An Introduction to our Appellate Practice

1. An Introduction to our Appellate Practice Prepared for:

2. Overview Firm Background Litigation/Appellate Expertise Representative Appeals Selected Attorneys

3. Fish Background

4. Historical Impact Since our founding in 1878, we have been an IP-focused law firm. Our attorneys have represented many of history’s leading innovators. 2015 Adobe Systems turns to Fish to defend it against patent infringement allegations against its renowned Photoshop software. A jury found no liability for Adobe. 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

5. Modern Excellence Repeatedly recognized by industry publications for firm wide and individual attorney excellence. Elite Ranking in All IP Disciplines by Best Lawyers and US News & World Report Top Patent Litigation Firm for 12 Consecutive Years by Corporate Counsel Top Ranking in Patent Prosecution by Managing Intellectual Property Named a top trademark law firm by World Trademark Review Top Patent Litigation Firm for 10 Consecutive Years by Corporate Counsel

6. Seamless International Capacity 11 Offices Nationwide, 1 European Office

7. 400+ Professionals 26 Former Circuit Clerks 50 Technology Specialists 213 U.S. Registered Patent Attorneys & Agents 72 Former Circuit Clerks 350 Attorneys 87 PhD's with Multiple Areas of Expertise 227 U.S. Registered Patent Attorneys & Agents 50 Technology Specialists 77 Ph.D.’s 348 Attorneys in Offices Across the U.S. and in Germany

8. Inclusivity. Opportunity. Innovation. As a firm that serves the world’s 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.

9. Fish’s Diversity Initiatives • Affinity Groups – A set of internal resource groups for legal staff with common interests and backgrounds, which foster a sense of community and inclusion – Asian Legal Staff, Black Legal Staff, GLBT and Hispanic Latino Legal Staff. • EMPOWER – Our firmwideinitiative that is meant to promote the recruitment, retention, and advancement of the firm’s female legal staff. • 1L Diversity Fellowship Program – Provides annual fellowship to diverse first-year law students throughout the country. • OnRamp Fellowship Program – A unique re-entry program that matches experienced women lawyers returning to the workforce with law firms for a one-year paid position.

10. Recognized Leader in Diversity Top 25 Best Law Firms for Diversity: Diversity for Military Veterans Vault 2016 Top 25 Best Law Firms for Diversity: Diversity for Individuals with Disabilities Vault 2016 Ranked in the Top 20% of Law Firms for DiversityAmerican Lawyer Diversity Scorecard 2015 Ranked #26 on the List of “Top 100 Law Firms for Minority Attorneys” and#19 on “Top 25 Firms for Asian-American Attorneys” Law 360 2015 Awarded the Top Rating of 100% for the Treatment of LGBT Employees in the Workplace Human Rights Campaign Corporate Equality Index 2015 Ranked #33 Out of 233 Law Firms, Placing Us in the Top 15% American Lawyer Diversity Scorecard 2014 Named to the Do Good, Do Well List for Excellence in Both Diversity and Profitability Minority Corporate Counsel Association 2013-2014

11. Litigation/Appellate Expertise

12. #1 in Patent Litigation Experience For 12 straight years, Fish has handled more patent litigation than any other firm, as highlighted in Corporate Counsel magazine. In 2015 Corporate Counsel recognized that Fish’s 201 federal district court patent cases the year before meant it handled twice as many cases as our nearest competitor. Having the most experience gives Fish the tools to efficiently handle your patent litigation matters. Fish has been named the top patent litigation defense firm in the U.S. in 2015 according to Lex Machina’s recent Patent Litigation Year in Review analysis.

13. Recognized Leader – Patent Litigation IP Litigation “Law Firm of the Year” U.S. News & Best Lawyers 2013, 2014, 2016 Tier 1 National Ranking for Patent Litigation in Managing Intellectual Property’s Survey 2011-2016 #1 Patent Litigation Firm Corporate Counsel 2004-2015 Patent Litigation “Law Firm of the Year” U.S. News & Best Lawyers 2015 Busiest Patent Defense Firm Law360 2015 IP Litigation PowerhouseBTI Consulting Group 2011, 2015 Top Tier 1 National Rankings in Patent Litigation The Legal 500 2012-2015 Intellectual Property Hot List National Law Journal 2012-2015 Appellate Hot List National Law Journal 2008-2009, 2013-2015 Finalist, “Litigation Department of the Year” The American Lawyer 2010, 2014 #1 Busiest Patent Litigation FirmLaw360 2014 IP Practice Group of the Year Law360 2012-2014

14. Fish’s Appellate Practice Named to the Appellate Hot List by the National Law Journal in 2015, 2014, 2013, 2009, 2008

15. Fish’s Appellate Practice

16. Our Appellate Philosophy Brief writing is key to success on appeal. The key to brief writing in a patent case is the ability to master technical subject matter and communicate it clearly. The trial team is key to an efficient appeal and to making sure nothing is missed. A fresh look on appeal is critical, so it is important to brief in new minds on appeal, and to “mock” briefs and oral argument. Fish’s 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.

17. Representative Appellate Clients

18. Representative Appeals

19. 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 HP’s 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 APM’s appeal and affirmed the ITC’s imposition of a General Exclusion Order.

20. 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.

21. 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.

22. 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 Allergan’s 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.

23. 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 Fish’s win at the Federal Circuit absolved Google from any possible liability.

24. 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 nData’s 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.

25. 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 in-house lawyers at branded companies would have been faced with the Hobson’s choice of advising their clients on either litigation or FDA matters, but not both. The Federal Circuit affirmed the D. Del. court’s decision not to require such a protective order.

26. 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.

27. Representative Appeals In re Cyclobenzaprine676 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 Cephalon’s $140-million-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 Hatch-Waxman Act, and that has now finally been resolved in branded pharmaceutical’s favor. 

28. Selected Attorneys

29. Attorney 1

30. Attorney 2

31. Thank you! Attorney 1 Title ###-###-#### emailaddress@fr.com • Attorney 2 • Title • ###-###-#### • emailaddress@fr.com