one of the patents covered by the license even though the reissue patent did not exist at the time, but instead grew out of a patent that did exist. The Federal Circuit held that the reissue patent-in-suit was covered by the license, and that its prior Intergraph decision was distinguishable. As a result, nData could not sue Intel on the patent, resulting in a savings of many millions in potential damages for Intel.

24 Representative Appeals Cephalon Inc., et al. v. Impax Laboratories Inc. (2012 WL 4903266) Won a key mandamus decision at the Federal Circuit on behalf of client Cephalon and CIMA LABS in response to a petition by Impax Laboratories. Impax had sought a mandamus decision to prohibit those who seek confidential information in a Hatch-Waxman case from working on anything FDA-related to the underlying drug during the litigation and for a period of time after the litigation. If Impax had won, it would have meant that inhouse lawyers at branded companies would have been faced with the Hobsons choice of advising their clients on either litigation or FDA matters, but not both. The Federal Circuit affirmed the D. Del. courts decision not to require such a protective order.

25 Representative Appeals Bard Peripheral Vascular Inc. et al. v. W.L. Gore & Associates Inc., (682 F.3d 1003) (Fed. Cir. June 14, 2012) - Represented W.L. Gore in a case that revamped the law on willful infringement. The Fed. Cir. determined that the first prong of the willfulness test involved questions of law and fact that should be resolved by the judge and were therefore subject to do novo review on appeal. The case was remanded to the trial court. The decision will likely have a large impact across many patent cases, and could substantially benefit defendants accused of willful infringement.

26 Representative Appeals In re Cyclobenzaprine 676 F.3d 1063 (Fed. Cir. 2012) - By a precedential reversal in this case, Fish set a new standard for proving patent invalidity. The district court had invalidated patent claims covering Cephalons $140million-per-year AMRIX product for skeletal muscle pain. Fish convinced the Federal Circuit to find the patents valid in an important ruling that clarifies parties respective burdens for proving patents invalid an issue that comes up in almost every pharmaceutical litigation under the HatchWaxman Act, and that has now finally been resolved in branded pharmaceuticals favor. 27

Selected Attorneys 28 Attorney 1 Insert atty photo 1.5 wide 29 Attorney 2 Insert atty photo

1.5 wide 30 Thank you! Attorney 1 Title ###-###-#### [email protected] Attorney 2 Title

###-###-#### [email protected] 31

Recently Viewed Presentations

  • The Ancient World - CISD

    The Ancient World - CISD

    Main hall (Hall of bulls)— montage of larger- than-life bulls, horses, deer, and one mythological creature— up to 12' c. Powerful, grand, warm in color d.
  • IP Switching for Scalable IP Services Hassan M. Ahmed Ross ...

    IP Switching for Scalable IP Services Hassan M. Ahmed Ross ...

    IP Switching for Scalable IP Services Hassan M. Ahmed Ross Callon Andrew G. Malis Hohn Moy Presented by Gao, Yun Shih, Pei-Shin Wei, ShuGuang
  • Before You Begin: Assign Information Classification

    Before You Begin: Assign Information Classification

    the concept of risk has always been implicit in ISO 9001 - this revision makes it more explicit and builds it into the whole management system. risk-based thinking ensures risk is considered from the beginning and throughout the process approach....
  • Introduction to Biomolecules - WordPress.com

    Introduction to Biomolecules - WordPress.com

    These chemicals are similar to the chemicals that allow you to digest the food that you eat. Statement of Inquiry/IB Trait STATEMENT OF INQUIRY: The relationship between the structure and function of our parts is one way that we define...
  • Staff Data is Reported Also?

    Staff Data is Reported Also?

    link because much of the data for staff is course related data reporting. This way the student team can see the tickets and questions. If the question is the payroll system, the fiscal staff will respond (CI, CK records and...
  • Decide if True OR False AND Explain WHY:

    Decide if True OR False AND Explain WHY:

    Youth subcultures Counterculture : A subculture where a group rejects the major values, norms, and practices of the larger society and replaces them with a new set of cultural patterns.
  • Quadrant Softwares, Kenya | Systems you can rely on!

    Quadrant Softwares, Kenya | Systems you can rely on!

    Quadrant Softwares is a company of young passionate and motivated, creative technologists, kind of out of the box team. Quadrant Digital Advertisement. Tophill Hospital Website. Bulk SMS System. Content Creation. Social Media Management.
  • Florida Tech Solar-Powered Band Organ

    Florida Tech Solar-Powered Band Organ

    Florida Tech Solar-Powered Band Organ Details by Frank R. Leslie, Adjunct Professor, DMES Florida Tech 6/4/2008a Background/History While a calliope is identified with circuses, Indiana University has one that is used at sports events and parades Florida Tech students might...