Free Declaration in Support - District Court of California - California

Case 5:08-cv-00133-RMW

Document 78

Filed 04/08/2008

Page 1 of 10

1 Henry C. Su (SBN 211202; [email protected]) Katharine L. Altemus (SBN 227080; [email protected]) 2 HOWREY LLP 1950 University Avenue, 4th Floor 3 East Palo Alto, California 94303 Telephone: (650) 798-3500 4 Facsimile: (650) 798-3600 5 Robert Ruyak Matthew Wolf 6 Marc Cohn HOWREY LLP 7 1229 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW Washington, DC 20004 8 Telephone: (202) 783-0800 Facsimile: (202) 383-6610 9 Attorneys for Plaintiffs 10 HOLOGIC, INC., CYTYC CORPORATION and HOLOGIC LP 11 12 13 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA SAN JOSE DIVISION Case No. C08 00133 RMW (RS) DECLARATION OF JULIE L. DAVIS IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFFS' MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION Date: April 21, 2008 Time: 2:00 p.m. Courtroom: 6, 4th Floor Judge: Hon. Ronald M. Whyte

14 HOLOGIC, INC., CYTYC CORPORATION, and HOLOGIC L.P., 15 Plaintiffs, 16 vs. 17 SENORX, INC., 18 Defendant. 19 20 AND RELATED COUNTERCLAIMS. 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28
Davis Decl ISO Plaintiffs' Motion for Preliminary Injunction Case No. C08 00133 RMW (RS)
DM_US:20993951_1

-1-

Case 5:08-cv-00133-RMW

Document 78

Filed 04/08/2008

Page 2 of 10

I, Julie L. Davis, declare that: BACKGROUND 1. I have been providing audit and financial consulting services to attorneys and

corporate clients for over twenty-nine years. The early part of my career was devoted to directing and performing independent financial audits of private and publicly held companies ranging from manufacturing entities to financial institutions. Drawing upon that background, I now consult extensively with companies involved in business and intellectual property disputes. 2. I have worked on numerous intellectual property cases during my career and

have conducted complex studies of damages related thereto. These studies have included evaluations of lost sales, lost profits, incremental profits, manufacturing and marketing capacities, fixed and variable costs, product line profitability, price erosion, reasonable royalty, unjust enrichment, and prejudgment interest. I have testified in matters related to these studies. 3. I graduated in 1978, summa cum laude, from Kansas State University with a

Bachelor of Science degree in Business Administration and Accounting. In the same year, I earned the Gold Key in the State of Kansas for the highest score in the state on the CPA exam. I am a member of the American Institute of Certified Public Accountants, American Bar Association and Licensing Executives Society. My curriculum vitae, which is attached as Exhibit 1, describes my professional credentials including other publications and prior testimony experience.

SCOPE OF RETENTION 4. I have been asked by Howrey LLP ("Counsel"), Counsel for Hologic, Inc., Cytyc

Corporation ("Cytyc"), and Hologic L.P. ( collectively, "Hologic"), to consider whether Hologic would suffer "irreparable harm" if SenoRx, Inc. ("SenoRx") continued to market and sell its Contura Multi-Lumen Balloon ("Contura"). I also have been asked to review the Declaration of Roy Weinstein in Support of Defendant SenoRx, Inc.'s Opposition to Plaintiffs' Motion for a Preliminary Injunction and to provide an opinion on the conclusions reached by Mr. Weinstein. 5. My opinions are based upon information available to me as of the date of this

declaration. I, and professionals working under my direction, have relied upon and examined documents produced by the parties along with publicly available information. A listing of all documents considered is attached as Exhibit 2. I also held a discussion with Kevin McMahon, Hologic's Vice-President of Sales and Marketing for Interventional Breast Solutions, in preparing this declaration.

Page 1 of 9

Case 5:08-cv-00133-RMW

Document 78

Filed 04/08/2008

Page 3 of 10

6.

I understand that discovery in this matter is ongoing and other new information

may become available prior to trial. Therefore, I will be prepared to update my statements in the event that any new facts that may become known to me prior to or during trial impact my opinions and bases therefore.

PARTIES 7. Hologic, Inc. is "a diversified medical technologies company specializing in

diagnostic imaging products and interventional devices dedicated to serving the healthcare needs of women."1 Hologic's core business units focus on breast health, diagnostics, GYN surgical, and skeletal health.2 The company develops and sells a variety of technologies and products for "mammography and breast biopsy, radiation treatment for early-stage breast cancer, cervical cancer screening, treatment for menorrhagia, osteoporosis assessment, preterm birth risk assessment, and mini C-arm for extremity imaging."3 8. Cytyc is a "leading provider of innovative diagnostic and surgical products."4 In October 2007, Cytyc Corporation joined Hologic, Inc. through a merger.5 One of Cytyc's core surgical products, the MammoSite Radiation Therapy System ("MammoSite"), is a "single-use device for the treatment of early-stage breast cancer."6 9. SenoRx seeks "to design, develop, manufacture and market minimally invasive devices for the diagnosis and treatment of breast cancer."7 The company launched its Contura product in January 2008 as a "novel localized partial breast radiation therapy device...."8 10. Hologic has accused SenoRx of infringing certain U.S. patents and seeks to enjoin SenoRx from selling and/or offering to sell the Contura product.9

INDUSTRY BACKGROUND 11. It is my understanding that following the surgical removal of a cancerous lump

from the breast, a procedure called lumpectomy, physicians often employ some type of radiation therapy to treat invisibly small amounts of breast cancer that might remain within the body in

1 2

Hologic, Inc. Form 10-K for the fiscal year ended September 29, 2007, p. 3. http://www.hologic.com/ir/index.cfm, printed on April 7, 2008. 3 http://www.hologic.com/ir/index.cfm, printed on April 7, 2008. 4 Hologic 2007 Annual Report, Letter to Shareholders. 5 Hologic 2007 Annual Report, Letter to Shareholders. 6 Hologic, Inc. Form 10-K for the fiscal year ended September 29, 2007, p. 3. 7 http://www.senorx.com/aboutsenrx.asp, printed on April 7, 2008. 8 SenoRx, Inc. Form 10-K for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2007, p. 6. 9 Plaintiffs' Notice of Motion and Motion for Preliminary Injunction, dated February 6, 2008, p. 3.

Page 2 of 9

Case 5:08-cv-00133-RMW

Document 78

Filed 04/08/2008

Page 4 of 10

close proximity to the affected site.10 For some women with early-stage breast cancer the combined treatment of lumpectomy and radiation enables them to forgo more drastic surgical procedures, such as a mastectomy, while allowing them to experience much the same cure rate as if they had undergone a mastectomy. In fact, the combination of a lumpectomy and radiation has been the standard treatment for most women with early-stage breast cancer.11 12. The standard of care with respect to the delivery of radiation is a process known as external beam radiation.12 This standard is the most common way in which radiation is administered and has proven to be very effective since its first implementation. External beam radiation, however, can require the patient to endure treatments involving daily visits to a radiation oncology clinic for up to seven weeks.13 13. Within the last few years there have been significant advances in radiation

treatment. These advancements allow physicians the opportunity to treat patients from within. One such example is breast brachytherapy, or accelerated partial breast irradiation ("APBI"). This treatment combats early-stage cancer recurrence following the removal of a cancerous tumor from the breast. Treatment occurs just a few centimeters from the tissue surrounding the area once occupied by the tumor. It is in this area that researchers have estimated that approximately 80 percent of breast cancer recurrences after lumpectomy occur.14 14. It is my understanding that breast brachytherapy typically involves multiple

treatments (usually two treatments a day) over a period of five days. Brachytherapy treatment involves the placement of controlled radioactive material "seeds" into the lumpectomy cavity. The number of seeds, dosage, and placement of each seed are determined by specialized treatment planning software. This treatment prevents the exposure of healthy breast tissue, the chest wall, and vital organs to a blast of radiation from an external source.15 15. Despite the numerous positive benefits associated with breast brachytherapy,

including its ability to be administered in an outpatient setting, external beam radiation has remained the standard of care for early-stage breast cancer. In fact, according to the American Society for Breast Surgeons and the American Brachytherapy Society, of the total number of
http://columbia-stmarys.com/OPage.asp?PageID=OTH000160, printed on April 7, 2008. http://columbia-stmarys.com/OPage.asp?PageID=OTH000160, printed on April 7, 2008. 12 http://columbia-stmarys.com/OPage.asp?PageID=OTH000160, printed on April 7, 2008. 13 "Xoft, Inc., Announces Additional Funding For Breakthrough Electronic Brachytherapy Technology," dated April 4, 2007, at http://www.frazierhealthcare.com/pdf/xoft_040507.pdf. 14 "High-Dose Brachytherapy Gaining Converts in War on Early Stage Breast Cancer," dated August/ September 2006, at http://new.reillycomm.com/outpatient/article_print.php?id=156, printed on April 2, 2008. 15 "High-Dose Brachytherapy Gaining Converts in War on Early Stage Breast Cancer," dated August/ September 2006, at http://new.reillycomm.com/outpatient/article_print.php?id=156, printed on April 2, 2008.
11 10

Page 3 of 9

Case 5:08-cv-00133-RMW

Document 78

Filed 04/08/2008

Page 5 of 10

potential patients that are candidates for brachytherapy, only 10 percent of them are actually receiving the treatment.16

SUMMARY OF OPINIONS 16. In my opinion, if SenoRx is allowed to continue to market and sell its allegedly

infringing Contura product within the market, Hologic will be damaged and will suffer irreparable harm. 17. that: · Hologic will suffer damages that cannot be calculated with reasonable certainty at the date of trial; · Hologic's willingness to license to Xoft does not disprove its claim of irreparable harm; · Hologic could suffer a loss of reputation and overall goodwill within the APBI market; and · SenoRx has not demonstrated it has assets sufficient to pay the money judgment likely to be awarded in this matter. Specifically, I have concluded, despite Mr. Weinstein's opinions to the contrary,

BASIS AND REASONING Hologic will suffer damages that cannot be calculated with reasonable certainty at the date of trial 18. According to Kevin McMahon, Vice-President of Sales and Marketing for Interventional Breast Solutions at Hologic, REDACTED

19.

REDACTED

"High-Dose Brachytherapy Gaining Converts in War on Early Stage Breast Cancer," dated August/ September 2006, at http://new.reillycomm.com/outpatient/article_print.php?id=156, printed on April 2, 2008. 17 Discussion with Kevin McMahon.

16

Page 4 of 9

Case 5:08-cv-00133-RMW

Document 78

Filed 04/08/2008

Page 6 of 10

REDACTED

20.

Mr. Weinstein states that "[w]ere any price declines attributable to SenoRx's

marketing of Contura to occur, Hologic would be able fully to restore MammoSite price levels following removal of Contura at the conclusion of trial."19 Mr. Weinstein, though, provides no evidence or discussion to support this assertion. Furthermore, he does not address customers' potential responses to such a price increase. 21. SenoRx has already distributed the Contura at below-market prices.20 Late last

year, it was reported to Hologic that SenoRx had sold Contura devices for between $2,200 and $2,500 to early adopters.21 More recently, independent market analyst Canaccord Adams reported that the Contura has a below-market average selling price ("ASP"), is providing early adopters with the device at no charge, and is swapping out inventory of competitor products, including the MammoSite, and/or paying restocking fees. Canaccord Adams predicts that these offsets will decline throughout the year, leaving an ultimate ASP in the $2,500-$2,700 range ­ below the current selling price of the MammoSite ($2,750) and the current list price of the Contura (also $2,750).22 Indeed, Canaccord Adams expects the ASP to remain below $2,750 for 2008 and 2009.23 REDACTED

Discussion with Kevin McMahon. Declaration of Roy Weinstein in Support of Defendant SenoRx, Inc.'s Opposition to Plaintiffs' Motion for a Preliminary Injunction, dated March 28, 2008, p. 10. 20 Deposition of Glenn Magnuson, dated March 18, 2008, p. 142. 21 Deposition of Glenn Magnuson, dated March 18, 2008, pp. 142-143. 22 Canaccord Adams SenoRx Investment Research, dated February 19, 2008 (Bates # SRX-HOL00002353 ­ SRX-HOL00002358 at SRX-HOL00002353 ­ SRX-HOL00002354); Canaccord Adams SenoRx Investment Research, dated February 20, 2008 (Bates # SRX-HOL00002359 ­ SRX-HOL00002379 at SRX-HOL00002360 ­ SRX-HOL00002361). 23 Canaccord Adams SenoRx Investment Research, dated February 20, 2008 (Bates # SRX-HOL00002359 ­ SRX-HOL00002379 at SRX-HOL00002366). R E D A Page 5 of 9 C T E
19

18

Case 5:08-cv-00133-RMW

Document 78

Filed 04/08/2008

Page 7 of 10

REDACTED

22.

REDACTED

23.

Indeed, price erosion is to be expected now that Hologic and SenoRx are

competing. Before SenoRx's entry into the market, Hologic was the only significant supplier of balloon brachytherapy treatment. At that time, there was little, if any, downward pressure on price. With the introduction of the SenoRx Contura product, there are now two significant suppliers in the market. This naturally creates a downward pressure on price, as the two suppliers compete for the same customers. 24. I know of no way of predicting with reasonable certainty what price MammoSite

will command after trial if SenoRx is permanently enjoined from selling Contura thereafter. Therefore, the magnitude of future harm to Hologic as of the date of trial cannot be projected or calculated with reasonable certainty.

Hologic's willingness to license to Xoft does not disprove its claim of irreparable harm 25.
REDACTED

On August 13, 2007, Xoft Microtube, Inc.'s ("Xoft") and Cytyc entered into a

26.

REDACTED

Declaration of Glenn Magnuson in Support of Plaintiffs' Motion for Preliminary Injunction, dated February 7, 2008, p. 9. 26 Deposition of Glenn Magnuson, dated March 18, 2008, pp. 133-134. 27 Discussion with Kevin McMahon. 28 Settlement Agreement License, and Mutual Release between Cytyc Corporation and Xoft, Inc., dated August 13, 2007 (Bates # HOLOGIC 0047845 ­ HOLOGIC 0047863). 29 Declaration of Roy Weinstein in Support of Defendant SenoRx, Inc.'s Opposition to Plaintiffs' Motion for a Preliminary Injunction, dated March 28, 2008, pp. 13-14. 30 Deposition of Roy Weinstein, dated April 4, 2008, pp. 51-52.

25

Page 6 of 9

Case 5:08-cv-00133-RMW

Document 78

Filed 04/08/2008

Page 8 of 10

27.

REDACTED

However, I understand that administration of these techniques requires different equipment and, unlike Contura, are not easily substituted for MammoSite. Indeed, the only product that would presently compete directly with MammoSite is SenoRx's Contura. 28. I understand from my discussion with Mr. McMahon that REDACTED That number can be contrasted with the 1,000 or more that have purchased the MammoSite product. 29. Consequently, REDACTED

30.

Because of the limited competition between Xoft and Hologic, the simple fact

that Hologic has licensed the patents-in-suit does not compromise its competitive interests.

Hologic could suffer a loss of reputation and overall goodwill within the APBI market 31. Mr. Weinstein opines that the APBI market, and thus Hologic, will not suffer irreparable harm despite Contura's availability.32 However, unlike Xoft's Axxent (which is an electronic brachytherapy product), SenoRx's Contura product shares the same delivery method and utilizes the same equipment as MammoSite.33 Any failing on the part of Contura may be ascribed to APBI technology generally and associated with the MammoSite product specifically. 32. Because MammoSite and Contura are comparable substitutes, any concerns

expressed in the market about the Contura product relating to reliability or performance could irreparably harm the reputation of Hologic's patent technology in the eyes of its customers. Hologic and predecessor Proxima Therapeutics, Inc. ("Proxima") have REDACTED in the research, development, and marketing of MammoSite and the APBI market.34 Hologic and Proxima "expended considerable effort and expense to educate breast surgeons and radiation oncologists about the MammoSite product, to analyze the clinical data that have been accumulating over the last five years of patient use, and to make further improvements to the
Hologic, Inc. 10-K for fiscal year ended September 29, 2007, p. 16. Declaration of Roy Weinstein in Support of Defendant SenoRx, Inc.'s Opposition to Plaintiffs' Motion for a Preliminary Injunction, dated March 28, 2008, p. 15. 33 Discussion with Kevin McMahon. 34 Declaration of Glenn Magnuson in Support of Plaintiffs' Motion for Preliminary Injunction, dated February 7, 2008, p. 6.
32 31

Page 7 of 9

Case 5:08-cv-00133-RMW

Document 78

Filed 04/08/2008

Page 9 of 10

MammoSite product."35 Training efforts have included sponsoring symposia and literature on MammoSite, training physicians on proper use of the MammoSite technology, and engaging in further research and development efforts.36 33. Mr. Weinstein states "[i]f investing money to develop APBI products and

educate physicians and the public about their use is what constitutes `creation and development' of a market then SenoRx, Cianna Medical, and Xoft are also contributing to the development of the APBI market."37 However, MammoSite was first sold in 2002, while Contura was not commercially available until 2008. Therefore, SenoRx will face significantly lower hurdles in convincing users about the safety, efficacy, and functionality of the Contura product because of users' familiarity with MammoSite. REDACTED In establishing a market for the MammoSite product, Hologic has expended significantly more resources than SenoRx. 34. The track record that Hologic has established through the previously discussed

efforts for both the firm as an innovator and for MammoSite as a safe and less invasive treatment method could be threatened by the entry of a similar yet untested product. Regarding customer relationships, Mr. Weinstein states REDACTED

If that goodwill and existing customer relationships are damaged, Hologic and the APBI market would suffer incalculable and irreparable harm.

SenoRx has not demonstrated it has assets sufficient to pay the money judgment likely to be awarded in this matter 35. Mr. Weinstein states in his declaration that "SenoRx has more than adequate assets to fund any damages payment."41 He claims that the company has REDACTED

Declaration of Glenn Magnuson in Support of Plaintiffs' Motion for Preliminary Injunction, dated February 7, 2008, pp. 5-6. 36 Declaration of Glenn Magnuson in Support of Plaintiffs' Motion for Preliminary Injunction, dated February 7, 2008, p. 6. 37 Declaration of Roy Weinstein in Support of Defendant SenoRx, Inc.'s Opposition to Plaintiffs' Motion for a Preliminary Injunction, dated March 28, 2008, pp. 15-16. 38 Deposition of William Gearhart (Rough Transcript), dated April 2, 2008, pp. 63-65. 39 Deposition of Roy Weinstein, dated April 4, 2008, p. 41. 40 Deposition of Roy Weinstein, dated April 4, 2008, pp. 102-103. 41 Declaration of Roy Weinstein in Support of Defendant SenoRx, Inc.'s Opposition to Plaintiffs' Motion for a Preliminary Injunction, dated March 28, 2008, p. 12. 42 Declaration of Roy Weinstein in Support of Defendant SenoRx, Inc.'s Opposition to Plaintiffs' Motion for a Preliminary Injunction, dated March 28, 2008, pp. 12-13.

35

Page 8 of 9

Case 5:08-cv-00133-RMW

Document 78

Filed 04/08/2008

Page 10 of 10

While it is presently unclear what damages will be due to Hologic at the conclusion of trial, RE
DA CT ED

. 36. confirm that SenoRx is operating at a loss.43 REDACTED

Additionally, SenoRx's financial statements, as well as Mr. Weinstein himself,

Conclusion 37. Based upon the above reasons, I believe ­ contrary to Mr. Weinstein's opinion ­

that Hologic may be irreparably harmed by continuing sales by SenoRx of its Contura product.

I declare under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct to the best of my personal knowledge.

Dated: April 7, 2008

Julie L. Davis

43

Deposition of Roy Weinstein, dated April 4, 2008, pp. 123-124.

Page 9 of 9

Case 5:08-cv-00133-RMW

Document 78-2

Filed 04/08/2008

Page 1 of 17

Exhibit 1

Case 5:08-cv-00133-RMW

Document 78-2

Filed 04/08/2008

Page 2 of 17
Tel: 312-506-1505 Fax: 312-506-1510 [email protected]

Julie L. Davis, CPA
20 North Wacker Drive ­ Suite 2150 Chicago, Illinois 60606 Employment June 2003 ­ Present May 2002 ­ May 2003 September 1991 ­ May 2002 Davis & Hosfield Consulting LLC ­ Principal

KPMG LLP ­ Partner-in-Charge, National Intellectual Property Practice Andersen ­ Co-Managing Partner, Global Intellectual Asset Consulting Practice Andersen ­ Chicago office: Senior Manager in Specialty Consulting Touche Ross & Co. ­ Kansas City office: Audit practice

November 1987 ­ August 1991 July 1978 ­ November 1987

Educational Background September 2000 July 1980 and subsequent Inducted into Kansas State University Accounting Hall of Fame Certified Public Accountant (CPA) and licensed in California, Illinois, Kansas, Missouri, and Texas Gold Key-State of Kansas CPA Examination (Highest score in state) B.S. in Business Administration and Accounting Kansas State University Summa Cum Laude

May 1978

May 1978

Litigation Consulting Experience Testified at trial (bench and jury) and through deposition as expert witness. Conducted complex damages studies involving lost sales, lost profits, incremental profits, manufacturing and marketing capacity, fixed and variable costs, product line profitability, price erosion, reasonable royalty, unjust enrichment and prejudgment interest. Cases have involved patent, trademark, trade dress, trade secret and copyright infringement, antitrust, false advertising, dealership termination, fraudulent conveyance, breach of contract, professional malpractice, and other types of business disputes. Industries have included apparel, aerospace, automotive, biotechnology, carpet, chemicals, computer hardware and software, construction, consumer products, electronics, financial institutions, food, hospitality, industrial equipment, internet, medical products, military equipment, office equipment, pharmaceuticals, power tools, real estate, sporting goods, and transportation. Other Financial Consulting Experience Assisted global companies with development of intellectual property strategy. Developed competitive assessment capabilities for major consumer products company using patent portfolio analyses.

Case 5:08-cv-00133-RMW

Document 78-2

Filed 04/08/2008

Page 3 of 17

Directed analyses of a Fortune 50 company's portfolio of over 25,000 patents, including review of prosecution and maintenance fees, trends, and patent department processes. Assisted with licensing analyses, including whether the company should license its intellectual property and at what rates. Supervised review of royalty payments for compliance with license agreements. Directed and performed independent financial audits of private and publicly held companies ranging from manufacturing enterprises to financial institutions. Developed insurance claims for business interruption losses in such industries as retail, processing, hospitality, fine arts, and professional services. Performed due diligence services for potential acquisitions in the cosmetics and automotive parts industries. Assisted consumer products company with analysis of operations and purchasing practices to improve productivity and profitability. Developed and implemented comprehensive turnaround plan for national wholesale grocer experiencing financial crisis. Investigated numerous fraud and negligence claims related to failed savings and loans. Membership in Trade Associations American Institute of Certified Public Accountants Illinois CPA Society ­ past Chairperson of statewide Litigation Services Committee American Bar Association Licensing Executives Society Publications Edison in the Boardroom: How Leading Companies Realize Value from Their Intellectual Assets ­ Julie L. Davis, Suzanne S. Harrison ­ Wiley/Andersen Intellectual Capital Series, June 2001. (Also translated into Chinese and Japanese.) "Tapping Into Your Company's Hidden Resources" ­ U.S. Industry Today, July 1999. "An Update on Patent Damages ­ A Closer Look at Lost Profits and Reasonable Royalty Decisions from 1982 through June 1998" ­ Licensing Law and Business Report, January-February 1999 (Vol. 21, No. 1). "Emerging Trends in Patent Infringement Damage Awards 1982-June 1997" ­ Intellectual Property Infringement Damages, 1999, Chapter 14. "Using Your IP to Increase Shareholder Value" ­ Managing Intellectual PropertyTM, Patent Yearbook 1998. "Emerging Trends in Patent Infringement Damage Awards" ­ Intellectual Property Infringement Damages, 1998 Cumulative Supplement, Chapter1.4A. "Reaching for the Sky and Beyond" ­ Managing Intellectual PropertyTM, March 1997 (Issue 67). Provided summary of damages cases and related data only. "Patent Infringement Damages Awards" ­ Licensing Law and Business Report, May-June, 1995 (Vol. 17, No. 7). "An Historical Look at Patent Infringement Damage Awards" ­ Intellectual Property Infringement Damages, 1995 Cumulative Supplement, Chapter 1.4A.

2

Case 5:08-cv-00133-RMW

Document 78-2

Filed 04/08/2008

Page 4 of 17

Julie L. Davis Testimony Experience
Lawsuit
United States Gypsum Company v. Lafarge North America, Inc., et al. Civil Action No. 03-CV-6027 3M Company and 3M Innovative Properties Company v. Vita Zahnfabrik H. Rauter GmbH & Co. KG and Vident, Inc. Case No. 0:05-CV-01875 ADM/JJG Herman Miller, Inc. v. Teknion Corporation and Okamura Corporation Civil Action No. 05-CV-2761 Auction Management Solutions, Inc. v. Manheim Auctions, Inc., et al. Auction Management Solutions, Inc. v. ADESA, Inc. Case Nos. 1:05-CV-0639 and 1:05-CV0638 Taurus IP, LLC v. DaimlerChrysler Corporation, et al. Civil Action No. 07-C-158-C Repligen Corporation and The Regents of the University of Michigan v. BristolMyers Squibb Company Case No. 2:06-CV-004-TJW Honeywell International Inc. and Honeywell Intellectual Properties Inc. v. Universal Avionics Systems Corp. and Sandel Avionics, Inc. Civil Action No. 02-359-MPT PUMA AG Rudolf Dassler Sport and PUMA North America v. Payless Shoesource, Inc. and Payless Shoesource Worldwide, Inc. Civil Action No. 06-cv-11943 Solvay, S.A. v. Honeywell Specialty Materials, LLC and Honeywell International Inc. Case No. 06-557-SLR Rowe International Corp. and Arachnid, Inc. v. Ecast Inc., Rock-Ola Manufacturing Corp., and View Interactive Entertainment Corp. Case No.: 1:06-cv-02703 Abbott Diabetes Care Inc. and Abbott Laboratories v. Roche Diagnostics Corp., Roche Diagnostics Operations, Inc. and Bayer Healthcare LLC Case No.: C05-3117 MJJ

Court
U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, Eastern Division U.S. District Court of Minnesota

Law Firm
Leydig, Voit & Mayer, Ltd.

Type
Patent infringement and trade secret misappropriation Patent infringement

Testimony
Dep: 2007 Report(4): 2007, 2008

Fish & Richardson P.C.

Report: 2008

U.S. District Court Northern District of Illinois, Eastern Division U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Georgia, Atlanta Division

Howrey LLP Michael Best & Friedrich LLP Finnegan, Henderson, Farabow, Garrett & Dunner, L.L.P.

Patent infringement Patent infringement

Dep: 2008 Report: 2008 Report: 2008

U.S. District Court for the Western District of Wisconsin U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Texas, Marshall Division U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware

Kilpatrick Stockton LLP Fish & Richardson PC

Patent infringement Patent infringement

Dep: 2008 Report(2): 2008 Dep: 2008 Report: 2007

Kirkland & Ellis LLP and Mayer, Brown, Rowe & Maw LLP

Patent infringement and antitrust

Trial: 2003 Dep: 2003 Report(5): 2003, 2008

U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts

Kilpatrick & Lockhart Preston Gates Ellis LLP

Trademark infringement

Report: 2008

U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware

Kirkland & Ellis LLP

Patent infringement

Dep: 2008 Report(2): 2007

U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, Eastern Division

Dickstein Shapiro LLP

Patent infringement

Dep: 2008 Report(3): 2007

U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California

Barnes & Thornburg LLP

Patent infringement

Dep: 2008 Report: 2007

underline indicates client

3

Case 5:08-cv-00133-RMW

Document 78-2

Filed 04/08/2008

Page 5 of 17

Julie L. Davis Testimony Experience
Lawsuit
Volumetrics Medical Imaging LLC v. GE Healthcare, Ltd., GE Medical Systems, Inc., GE Medical Systems, L.L.C., GE Medical Systems Kretztechnik GMBH & Co. OHG, Toshiba America Medical Systems, Inc., Medison America, Inc., and Siemens Medical Solutions USA, Inc. Civil Action No. 1:05CV00955 Kathleen Adams and Snap-Saver, LLC v. Newell Rubbermaid Inc. and Target Corporation Civil Action No. 07 C 0313 S O'Gara-Hess & Eisenhardt Armoring Company, L.L.C. v. Paul Bartock and Ibis Tek, LLC and Thomas G. Buckner and John P. Buckner Case No. CV 2006 04 1157 Pergo, Inc. and Pergo (Europe) AB v. Alloc, Inc., Armstrong World Industries, Inc. and Berry Finance NV Civil Action No. 02-CV-0736V Intermatic Incorporated v. TayMac Corporation Civil Action No. 00-CV-50224 Johnson Controls, Inc. v. InnerWireless, Inc. Arbitration No. 51 181 Y 284 07 Medinol Ltd. against Boston Scientific Corp., et al. WIPOA200206 Spectralytics, Inc. v. Cordis Corporation and Norman Noble, Inc. Civil Action No. 05-1464 (PJS/RLE) Donaldson Company, Inc. v. Baldwin Filters Inc. Civil Action No. 04-2679 3M Company and 3M Innovative Properties Company v. Kerr Corporation Case No. 07-C-0087-C Calphalon Corporation v. Meyer Corporation, U.S. Case No. 2:05-CV-00971-WBS-DAD 911EP, Inc. v. Whelen Engineering Company, Inc. and Tomar Electronics, Inc. Case No. 2-05 CV-137

Court
U.S. District Court for the Middle District of North Carolina

Law Firm
McDermott, Will & Emery LLP

Type
Patent infringement

Testimony
Report: 2007

U.S. District Court for the Western District of Wisconsin Common Pleas Court of Butler County, Ohio

Schiff Hardin LLP

Patent infringement

Report: 2007

Sebaly Shillito and Dyer

Trade secret

Dep: 2007 Report(2): 2007

U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Wisconsin U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, Western Division American Arbitration Association World Intellectual Property Organization U.S. District Court for the District of Minnesota U.S. District Court for the District of Minnesota U.S. District Court for the Western District of Wisconsin U.S. District Court Eastern District of California, Sacramento Division U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Texas, Marshall Division

Baker & McKenzie

Patent infringement

Trial: 2007 Dep: 2007 Report: 2007 Report(2): 2001, 2007

Brinks Hofer Gilson & Lione

Patent infringement

Banner & Witcoff, Ltd.

Breach of Contract Patent infringement Patent infringement Patent infringement Patent infringement Patent infringement and unfair competition Patent infringement

Dep: 2007 Report(2): 2007 Arbitration: 2007 Dep: 2007 Report(2): 2007 Dep: 2007 Report: 2007 Dep: 2007 Report(2): 2007 Report(2): 2007

Cravath Swaine & Moore LLP Carlson, Caspers, Vandenburgh & Lindquist Merchant & Gould

Kirkland & Ellis LLP

Sheppard, Mullin, Richter & Hampton LLP McKool Smith

Trial: 2007 Dep: 2006 Report(2): 2006, 2007 Report: 2007

underline indicates client

4

Case 5:08-cv-00133-RMW

Document 78-2

Filed 04/08/2008

Page 6 of 17

Julie L. Davis Testimony Experience
Lawsuit
Atlanta Attachment Company v. Leggett & Platt, Inc. Civil Action File No. 1:05-cv-01071ODE Through the Country Door, Inc. v. J.C. Penney Company, Inc., et al. Case No. 06-C-0540 Honeywell International and Honeywell Intellectual Properties Inc. v. The United States, et al. No. 02-1909C Textron Innovations Inc. v. The Toro Company Civil Action No. 05-486 (GMS) DE Technologies, Inc. v. Dell Inc. Civil Action No. 7:04 CV 00628 Cummins-Allison Corp. v. Glory Ltd., Glory Shoji Co., Ltd. and Glory (U.S.A.) Inc. Civil Action No. 02 C 7008 The Holmes Group, Inc. v. West Bend Housewares, LLC and Focus Products Group, LLC Civil Action No. 05-CV-11367 WGY Novozymes A/S v. Genencor International, Inc. and Enzyme Development Corporation Civil Action No. 05-160-KAJ One World Technologies, Ltd. and Ryobi Technologies, Inc. v. Robert Bosch Tool Corporation. Rexon Industrial Corp., Ltd., Rexon USA, Corp., and Power Tool Specialists, Inc. Civil Action No. 04 C 0833 InLine Connection Corporation v. AOL Time Warner Incorporated and America Online, Inc. Civil Action No. 02-272 Archer Daniels Midland Company v. Vogelbusch U.S.A., Inc. and UOP LLC Case No. 98L 008240 Maytag Corporation v. Electrolux Home Products, Inc., d/b/a Frigidaire Civil Action No. C 04-4067-MWB

Court
U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Georgia, Atlanta Division U.S. District Court for the Western District of Wisconsin, Madison Division U.S. District Court of Federal Claims

Law Firm
Troutman Sanders LLP

Type
Patent infringement and breach of contract Copyright infringement

Testimony
Trial: 2007 Dep: 2006 Report(2): 2005, 2007 Report: 2007

Barnes & Thornburg LLP

Paul, Hastings, Janofsky & Walker LLP Merchant & Gould

Patent infringement

Trial: 2007 Dep: 2007 Report(3): 2006, 2007 Dep: 2007 Report(2): 2007 Dep: 2007 Report: 2006 Report(2): 2004, 2006

U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware U.S. District Court for the Western District of Virginia U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, Eastern Division U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware

Patent infringement Patent infringement Patent infringement

Robins, Kaplan, Miller & Ciresi L.L.P. Hogan & Hartson LLP

Michael Best & Friedrich LLP

Patent infringement

Report(2): 2006

Darby & Darby PC

Patent infringement

Trial: 2006 Dep: 2006 Report(2): 2006 Dep: 2006 Report: 2006

U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, Eastern Division

Brinks Hofer Gilson & Lione, P.C.

Patent infringement

U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware

Latham & Watkins LLP

Patent infringement

Dep: 2006 Report: 2006

Circuit Court of Cook County, Illinois County Department, Law Division U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Iowa, Western Division

Winston & Strawn LLP and McDermott Will & Emery LLP Alston & Bird LLP

Breach of implied warranty

Trial: 2006 Dep: 2004 Report: 2004 Dep: 2006 Hearing: 2006 Report(2): 2006

Patent infringement

underline indicates client

5

Case 5:08-cv-00133-RMW

Document 78-2

Filed 04/08/2008

Page 7 of 17

Julie L. Davis Testimony Experience
Lawsuit
One World Technologies, Ltd. and Ryobi Technologies, Inc. v. Rexon Industrial Corp., Ltd., Rexon USA, Corp., Power Tool Specialists, Inc., Porter-Cable Corp., Delta International Machinery Corp., and Pentair, Inc. Civil Action No. 04C-4337 OPTi Inc. v. nVidia Corporation Civil Action No. 2-04CV-377 Medinol Ltd. v. Guidant Corporation and Advanced Cardiovascular Systems, Inc. Civil Action No. 03 Civ. 2604 (SAS) Alcon Manufacturing, Ltd. and Alcon Laboratories, Inc., v. Advanced Medical Optics, Inc. Civil Action No. 4-05CV-496-A International Truck and Engine Corporation v. Kile International Trucks, Inc. Case No. 2004L000580 Versus Technology, Inc. v. Radianse, Inc. Civil Action No. 04-1231 PowerOasis, Inc. and PowerOasis Networks, LLC v. Wayport, Inc. Civil Action No. 04-12023 RWZ Cummins-Allison Corp. v. Glory Ltd., Glory Shoji Co., Ltd. and Glory (U.S.A.), Inc. Civil Action No. 2-03-CV-358 (TJW) Mandy N. Haberman v. Playtex Products Inc., Gerber Products Company and WalMart Stores, Inc. Civil Action No. 05-C-0224-S SMART Technologies Inc. v. Polyvision Corporation and Paragram Sales Company, Inc. Civil Action No. 1:04-cv-0713 Kmart Corporation v. Capital One Bank, Capital One F.S.B., Capital One Services, Inc. Case No. 03-055092-CK PolyVision Corporation v. SMART Technologies Inc. and SMART Technologies Corporation Civil Action No. 1:03-cv-0476

Court
U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, Eastern Division

Law Firm
Brinks Hofer Gilson & Lione, P.C.

Type
Patent infringement

Testimony
Dep: 2005 Report(2): 2005, 2006

U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Texas, Marshall Division U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Texas, Fort Worth Division Circuit Court of Eighteenth Judicial Circuit, DuPage County, Illinois, Law Division U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Texas, Marshall Division U.S. District Court for the Western District of Wisconsin U.S. District Court for the Western District of Michigan, Southern Division State of Michigan Circuit Court for the County of Oakland U.S. District Court for the Western District of Michigan, Southern Division

Winston & Strawn LLP

Patent infringement Patent infringement

Report: 2006

Cravath, Swaine & Moore LLP and Morgan & Finnegan, L.L.P. Rader, Fishman & Grauer PLLC

Dep: 2005 Report(2): 2004, 2006

Patent infringement

Dep: 2006 Report: 2006

Seyfarth Shaw LLP

Breach of contract

Dep: 2006 Report(2): 2005

Lahive & Cockfield LLP Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale & Dorr LLP Hogan & Hartson LLP

Patent infringement Patent infringement Patent infringement

Dep: 2006 Report: 2005 Dep: 2006 Report: 2005 Dep: 2005 Report(2): 2005, 2006

Latham & Watkins LLP

Patent infringement

Dep: 2005 Report: 2005

Katten Muchin Rosenman LLP

Patent infringement

Report(2): 2005

Kirkland & Ellis LLP

Breach of contract and trade secret Patent infringement

Dep: 2005

Katten Muchin Rosenman LLP

Report: 2005

underline indicates client

6

Case 5:08-cv-00133-RMW

Document 78-2

Filed 04/08/2008

Page 8 of 17

Julie L. Davis Testimony Experience
Lawsuit
Solutions for Women, LLC v. Warner Health Care, Inc., Berkeley Premium Nutraceuticals, Inc. and Vitaquest International, Inc. d/b/a Garden State Nutritionals, Inc. Case No. CV04-10357 JFW (RCX) Flexi-Mat Corporation v. Dallas Manufacturing Company, Inc., BJ's Wholesale Club, Inc., and Doskocil Manufacturing Company, Inc. Civil Action No. 04 10162 DPW Morton Grove Pharmaceuticals, Inc. v. Pharmaceutical Resources, Inc. and Par Pharmaceuticals, Inc. Civil Action No. 04 C 7007 Windy City Innovations, LLC v. America Online, Inc. Civil Action No. 04 C 4240 Amersham PLC, et al. v. Applera Corporation's Applied Biosystems Division File No. G-04-40 Honeywell International Inc. and Honeywell Intellectual Properties Inc. v. Hamilton Sundstrand Corp. Civil Action No. 03-1153 Advanced Medical Optics, Inc. v. Alcon Laboratories, Inc. and Alcon Manufacturing Ltd. Civil Action No. 03-1095-KAJ Unimed Pharmaceuticals, Inc. and Laboratories Besins Iscovesco v. Watson Pharmaceuticals, Inc. Unimed Pharmaceuticals, Inc. and Laboratories Besins Iscovesco v. Paddock Laboratories, Inc. Case Nos. 1:03-CV-2501 and 1:03-CV2503 Deere & Company v. The Toro Company Civil Action No. 99-4100

Court
U.S. District Court for the Central District of California, Western Division

Law Firm
Wood, Heron and Evans LLP

Type
Patent infringement and trade secret

Testimony
Report: 2005

U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts

Michael Best & Friedrich LLP

Patent infringement

Dep: 2005 Report: 2005

U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, Eastern Division U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, Eastern Division Center for Public Resources Institute for Dispute Resolution U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware

Winston & Strawn LLP

Patent infringement

Dep: 2005 Report: 2005

Banner & Witcoff, Ltd.

Patent infringement Breach of license agreement Patent infringement

Dep: 2005 Report: 2005 Arbitration: 2005 Dep: 2005 Report: 2005 Trial: 2005 Dep(2): 2005 Report(2): 2005 Trial: 2005 Dep: 2004 Report(4): 2004, 2005 Dep: 2005 Report: 2005

Howrey LLP

Kirkland & Ellis LLP

U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware

Kirkland & Ellis LLP

Patent infringement

U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Georgia, Atlanta Division

Mayer, Brown, Rowe & Maw LLP

Patent infringement

U.S. District Court for the Central District of Illinois, Rock Island Division U.S. District Court, District of Maryland, Greenbelt Division

Merchant & Gould

Patent infringement

Arbitration: 2005 Dep: 2004 Report(3): 2001, 2004, 2005 Dep: 2005 Report: 2005

Dr. Marc L. Kozam, d/b/a MLK SOFTWARE and DATASCI, LLC v. Phase Forward Incorporated and Quintiles Inc. Civil Action No. 04-CV-1787 (MJG) Travel Tags, Inc. v Digital Replay, Inc. Case No. 02-4726 MJD/JGL

Kilpatrick & Lockhart Nicholson Graham LLP

Patent infringement

U.S. District Court for the District of Minnesota

Merchant & Gould, P.C.

Patent infringement

Dep: 2005 Report: 2004

underline indicates client

7

Case 5:08-cv-00133-RMW

Document 78-2

Filed 04/08/2008

Page 9 of 17

Julie L. Davis Testimony Experience
Lawsuit
Mars, Inc., et al. v. H.J. Heinz Co., LP Heinz Management Co., and Del Monte Corporation Case No. CV-01-10961 RGK Rodeo Cold Marketing Company and Wyoming West Designs LLC v. Coors Brewing Company Case No. Civ: F-03-5280-AWI DLB Richard J. Ditzik v. Planar Systems, Inc., et al. Civil Action No. 03 ­ 74043 Savient Pharmaceuticals, Inc., et al. v. Duramed Pharmaceuticals, Inc. and Barr Laboratories, Inc. Civil Action No. 00-4509-DMC 3M Innovative Properties Company and 3M Company v. Dentsply International, Inc. Civil Action No. 04 C 0564 S Honeywell International Inc. and Honeywell Intellectual Properties Inc. v. Universal Avionics Systems Corp. and Sandel Avionics, Inc. Civil Action No. 03-242-MPT QinetiQ Limited v. Samsung Telecommunications America, L.P. Civil Action No. 2-03CV-221 Dow AgroSciences LLC v. Crompton Corporation and Uniroyal Chemical Company, Inc. Civil Action No. 1:03-CV-0654-SEBJPG Collaboration Properties, Inc. v. Polycom Inc. and Polycom, Inc. v. Collaboration Properties, Inc. and Avistar Communications Corp. Case No. C02-49591 Yoon Ja Kim v. ConAgra Foods, Inc. Civil Action No. 01 CV 2467 PSN Illinois, LLC v. Oil-Dri Corporation of America Civil Action No. 04C 0915 Motorola, Inc. v. Analog Devices, Inc. Civil Action No. 1:03-CV-0131

Court
U.S. District Court for the Southern District of California, Western Division U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of California U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan, Southern Division U.S. District Court District of New Jersey

Law Firm
Covington & Burling and Kirkland & Ellis LLP

Type
Patent infringement

Testimony
Trial: 2005 Dep: 2003 Report(3): 2003, 2004

Featherstone DeSisto LLP

Trademark infringement

Dep: 2004 Report(2): 2004, 2005

Shaw Pittman LLP

Patent infringement

Report: 2005

Winston & Strawn LLP

Patent infringement

Dep: 2004 Report: 2004

U.S. District Court for the Western District of Wisconsin U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware

Kirkland & Ellis LLP

Patent infringement

Dep: 2004 Report(2): 2004

Kirkland & Ellis LLP and Mayer, Brown, Rowe & Maw LLP

Patent infringement

Trial: 2004 Dep: 2004 Report(4): 2004

U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Texas, Marshall Division U.S. District Court Southern District of Indiana, Indianapolis Division U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California, San Francisco Division U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, Eastern Division U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois U.S. District Court Eastern District of Texas, Beaumont Division

Latham & Watkins LLP Barnes & Thornburg LLP

Patent infringement Patent infringement

Trial: 2004 Report: 2004 Dep: 2004 Report: 2004

Keker & Van Nest LLP

Patent infringement

Report: 2004

Bingham McCutchen LLP Wildman, Harrold, Allen & Dixon LLP Wilmer Culter Pickering Hale and Dorr LLP

Patent infringement Patent infringement Patent infringement

Trial: 2004 Report(2): 2003, 2004 Report: 2004

Dep: 2004 Report(3): 2004

underline indicates client

8

Case 5:08-cv-00133-RMW

Document 78-2

Filed 04/08/2008

Page 10 of 17

Julie L. Davis Testimony Experience
Lawsuit
Syngenta Seeds, Inc. v. Monsanto Company, et al., Pioneer Hi-Bred, et al. Civil Action No. 02-1331 (SLR) Pinpoint Incorporated v. Amazon.com Inc., et al. Civil Action No. 03C-4954 Riverwood International Corporation v. R.A. Jones & Company, Inc. No. 1:98-CV-2840-BBM Do It Best Corp. v. Passport Software, Inc. Case No. 01 C 7674 Arthur D. Little Enterprises, Inc. and The Gillette Company Civil Action No. 11 133 00735 00

Court
U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, Eastern Division U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Georgia, Atlanta Division U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, Eastern Division American Arbitration Association Northeast Case Management Center Riverside, Rhode Island U.S. District Court for the District of South Carolina, Spartanburg Division U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, Eastern Division U.S. District Court for the Southern District of California U.S. District Court for the District of North Dakota, Southeastern Division U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia

Law Firm
Kaye Scholer LLP

Type
Patent infringement Patent infringement Patent infringement

Testimony
Dep: 2004 Report: 2004 Dep: 2004 Report(3): 2004 Trial: 2001 Dep: 2001 Report(2): 2001, 2004 Dep: 2004 Report: 2004 Dep: 2002 Report(2): 2001, 2004

Bartlit Beck Herman Palenchar & Scott LLP Wood, Herron & Evans, LLP and Powell, Goldstein, Frazer & Murphy, LLP Barnes & Thornburg LLP Morgan & Finnegan and Niro, Scavone, Haller & Niro

Copyright infringement Licensing dispute

Milliken & Company v. Interface, Inc., et al. Civil Action No. 7:02-3633-20 Haggerty Enterprises, Inc. v. Creative Motion Industries, Inc. Case No. 02C 8578 Sanyo Energy (USA) Corporation v. BYD Company Limited Case No. 02-CV01900B (JMA) Loegering Mfg. Inc. v. Grouser Products, Inc. and Ronald J. Hoffart Civil Action No. A3-02-008 Rambus, Inc. v. Infineon Technologies AG, et al. Civil Action No. 3:00CV524

Kilpatrick Stockton LLP

Patent infringement

Trial: 2004 Dep: 2003 Report(4): 2003 Report: 2004

Michael Best & Friedrich LLP Hogan & Hartson LLP

Trademark and trade dress infringement Patent infringement Patent infringement

Dep: 2004 Report: 2004 Dep: 2004 Report(2): 2003, 2004

Merchant & Gould

Kirkland & Ellis LLP

Patent infringement, antitrust, breach of contract, fraud and RICO Patent infringement Patent infringement Patent infringement

Dep: 2001 Report(4); 2000, 2001, 2004

Waters Technologies Corporation, et al. v. Applera Corporation Civil Action No. 02-1285-GMS United States Filter Corporation v. Met-Pro Corporation Civil Action No. 02-1491-GMS John Mezzalingua Associates, Inc. d/b/a PPC, Inc. v. Arris International, Inc. Civil Action No. 03 C 0353 C

U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware U.S. District Court for the Western District of Wisconsin

Shaw Pittman LLP

Dep: 2003 Report(2): 2003, 2004 Report: 2003

Hale and Dorr LLP

Bartlit Beck Herman Palenchar & Scott

Trial: 2003 Dep: 2003 Report(3): 2003

underline indicates client

9

Case 5:08-cv-00133-RMW

Document 78-2

Filed 04/08/2008

Page 11 of 17

Julie L. Davis Testimony Experience
Lawsuit
T. Andrew Janes v. Bose Corporation Civil Action No. 02C3886 Johnson Controls Technology Company and Johnson Controls Interiors, L.L.C. v. Donnelly Corporation Case No. 1:02-CV-419 France Telecom, et al. and RSA Security Inc. Arbitration No. 11899/DB In re: Application of: Curt H. Appelgren, et al. Clinical Center Pharmacy, et al. v. IMS Health Incorporated, et al. Case No. 94-L-654 Tanox, Inc. and Genentech, Inc. Civil Action No. 74 Y181 01113 99

Court
U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, Eastern Division U.S. District Court for the Western District of Michigan International Chamber of Commerce, International Court of Arbitration, Paris, France U.S. Patent and Trademark Office U.S. Circuit Court, Twentieth Judicial Circuit, St. Clair County, Illinois American Arbitration Association International Center for Dispute Resolution, San Francisco, California U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware

Law Firm
Fish & Richardson

Type
Patent infringement Patent infringement

Testimony
Report: 2003

Foley & Lardner

Report: 2003

Testa, Hurwitz & Thibeault, LLP

Breach of license agreement Patent application Trade secret

Arbitration: 2003 Report: 2003

Fitzpatrick, Cella, Harper & Scinto Mayer, Brown, Rowe & Maw

Declaration: 2003 Dep: 2003 Report: 2003

Latham & Watkins

Trade secret, breach of contract and unfair competition Patent infringement

Arbitration: 2003 Dep: 2002 Report: 2002

Leon Stambler v. RSA Security Inc., VeriSign Inc., First Data Corporation, Openwave Systems, Inc., OmniSky Corporation, and Certicom Corp. Civil Action No. 01-0065 Susan M. Maxwell v. Meijer, Inc., et al. Civil Action No. IP95-870-C-Y/F Honeywell International Inc. and Honeywell Intellectual Property Inc. v. Solutia, Inc. Civil Action No. 01-423 BorgWarner Inc. and BorgWarner TorqTransfer Systems Inc. v. New Venture Gear Inc. No. 00-C-7470 ACTV, Inc. and HyperTV Networks, Inc. v. The Walt Disney Co., ABC, Inc. and ESPN, Inc. Civil Action No. 00CIV 9622 JSR Hill-Rom, Inc. v. Ohmeda Medical, Inc. No. C.A. IP001500-CY/G

Hale and Dorr LLP

Dep: 2003 Report(2): 2002, 2003

U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Indiana U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware

Baker & Daniels

Patent infringement Patent infringement

Report: 2002

Kirkland & Ellis LLP

Report: 2002

U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, Eastern Division U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Indiana, Indianapolis Division

Brinks Hofer Gilson & Lione

Patent infringement

Dep: 2002 Report: 2002

Weil, Gotshal & Manges LLP

Patent infringement

Dep: 2002 Report: 2002

Barnes & Thornburg

Patent infringement

Dep: 2002 Report(2): 2002

underline indicates client

10

Case 5:08-cv-00133-RMW

Document 78-2

Filed 04/08/2008

Page 12 of 17

Julie L. Davis Testimony Experience
Lawsuit
Bancorp Services, L.L.C. v. Hartford Life Insurance Company and International Corporate Marketing Group, Inc. No. 4:00-CV-0070 Pechiney Plastic Packaging, Inc. v. Continental PET Technologies, Inc. Civil Action No. B90-558 (EBB) TV/Com International, Inc. v. MediaOne of Greater Florida, Inc., Canal Plus Technologies S.A., Canal Plus US Technologies, Inc. and Société Européene de Contrôle d' Accés No. 3:00-CV-1045-J-21 A Residential Funding Corporation v. DeGeorge Financial Corp., et al. No. 3:00CV202 (JBA) Soitec, S.A. and CEA v. Silicon Genesis Corporation No. Civil Action 99-CV-10826 NG Caterpillar, Inc. v. Deere & Company No. 96C 5355 Zevo Golf Co., Inc. v. Karsten Manufacturing Corp., et al. No. 99-CV-2310-H Roxane Laboratories, Inc. v. Unimed Pharmaceuticals, Inc. No. C2 00 125 Pharmacia & Upjohn AB v. Genentech, Inc. No. 10295/AMW/KGA Honeywell International, Inc. and Honeywell Intellectual Properties, Inc. v. Hamilton Sundstrand Corporation No. Civil Action 99-309 (GMS) MorphoSys AG v. Cambridge Antibody Technology, Ltd. No. 1:99CV01012 CCL Container (Hermitage) Inc. v. Exal Corp. No. Civil Action 98-1786 TorPharm, Inc. v. Ranbaxy Pharmaceuticals, Inc., et al. No. 99-714 (JCL)

Court
U.S. District Court for the District of Missouri, Eastern Division

Law Firm
Akin, Gump, Strauss, Hauer & Feld, LLP

Type
Patent infringement and trade secret

Testimony
Trial: 2002 Dep: 2001

U.S. District Court for the District of Connecticut U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Florida, Jacksonville Division

Akin, Gump, Strauss, Hauer & Feld, LLP Oblon, Spivak, McClelland, Maier & Neustadt

Patent infringement Patent infringement

Dep: 2002 Report: 2002 Report: 2001

U.S. District Court for the District of Connecticut U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois U.S. District Court for the Southern District of California U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Ohio, Eastern Division International Chamber of Commerce Arbitration U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware

Bartlit Beck Herman Palenchar & Scott

Breach of contract and unfair trade practices Patent infringement Patent infringement Patent infringement Breach of contract Breach of contract Patent infringement

Trial: 2001 Dep: 2001 Report: 2001 Dep: 2001 Report(2): 2000, 2001 Dep: 1999 Report(4): 1998, 1999, 2001 Dep: 2001 Report: 2001 Dep: 2001 Report(2): 2001 Arbitration: 2001 Report(3): 2000, 2001 Trial: 2001 Dep: 2001 Report(2): 2000, 2001 Dep: 2000 Report(4): 2000, 2001 Dep: 2001 Report: 2000 Report: 2000

Winston & Strawn LLP

Mayer, Brown & Platt

Bryan Cave LLP

Sonnenschein Nath & Rosenthal Latham & Watkins

Kirkland & Ellis LLP

U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia U.S. District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey

Katten Muchin Zavis

Patent infringement Patent infringement Patent infringement

Laff, Whitesel & Saret Ltd. Lord, Bissell & Brook

underline indicates client

11

Case 5:08-cv-00133-RMW

Document 78-2

Filed 04/08/2008

Page 13 of 17

Julie L. Davis Testimony Experience
Lawsuit
Xu Liu v. Price Waterhouse LLP and Computer Language Research, Inc. No. 97 C 3093 Curtis P. Bryant, Kim R. Bryant and Rebecca Meloan v. American Greetings Corporation No. 99-WM-1819 Rotec Industries, Inc. v. Mitsubishi Corporation No. 99-2080 Spalding Sports Worldwide, Inc. v. Wilson Sporting Goods Company No. 98-CV-2855 Newell Operating Company, doing business as and through its division, EZ Paintr Company v. Linzer Products Corporation No. 98-C-0864 Keith S. Champlin, PhD and Midtronics, Inc. v. Actron Manufacturing Company Inc. Civil Action No. 98-CV-06441 Joseph Serfecz & First Chicago Trust Co. v. Jewel Foods Stores, Inc., et al. No. 92 C 4171 First Health Group Corp., formerly known as HealthCare Compare Corp., d/b/a The First Health AFFORDABLE Medical Networks v. United Payors & United Providers, Inc. No. 9 C 2518 Goody Products, Inc. v. The New L&N Sales & Marketing, Inc. and Rommy Hunt Revson Civil Action No. 99C-0724 Lucent Technologies, Inc. v. Newbridge Networks Corporation and Newbridge Networks Inc. No. 97-347 EMI Group North America, Inc. v. Cypress Semiconductor Corporation No. 98-350-RRM Precor Incorporated v. Life Fitness, et al. No. C94-1586C

Court
U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, Eastern Division U.S. District Court for the District of Colorado

Law Firm
Kirkland & Ellis LLP

Type
Copyright infringement Trademark and copyright infringement Trade secret

Testimony
Trial: 2000 Dep: 1998 Report(3): 1998 Report: 2000

Merchant & Gould

U.S. District Court for the Central District of Illinois U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Ohio, Eastern Division U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Wisconsin

Mayer, Brown & Platt

Report: 2000

Seyfarth Shaw

Patent infringement Patent infringement

Report: 2000

Winston & Strawn LLP

Report: 2000

U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, Eastern Division U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, Eastern Division

Sidley & Austin

Patent infringement

Report: 2000

Rock Fusco Reynolds Crowe & Garvey Lynda J. Khan & Associates Kirkland & Ellis LLP

Antitrust restraint of trade and breach of contract Unfair competition

Dep(2): 1993, 1997 Report(3): 1993, 1997, 2000 Dep(2): 1999 Report(2): 1999

U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, Eastern Division U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware

Schiff Hardin & Waite

Patent infringement

Dep: 1999 Report: 1999

Kirkland & Ellis LLP

Patent infringement

Trial: 1999 Dep: 1999 Report(2): 1999, 2000 Trial: 1999 Dep: 1999 Report: 1999 Trial: 1999 Dep(3): 1995, 1996, 1999 Report(3): 1995, 1996, 1999

U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware U.S. District Court for the Western District of Washington at Seattle

Sidley & Austin and Morris, Nichols, Arsht & Tunnell Lane Powell Spears & Lubersky and Bartlit Beck Herman Palenchar & Scott

Patent infringement Patent infringement and unfair competition

underline indicates client

12

Case 5:08-cv-00133-RMW

Document 78-2

Filed 04/08/2008

Page 14 of 17

Julie L. Davis Testimony Experience
Lawsuit
The Regents of the University of California v. Genentech, Inc. No. C 90-2232 CAL AMP Incorporated and The Whitaker Corporation v. Teradyne, Inc. No. 4:CV-98-0975 Investment Holdings, Inc., and its wholly-owned subsidiaries Surface Technical Systems, Inc., Electrolizing, Inc. and ME-92 Operations, Inc. v. Smith & Nephew, Inc. and Harry E. Corl, III Case No. 97-3021 LePage's Incorporated and LePage's Management Co. LLC v. Minnesota Mining and Manufacturing Company (3M) No. 97-CV-3983 Micro Solutions, Inc. v. Hewlett-Packard Company, Micro Solutions, Inc. v. Computer Connections America, Inc., and H45 Technology Corporation Civil Action No. 98 C 50135 Ferndale Laboratories, Inc. v. Block Drug Company, Inc., Reed & Carnrick Division and Schwarz Pharma, Inc. No. 95-CV-12796-DT Hilgraeve Corporation v. McAfee Associates, Inc. (Network Associates) No. 97-74695 Dade Behring Marburg GmbH Syva Company, and Dade Behring, Inc. v. Biosite Diagnostics, Inc. No. 97-501 United Technologies Motors Systems, Inc. v. Borg Warner Automotive, Inc. No. 97-71706 F.C. Cycles International, Inc. v. FILA Sport S.p.A. No. AMD 96-107 Videojet Systems International, Inc. v. Eagle Inks, Inc. and Frank M. Quaglia, Jr. No. 97 C 4505 Smith & Nephew Richards, Inc. v. Zimmer, Inc. No. 94-2479 GBRO

Court
U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Pennsylvania U.S. District Court for the Western District of Tennessee

Law Firm
Rogers & Wells

Type
Patent infringement Patent infringement and trade secret Trade secret

Testimony
Dep: 1998, 1999 Report(2): 1997, 1999 Dep: 1999 Report: 1999 Dep: 1999 Report: 1999

Brinks Hofer Gilson & Lione Fulbright & Jaworski

U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania

Collier, Shannon, Rill & Scott

Antitrust

Trial: 1999 Dep: 1998 Report: 1998

U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, Western Division U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan, Southern Division U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan, Southern Division U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware

Brinks Hofer Gilson & Lione

Patent infringement

Dep: 1999 Report: 1999

Dickinson, Wright, Moon, Van Dusen & Freeman Wilson, Sonsini, Goodrich & Rosati

Breach of contract

Trial: 1999 Dep: 1997 Report(2): 1997, 1999 Report: 1998

Patent infringement

Kaye, Scholer, Fierman, Hays & Handler Brinks Hofer Gilson & Lione

Patent infringement

Dep: 1998 Report: 1998

U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan, Southern Division U.S. District Court for the District of Maryland U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois U.S. District Court for the Western District of Tennessee

Patent infringement

Report: 1998

Dickstein Shapiro Morin & Oshinsky Jones, Day, Reavis & Pogue

Wrongful termination of a license Patent infringement

Dep: 1998 Report: 1998 Report: 1998

Pravel Hewitt Kimball & Krieger

Patent infringement

Dep: 1998 Report(4): 1998

underline indicates client

13

Case 5:08-cv-00133-RMW

Document 78-2

Filed 04/08/2008

Page 15 of 17

Julie L. Davis Testimony Experience
Lawsuit
Alumax, Inc. v. Hot Metal Molding, Inc., Hot Metal Technologies, Inc., Buhler, Inc., Buhler AG, and Ormet Primary Aluminum Corporation No. LR-C-95-486 Time Inc. v. Petersen Publishing Company, LLC Civil Action No. 97 Civ. 5879 (HB) Donald E. Haney v. Timesavers, Inc., et al. No. CV-93-151-HA (Lead) Stryker Corporation v. Davol, Inc. Davol, Inc. v. Stryker Corporation No. 96CV191 Caterpillar, Inc. v. Detroit Diesel Corporation No. 3:95 CV0489 RM Mattel, Inc. v. Thomas Lowe Ventures, Inc., et al. and Thomas Lowe Ventures, Inc., et al. v. Mattel, Inc. No. CV 96-7872 CBM (CWx)

Court
U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Arkansas, Little Rock Division U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York U.S. District Court for the District of Oregon U.S. District Court for the Western District of Michigan, Southern Division U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Indiana, South Bend Division U.S. District Court for the Central District of California

Law Firm
Jones & Askew

Type
Patent infringement

Testimony
Dep: 1998 Report(3): 1998

Kirkland & Ellis LLP

Trademark infringement Patent infringement Patent infringement

Trial: 1998 Dep: 1998 Report(2): 1998 Trial: 1998 Dep: 1997 Report: 1997 Trial: 1998 Dep(2): 1998 Report(6): 1997, 1998 Dep(2): 1997, 1998 Report(2): 1997, 1998

Bartlit Beck Herman Palenchar & Scott Winston & Strawn LLP

Ungaretti & Harris, Barnes & Thornburg, and Howrey & Simon Laff, Whitesel, Conte & Saret

Patent infringement

Copyright, trademark and trade dress infringement, unfair competition, and false advertising Patent infringement

Report(2): 1997

Genentech, Inc. v. Boehringer Mannheim GmbH, and Boehringer Mannheim Corporation No. 96-11090 PBS C&F Packing Co., Inc. v. IBP, Inc., and Pizza Hut, Inc. No. 93 C 1601 Industrial Wire Products, Inc. v. Lee/Rowan Company and Gary Lee No. 4:95 CVO1705CAS Newell Operating Company, doing business as and through its division, EZ Paintr Company v. Wooster Brush Company No. 96-C-511 Albert L. Wokas v. Dresser Industries, Inc. d/b/a Wayne Dresser No. 1:96 CV0297

U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, Eastern Division U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Wisconsin

Rogers & Wells

Dep: 1997 Report: 1997

Schiff Hardin & Waite and Seyfarth Shaw Schiff Hardin & Waite

Patent infringement and trade secret Patent and trademark infringement Patent infringement

Trial: 1998 Dep: 1997 Report: 1996 Report: 1997

Schiff Hardin & Waite

Dep: 1997 Report(2): 1997

U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Indiana, Fort Wayne Division

Bartlit Beck Herman Palenchar & Scott

Patent infringement

Dep: 1997 Report: 1997

underline indicates client

14

Case 5:08-cv-00133-RMW

Document 78-2

Filed 04/08/2008

Page 16 of 17

Julie L. Davis Testimony Experience
Lawsuit
Discovision Associates v. Disc Manufacturing, Inc. consolidated with Disc Manufacturing, Inc. v. Pioneer Electronic Corp., Pioneer Electronics (USA) Inc., Pioneer Electronics Capital, Inc., and Discovision Assoc. Nos. 95-345-SLR and 95-21-SLR PPG Industries, Inc. v. Guardian Industries Corporation No. 94-1112 Gossen Corporation v. Marley Mouldings, Inc. No. 96-C-0351 Sextant Avionique, S.A. v. Analog Devices, Inc. No. C95 2838 SI NeXstar Pharmaceuticals, Inc. v. The Liposome Company, Inc. The Liposome Company, Inc. v. NeXstar Pharmaceuticals, Inc. and Fujisawa USA, Inc. Civil Action No. 93-232 (RRM) Avon Products, Inc. v. S.C. Johnson & Son, Inc. 94 Civ. 3958 (AGS) Symtron Systems, Inc. v. Contraves, Inc. No. 94-4109 (AMW) Ajinomoto Co., Inc. v. Archer Daniels Midland Co. No. 95-218 (SLR) General Signal Corporation v. Applied Materials, Inc. No. 94-461 Dade International, Inc. v. Electronic Data Systems Corporation No. 95-1293 O.I. Corporation v. Tekmar Company No. G-95-113

Court
U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware

Law Firm
Brinks Hofer Gilson & Lione

Type
Antitrust and unfair competition

Testimony
Dep: 1997 Report: 1997

U.S. District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Wisconsin U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware

Kirkland & Ellis LLP

Patent infringement Patent infringement Patent infringement Patent infringement

Trial: 1997 Report(2): 1997 Dep(2): 1997 Report: 1997 Dep: 1997 Report: 1997 Report(2): 1997

Leydig, Voit & Mayer, Ltd. Fried, Frank, Harris, Shriver & Jacobson Rogers & Wells

U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware U.S. District Court for the Southern D