ALEXANDER J. HADJIS, Partner

Alexander J. Hadjis is a trial lawyer and partner in the Patent Litigation and Counseling Practice. Clients faced with high-stakes patent disputes before the federal district courts or the Internal Trade Commission rely on Mr. Hadjis’s experience, responsiveness, and winning track record.

Mr. Hadjis focuses his practice on intellectual property litigation, cases involving standards, and cases involving the interface between intellectual property and antitrust law. He has handled patent, cases in many cutting-edge industries, including semiconductors, telecommunications, medical devices, and software.

Mr. Hadjis served as lead counsel in many noteworthy cases. He has successfully tried and litigated cases for companies such as Cypress Semiconductor, Freescale, Genesis Microchip, Huawei, Intel, Roku, Spansion, ALEXANDER J. HADJIS and Thomson . His representative lead counsel trial Partner victories include: WASHINGTON, DC Office: 202 639-6036 Defense win for Roku for which he is responsible for a complete non- Fax: 202 639-6066 infringement verdict in a trial in the Waco Division of the Western District of Email: [email protected] Texas PRACTICE GROUPS Intellectual Property Defense win against Philips, where he successfully employed an antitrust- ITC Section 337 based patent misuse defense that pertained to patents from a patent Japan Practice pooling arrangement that reportedly garnered over $1 billion in revenues Patent Litigation and Counseling INDUSTRY GROUPS Plaintiff win for Genesis Microchip for which he was responsible for Life Sciences obtaining an injunction against the entire LCD controller product line of EDUCATION MStar Semiconductor The George Washington University Law School, Master of Laws in IP, 1996 Mr. Hadjis is consistently recognized as a leading intellectual property litigator University of Pittsburgh, JD, 1993 by notable independent commentators, including Chambers USA, Chambers The Ohio State University, BS in Electrical Global, Legal 500, IAM Patent 1000, Super Lawyers, and The Washington Post. Engineering, 1990 They have noted that he is a “standout name . . . winning praise for his litigation ADMISSIONS prowess before district and federal courts as well as the ITC,” an “outstanding District of Columbia attorney who knows how to make an impact,” a “sharp and experienced lawyer,” Virginia and “one of those leaders who people gladly follow.” .” In 2021, Law360 named him an MVP in intellectual property. Mr. Hadjis is a Fellow of the American Bar COURT ADMISSIONS US Patent and Trademark Office Foundation. US District Court, Eastern District of Mr. Hadjis regularly speaks about intellectual property issues at conferences Michigan and other events around the globe. JUDICIAL CLERKSHIPS Hon. Wilson Cowen, US Court of Appeals, Representative trial and litigation experience: Federal Circuit

Trial Experience

MV3 Partners v. Roku (Western District of Texas). Lead counsel for Roku in a patent suit on streaming media player and TV technology against MV3 Partners.

©Copyright 2021 Jenner & Block LLP. Jenner & Block is an Illinois Limited Liability Partnership including professional corporations. MediaTek Inc. v. Freescale Semiconductor, Inc. (Northern District of California). Lead counsel for Freescale against MediaTek in this multi-patent case involving semiconductor bus arbitration technology and power management technology. Successfully defended Freescale through trial against all four of the patents asserted by MediaTek. This case settled favorably, along with several other cases between the parties, as a result of the trial and before a verdict was rendered.

Certain Electronic Imaging Devices (International Trade Commission, 337-TA-850, and District of Delaware). Lead counsel for Huawei in these multi-patent cases initiated by FlashPoint Technology, Inc. The cases involved three patents directed to mobile imaging technology used in handsets, tablets, and other mobile devices. Successfully defended Huawei through a full trial and a final decision against all of the patents asserted by FlashPoint.

Certain Light-Emitting Diodes and Products Containing Same (International Trade Commission, 337-TA-798, 337-TA- 785, and District of Delaware). Lead counsel for Osram against and LG. These multi-patent cases, which involved LED technology, included both offensive and defensive actions. The cases settled favorably after a full trial.

Certain Electronic Digital Media Devices (International Trade Commission, 337-TA-796). Counsel for complainant Apple. This was a high-profile multi-patent case against Samsung involving software and hardware smartphone technology. The case ended, after a full trial, with a decision in favor of Apple and an exclusion order against Samsung.

Certain Semiconductor Chips and Products Containing Same (International Trade Commission, 337-TA-753). Lead counsel for Hitachi Global Storage Technologies through a full trial against Rambus. This six-patent case, which was initiated by Rambus, involved DRAM controller and host interface technology. After the ITC finalized its decision of no violation, the case settled favorably for Hitachi Global Storage Technologies.

Certain Liquid Crystal Display Modules, Products Containing Same and Methods for Using Same (International Trade Commission, 337-TA-634). Counsel for complainant Sharp in a multi-patent litigation against Samsung pertaining to liquid crystal display and other electronic devices. Successfully defended the case through a full trial.

Certain Liquid Crystal Display Devices and Products Containing Same (International Trade Commission, 337-TA- 631). Counsel for Sharp in this multi-patent litigation against Samsung pertaining to liquid crystal display televisions. Successfully prosecuted the case through a full trial.

Certain Semiconductor Chips With Minimized Chip Package Size and Products Containing Same (International Trade Commission, 337-TA-605). Lead counsel for Spansion against Tessera. Defended Spansion through a full trial. Prior to trial, argued and obtained a stay, based on parallel reexamination proceedings, from the trial judge in this multi- patent semiconductor chip case.

Certain Color Receivers and Color Display Monitors and Components Thereof (International Trade Commission, 337-TA-534). Lead trial counsel for Thomson. Successfully prosecuted patent infringement claims through a full trial in a multi-patent suit against BenQ Corporation and AU Optronics Corporation. The case settled favorably for Thomson before a decision issued. The case involved LCD panel processing and circuitry technology.

Certain Optical Disk Controller Chips and Chipsets and Products Containing Same, Including DVD Players and PC Optical Storage Devices (International Trade Commission, 337-TA-523). Lead counsel for MediaTek Inc. Represented MediaTek against Zoran Corporation, Oak Technology, Inc., and Sunext Technology Co., Ltd. in a multi- patent suit involving optical disc drive controller technology.

Certain Display Controllers and Products Containing Same (International Trade Commission, 337-TA-491). Lead counsel for Genesis Microchip. Successfully prosecuted patent infringement claims against MStar Semiconductor, Inc. and Media Reality Technologies, Inc. through a full trial. Obtained an exclusion order after the administrative law judge's decision was reviewed and adopted by the full Commission. The case involved semiconductor and LCD panel controller technology.

2 Certain Recordable Compact Discs and Rewritable Compact Discs (International Trade Commission, 337-TA-474). Lead counsel for Princo Corporation, Gigastorage Corporation, and Linberg Enterprises. Successfully defended Princo, Gigastorage, and Linberg through a full trial against patent infringement claims of Philips. All six of the patents that Philips asserted were part of a billion-dollar patent pool and were deemed unenforceable due to an antitrust- based patent misuse defense. The case involved optical storage medium and CD-R and CD-RW technology.

Certain Integrated Repeaters, Switches, Transceivers and Products Containing Same (International Trade Commission, 337-TA-435). Successfully prosecuted patent infringement claims for Intel against Altima Communications through a full trial. Lead lawyer for Intel on the patent that covered the Altima products at issue, and obtained an exclusion order covering those products. The case involved semiconductor packaging technology.

Certain SDRAMs, DRAMs, ASICs, RAM-and-Logic Chips, Microprocessors, Microcontrollers, Processes for Manufacturing Same, and Products Containing Same (International Trade Commission. 337-TA-404). Successfully prosecuted patent infringement claims through a full trial. The case settled favorably for the client before the administrative law judge issued a decision. The case involved semiconductor and memory technology.

Significant Litigation Experience

Plastic Omnium v. Donghee (District of Delaware). Counsel for Plastic Omnium in a multi-patent suit on automobile fuel tank technology against Donghee. The litigation between the companies is on-going.

Frequency Systems, LLC v. IOGear, Inc. et al. (Eastern District of Texas). Lead counsel for ATEN Technology, ATEN International, and IOGear (collectively, "ATEN") against patent infringement allegations brought by Frequency Systems in the Eastern District of Texas related to wireless voice and data communications, and is directed to techniques to select an antenna from a plurality of antennae used for wireless communications. The case is ongoing.

MAKO Surgical v. Stanmore Implants Worldwide (District of Massachusetts, Northern District of California, and International Trade Commission, 337-TA-2945). Lead counsel for MAKO Surgical in a series of cases initiated by MAKO in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California, the U.S. District Court of Massachusetts, and the U.S. International Trade Commission against Stanmore Implants Worldwide. The cases were focused on patents covering robotic surgical systems and software designed to be used by surgeons for automated knee and hip implant procedures. Successfully prevented Stanmore from entering the U.S. market with robotic surgical knee and hip implant systems.

Certain Sintered Rare Earth Magnets, Methods of Making Same, and Products Containing Same (International Trade Commission, 337-TA-855). Lead counsel for Hitachi Metals against over thirty respondents in a multi-patent case pertaining to the composition and manufacture of rare earth magnets. After obtaining a favorable Markman ruling, this litigation settled favorably prior to trial.

Advanced Display Technologies of Texas, LLC v. Sharp Corp., et al. (Eastern District of Texas). Counsel for Sharp in this multi-patent case brought by Advanced Display Technologies. The case involved LCD panel technology.

Certain Liquid Crystal Display Devices, Including Monitors, Televisions, and Modules, and Components Thereof (International Trade Commission, 337-TA-741). Lead counsel for Thomson against Chimei Innolux, Qisda, BenQ, MStar Semiconductor, and Realtek Semiconductor. This multi-patent case involved LCD panel and LCD controller technology.

Certain Articulated Coordinate Measuring Arms and Components Thereof (International Trade Commission, 337-TA- 684). Lead counsel for Metris against Hexagon Metrology. This case, which was brought by Hexagon Metrology, involved precise, computer-driven measuring systems.

Baltimore Aircoil Co., Inc. v. Evapco, Inc. (District of Maryland). Lead counsel for Evapco in this multi-patent suit involving industrial heat exchange technology.

3 Clearwater Systems Corp. v. Evapco, Inc., et al. (District of Connecticut). Lead patent counsel for Evapco against Clearwater in this multi-patent case involving non-chemical, electronic water treatment technology. After obtaining a favorable Markman ruling, obtained summary judgment of non-infringement on one asserted patent and summary judgment of invalidity on the other asserted patent.

Enhanced Security Research, LLC v. Sourcefire, Inc. (District of Delaware). Lead counsel for Sourcefire in this multi- patent suit initiated by Enhanced Security Research. The case involved computer network security software.

Enhanced Security Research, LLC v. Sourcefire, Inc. (District of Delaware). Lead counsel for Sourcefire in this multi- patent suit initiated by Enhanced Security Research. The case involved computer network security software.

Fast Memory Erase, LLC v. Spansion Inc., et al. (Northern District of Texas). Lead counsel for Spansion. This case involves non-volatile memory erase operation technology.

Fastenetix, LLC v. Medtronic Sofamor Danek, Inc., Medtronic Sofamor Danek USA, Inc., et al. (District of New Jersey). Lead patent counsel for Fastenetix. Represented Fastenetix against Medtronic in this high-stakes, multi- patent case on pedicle screw spine implant technology, and obtained a favorable Markman order for Fastenetix. The case successfully settled for $125 million for Fastenetix after the Markman order issued and prior to trial.

TimeCertain, LLC v. AuthentiDate Holding Corp. and AuthentiDate, Inc. (Middle District of Florida). Lead counsel for AuthentiDate against TimeCertain. Successfully defended AuthentiDate in this multi-patent suit by obtaining a Markman order that was dispositive of non-infringement, and that led to a successful settlement. The case involved software cryptography technology.

Certain Baseband Processor Chips and Chipsets, Transmitter and Receiver (Radio) Chips, Power Control Chips, and Products Containing Same, Including Cellular Telephone Handsets (International Trade Commission, 337-TA-543). Represented Broadcom in connection with this multi-patent action. The matter involved cellular chipset technology.

Matsushita Electrical Industrial Co., Ltd. v. CMC Magnetics Corp., HotanCorp., KHyperMediaCorp. (Northern District of California). Lead counsel for CMC Magnetics, Hotan, and KHyperMedia. Successfully defended CMC Magnetics, Hotan, and KHyperMedia in a three patent suit brought by Matsushita on recordable and rewritable optical disc technology. The case settled favorably for the defendants.

MicroUnity Systems Engineering, Inc. v. Intel Corp. (Eastern District of Texas). Successfully defended Intel against patent infringement claims in a multi-patent case brought by MicroUnity. This case involved microprocessor and microprocessor chipset technology.

Certain Semiconductor Timing Signal Generator Devices, Components Thereof, and Products Containing Same; Certain Power Saving Integrated Circuits and Products Containing Same (International Trade Commission, 337-TA- 465, 337-TA- 463). Successfully represented Cypress Semiconductor as patentee/complainant and respondent against Systems. One of the two ICS patents at issue was eliminated from the case as a result of a summary determination motion. The case settled favorably for Cypress, as, among other things, ICS agreed to stop selling an entire line of products. The case involved standard-setting defenses and semiconductor and phase-lock loop (PLL) technology.

Intel Corp. v. Broadcom Corp. (District of Delaware). Represented Intel. Successfully prosecuted patent infringement claims against Broadcom. This case settled and involved standard setting defenses and semiconductor packaging technology.

Altima Communications, Inc., v. Intel Corporation (Northern District of California). Lead counsel for Intel. Successfully prosecuted patent infringement claims for Intel against Altima Communications. This case settled and involved semiconductor packaging technology.

4 Atmel Corp. v. STMicroelectronics, Inc.; STMicroelectronics, Inc. v. Atmel Corp. (District of Delaware, Northern District of Texas). Represented Atmel against STMicroelectronics. A total of 17 patents involving memory and microcontroller chips were asserted in both cases. Cases settled favorably.

Vocus, Inc. v. Cypress Semiconductor Corporation (Maryland State Court). Lead counsel for Cypress Semiconductor. Represented Cypress against Vocus in a breach of contract action involving software. Case settled favorably.

Telecom Technical Servs. v. Siemens Rolm Communications (Northern District of Georgia). Defended Siemens against -based antitrust claims brought by independent service organizations and prosecuted multiple patents against the ISOs. The case was decided in favor of Siemens on summary judgment. This case involved telecommunications and PBX technology.

PMC and Gemstar v. Scientific Atlanta (Northern District of Georgia). Prosecuted patent infringement claims for Gemstar against Scientific Atlanta in a seven-patent case involving cable set-top box and media broadcasting technology.

Xerox Corp. v. Mita Copystar Am. Inc. (Northern District of New York). Represented Xerox. Prosecuted multiple xerography patents against Mita. Case settled favorably.

Asha Corp. v. Dana Corp. (Eastern District of Michigan). Defended Dana against Asha. Patent and breach of contract case involving automotive component and limited slip differential technology.

MCI Corp. v. AT&T Am. Transtech, Inc.(Eastern District of Pennsylvania). Defended Cincinnati Bell against MCL Multi-patent case involving telecommunicationtechnology. Case settled favorably.

Premier Networks v. Quest (Northern District of Illinois). Defended Quest against Premier Networks. Multi-patent case involving telecommunications technology.

Awards

Chambers Global International Trade: Intellectual Property (Section 337) - Leading Individual - Band 3, 2018

Chambers USA Intellectual Property (District of Columbia), 2004-2017 International Trade: Intellectual Property (Section 337), 2012-2013 International Trade (Nationwide), 2013-2016

The Best Lawyers in America Litigation - Intellectual Property, 2020, 2021, 2022

Service To The Bar:

Federal Circuit Bar Association

American Intellectual Property Law Association

American Bar Association

American Bar Foundation Fellow

5 Publications

"The Federal Circuit Reverses the ITC and Concludes It Does Not Have Jurisdiction Over Digital File Transmissions Under Section 337", November 17, 2015

"The Suprema Federal Circuit En Banc Hearing: The Full Court's Decision May Impact the ITC's Remedial Authority", February 20, 2015

"Are Questions Of Fact Being Overlooked In Software Cases?", January 12, 2015

"Aereo Decision: When Innovation Looks Like Imitation", June 25, 2014

"An Exceptional Decision: The ITC Stays Cease and Desist Orders Issued in the Dental Position Adjustment Appliances Investigation", June 17, 2014

"Full Federal Circuit Vacates Panel Decision in Suprema and Grants Petitions for Rehearing En Banc", May 20, 2014

"Federal Circuit Rules No Per Se Prohibition Against Injunctions for FRAND-Encumbered Standard Essential Patents", April 30, 2014

"The ITC Has Jurisdiction Over Digital File Transmissions Under Section 337", April 21, 2014

"The Federal Circuit Considers Petitions for Rehearing Suprema â Its Decision Defining The ITC's Authority to Police Induced Infringement", April 7, 2014

"FTC Targets Abuse of Standard-Setting Bodies", October 19, 2009

Chapter - "Making an Impact on the Entire Case Through Effective Markman Hearings", January 9, 2007

"Ann Odd Year", January 1, 2005

"Patent Pools Gain Popularity", December 6, 2004

"Odetics and Kahn: Has the Federal Circuit Unnecessarily Unearthed a Monster?", January 1, 2000

Speaking Engagements

“Litigating Trade Secret Claims at the International Trade Commission: The Advantages, Disadvantages, and Special Requirements of Trade Secret-Based Section 337 Investigations,” Webinar, April 27, 2021

Panelist, “COVID-19 and the Practice of IP Law: Litigation,” Texas Bar, February 04, 2021

2019 ABA-IPL Annual Meeting and 34th Intellectual Property Law Conference, April 10, 2019 to December 04, 2019

40th Global IP Confex, February 28, 2018

Patent Law and Policy 2017: Courts, Congress and the Monetisation Landscape, November 14, 2017

Practising Law Institute's USPTO Post-Grant Patent Trials 2017, October 25, 2017

The Knowledge Group - Understanding the Law of Joint Ownership of Patents - Right to Impede Infringement Suits in 2015, June 04, 2015

"Preparing for Enforcement Litigation," The IP Strategy Summit: IP Enforcement, March 19, 2015

IP Enforcement: 2015, March 19, 2015

6 NJIPLA & NYIPLA Joint Program: Intellectual Property Protection in China from A-Z, February 12, 2015

"Chinese Infringements at Home - U.S. Border Control," NJIPLA & NYIPLA Joint Program: Intellectual Property Protection in China from A-Z, February 02, 2015

The Federal Circuit Bar Association - Bench & Bar Conference, July 18, 2014

Federal Circuit Decisions in 2014: Patent Infringement Reasonable Royalty Damages Strategies, July 08, 2014

A Discussion on Silicon Alley and New York Competitiveness, June 13, 2014

"Utilizing the ITC in Your Enforcement Program," The IP Strategy Summit: IP Enforcement, June 10, 2014

"Inside the International Trade Commission," The Litigation Summit and Exposition 2012, November 12, 2012

"Protecting Intellectual Property - Featuring David Kappos," WMACCA Technology and IP Forum, October 24, 2012

UNLV School of Law and International Game Technology IP Seminar, September 23, 2011

"Protecting Intellectual Property - Featuring David Kappos," WMACCA Technology and IP Forum, September 07, 2011

Broadcom v. : Updates of the Federal Appeal, and the Overall Status of Downstream Products - American Conference Institute, January 27, 2009

"Whether and Where to Sue; Special Problems with Foreign Discovery," Enforcement of IP Rights at the Border Conference, September 01, 2005

The Effect of Patent Pooling and the Recordable and Rewritable CDs Case - American Intellectual Property Law Association Annual Meeting, October 01, 2004

Patent Misuse and the Recordable and Rewritable CDs Case - Sixth Federal Circuit Bench and Bar Conference, June 01, 2004

Can One Bad Pool Spoil the Party? The Recordable and Rewritable CDs Case - Chinese National Federation of Industries, May 01, 2004

7