Send to a friend

Evette D. Pennypacker is a Partner in the Silicon Valley office of Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan, LLP.  Evette’s practice focuses primarily on intellectual property matters, including patent, copyright and trademark infringement, unfair competition, and trade secret misappropriation cases.  Evette also litigates complex business cases, including partnership, contract and consumer class action lawsuits.  Evette has litigated intellectual property and business cases in jurisdictions throughout the country, including in California, D.C., Delaware, Massachusetts, New Jersey, New York, Pennsylvania, Texas, Virginia, Washington, and Wisconsin.

Ms. Pennypacker has represented a wide variety of software, gaming, telephony, and other technology companies, including, Zynga, Google, Match.com, LinkedIn, Disney, Motorola, Clearwire, IAC, Dassault SolidWorks, Skype, Corel, Sega, Capcom, Electronic Arts, Intuit, AOL, Maxwell, LendingTree, Good Technology, RealNetworks, GameTech International and Corbis in patent, copyright, trade secret, trademark, false advertising, unfair competition, class action, breach of contract and other commercial disputes.

Representative Patent Matters

Evette has extensive patent litigation experience in jurisdictions throughout the United States.  She has litigated patents directed to a wide variety of technologies, including all types of software, networking, cell phone, semiconductor, packaging, gaming and storage technologies for both individual and groups of defendants.  She also has substantial experience working with multi-defendant groups ranging up to 30 defendants.  Evette’s patent cases include:

• In In re Certain Semiconductor Chips, Investigation No. 337-TA-753, Evette represents Motorola in patent infringement claims brought by Rambus in the ITC.  Evette was able to obtain dismissal of one Motorola entity before discovery and a stipulation that narrowed discovery and the products at issue significantly decreasing litigation costs for Motorola.

• In Bedrock Computer Technologies v. Softlayer et al (E.D. Tex. 2011), Evette represented Google and Match.com who were accused of infringing a patent covering on-the-fly deletion of expired records in a data base. Bedrock asked the jury for $183 million; the jury awarded $5 million, one of the lowest plaintiff-side verdicts out of Tyler, Texas.

• In Board of Regents of the University of Texas System v. BENQ America Corp., 533 F.3d 1362, 87 USPQ2d 1437 (Fed. Cir. 2008), Evette obtained summary judgment of non-infringement for 30 cell phone companies in multi-defendant patent action brought by the University of Texas in the Western District of Texas involving patents relating to text input on limited keyboards.  The Federal Circuit affirmed the district court's ruling in all respect.

• In Planet Bingo, LLC v. GameTech International, Inc., 472 F.3d 1338 (Fed. Cir. 2006), Evette obtained summary judgment of non-infringement and invalidity (using summary judgment style motions in limine) in the District of Nevada for GameTech International, Inc. in a case involving two bingo game method patents.  The Federal Circuit affirmed these victories in all respects.

• In Friskit Inc. v. RealNetworks Inc. and Listen.com (N.D.  Cal. 2007), Evette was part of a team that obtained summary judgment of obviousness in the Northern District of California on four patents involving streaming media for RealNetworks in one of the first district court post-KSR decisions.

• In Software Restore Solutions v. Apple et al. (N.D. Ill 2010), Evette successfully settled patent infringement claims concerning software configuration and resetting technology brought by an Acacia subsidiary for ten companies, including Capcom, Citrix, Corel, Dassault Systemes, Electronic Arts, Intuit, Sega, Skype and THQ.  The case settled for an order of magnitude less than what plaintiff originally demanded.

• In Spark Networks USA v. Humor Rainbow et al (C.D. Cal. 2011), Evette represented a Match.com subsidiary in a patent suit filed by the owners of JDate, over a patent purporting to cover all matching over the Internet. 

• In Openwave v. 724 Solutions (N.D. Cal 2009), Evette represented 724 Solutions and its successor Mobixell in an 8-patent patent infringement lawsuit concerning wireless and WAP1 technology.

• In two separate lawsuits — Stragent, Inc. and SeeSaw Foundation v. Match.com et al and Stragent, Inc. and SeeSaw Foundation v. ClassMates.com et al (E.D. Tex 2010) — Evette represented ten companies, including eHarmony, ESPN, Fox, Gannett, LinkedIn, Match.com, MTV and Skype in a case involving patent infringement charges by a Kevin Zilka-controlled NPE; the patent related to the field of telecommunications and caller-identity data transmission. The case settled for a small fraction of plaintiff's original demand.

• In Hark Chan and TechSearch LLC, Inc. v. Intuit, Inc. et al. (N.D. Cal. 2003), Evette successfully represented Electronic Arts and Intuit in a patent infringement action involving remote storage. The matter settled for nuisance value after a favorable claim construction.

• In Disc Link v. Oracle, et al. (E.D. Tex. 2007), Evette represented ten companies, including Oracle, SolidWorks, Avid Technology, Compuware, Borland in patent litigation filed by an Acacia Corporation subsidiary, involving data base technology.

• In four different lawsuits between Kraft Foods and The Procter & Gamble Company (filed in N.D. Cal, 2007, W.D. Wisc 2008 and D. Ohio 2008), Evette represented Kraft in patent infringement lawsuits involving plastic coffee container technology. Evette was part of a team that successfully obtained stays of P&G's suits pending re-examination of one of the patents in suit.

• In Symyx Technologies, Inc. v. Accelergy Corp. (N.D. Cal. 2007), Evette represented Symyx in a patent infringement and breach of contract suit against its competitor Accelergy Corporation. The case settled favorably.

• In Good Technology, Inc. v. Research in Motion Ltd. (N.D. Cal 2001) and Research in Motion Ltd. v. Good Technology, Inc. (D. Del. 2001) Evette represented Good Technology in patent, copyright and trademark infringement actions in the wireless/email area.

• In LendingTree LLC v. LowerMyBills, Inc. (W.D. N. Carolina), Evette represented LendingTree in a patent infringement suit against its competitor LowerMyBills, involving online loan matching technology. The case settled very favorably to LendingTree.

• In David Sitrick v. Electronic Arts (N.D.Cal. 2001), Evette was part of a team that represented Electronic Arts in a patent suit involving multi-player gaming. The case settled for nuisance value after the team identified previously undiscovered “killer” prior art.

• In Aladdin Knowledge Systems v. Finjan Software, Ltd. et al. (S.D.N.Y. 2008) and in Finjan Software, Inc. v. Aladdin Knowledge Systems (D. Del. 2008), Evette represented Aladdin Knowledge Systems in two separate internet/software security patent suits (involving claims in 5 different patents) against competitor Finjan. The case settled with no admission of liability by Aladdin and no payment of money to Finjan.

• In Adaptix v. Clearwire (E.D. Tex. 2009), Evette successfully represented Clearwire and Sprint in a 7 patent case involving 4G wireless technology.  Case settled favorably after targeted discovery and early mediation demonstrated non-infringement.

• In Stragent v. Nokia (E.D. Tex 2008), Evette obtained favorable settlements for Motorola and Palm in patent case involving cell phone data storage brought by Stragent in the Eastern District of Texas.

• In Implicit v. RealNetworks (W. Wash. 2008), Evette obtained stay after reexam and favorable settlement for RealNetworks in a Western District of Washington case brought by Implicit Networks involving data transfer patents.

• In Advanced Video Technologies v. Pure Digital (S.D.N.Y 2008), Evette obtained a favorable settlement for Pure Digital in patent case relating to video compression/decompression chips.

• In Sky Technologies v. Microsoft (D. Mass. 2011), Evette currently represents four Dassault entities in patent litigation relating to negotiation software.

• In Klausner v. Clearwire (E.D. Tex. 2011), Evette currently represents Clearwire in patent litigation involving visual voicemail technology.

Representative Trademark Matters

Evette has been involved in a variety of trademark infringement and false advertising matters ranging from domain name disputes to the novel question of the predictability of file extensions under the Lanham Act or the propriety of using trademarked terms in Google’s keyword advertising program.  Some of Evette’s trademark litigation matters include:

• In Rosetta Stone v. Google, 730 F.Supp.2d 531 (E.D. Vir. 2010), Evette was part of the team that obtained summary judgment for Google in the closely watched trademark infringement case concerning the use of keywords in Google’s advertising program.

• In Autodesk v. Solidworks (N.D. Cal. 2009), Evette obtained summary judgment of some claims and favorable settlement for the rest for SolidWorks in trademark infringement case brought by Autodesk concerning the protectability of file extensions under the Lanham Act.

• In Intuit Inc. v. H& R Block, Inc. (N.D. Cal. 2006), Evette successfully represented Intuit in a copyright infringement, trademark infringement and false advertising suit against its chief competitor H&R Block, arising out of Block’s arising of a knock-off television advertisement. The case settled favorably to Intuit.

• In LowerMyBills, Inc. v. NexTag, Inc. (C.D.Cal. 2005), Evette represented NexTag in a case involving allegations of trademark and copyright infringement in online advertisements. The case settled favorably to NexTag.

• In Silicon Image, Inc. v. Schrank, et al (N.D. Cal. 2001), Evette represented Silicon Image in trademark infringement case involving domain name dispute.

• In MoreOnline v. More.com, (C.D. Cal. 2000), Evette represented MoreOnline in a trademark infringement action involving a domain name dispute.

Representative Copyright Matters

Evette’s copyright experience spans the full range of copyright issues, from the protectibility of computer code and user interfaces to the enforcement of copyrights in famous photographs.  Evette has been involved in both defense and enforcement, collecting several monetary payments and permanent injunctions for image provider Corbis Corporation and investigating the outer limits of copyright liability for Napster investors.  Some of Evette’s representative copyright infringement engagements include:

• In Deborah Thomas v. The Walt Disney Company (9th Cir. 2009), Evette successfully represented Disney in a suit where plaintiff claims that Pixar’s movie Finding Nemo was an unauthorized derivative work of plaintiff’s poem.  The trial court dismissed the complaint on grounds of lack of substantial similarity, which decision was affirmed in all respects by the Ninth Circuit on appeal.

• In Zynga Game Networks v. Green Patch, Inc and Playdom, Inc. (N.D. Cal. 2009), Evette represented Zynga in a copyright infringement suit arising out of the copying of Zynga java script in four Zynga games, and the incorporation of that code in 6 Green Patch/Playdom games.

• In Zynga Game Network v. Kyle McEachern (N.D. Cal. 2009), Evette represented Zynga against a former employee and contractor who hacked Zynga’s secure servers. Evette obtained a temporary restraining order and preliminary injunction against the employee, based on claims of copyright infringement and violation of the DMCA antic- circumvention provisions. After the court threatened to hold the plaintiff in criminal contempt, the case settled with a permanent injunction and monetary judgment against the defendant.

• In UMG Recordings, Inc., et al. v. Hummer Winblad Venture Partners et al. (C.D. Cal. 2003), Evette represented Hummer Winblad in a lawsuit filed by various record labels (including UMG, Interscope Records, Motown Record Co., Capitol Records, Inc., and Virgin Records America, Inc.), in which plaintiffs asserted claims for contributory and vicarious copyright infringement and various state tort claims stemming from Hummer Winblad’s investment in Napster.

• In Corbis Corporation v. Movie Star News, Ira Kramer (S.D.N.Y. 2003), Evette obtained a preliminary injunction and permanent injunction against accused infringers of photographs.

• In Land of Myth & Not v. Amy Brown, et al. (C.D. Cal. 2006), Evette represented Pennzoil/Quaker State, a Shell Oil subsidiary, in a copyright infringement suit concerning after- market automobile accessories.

• In Corbis Corporation v. Hunt Capital (N.D. Tex. 2006), Evette represented Corbis in a copyright infringement enforcement action concerning Corbis' copyrighted images.

• In Corbis Corporation v. Romeo Engineering (S.D.N.Y. 2006), Evette represented Corbis in a copyright infringement enforcement action concerning Corbis' copyrighted images.

• In Corbis v. Plan Design Consultants (S.D.N.Y. 2006), Mr. Stern successfully represented Corbis in a copyright infringement enforcement action concerning Corbis' copyrighted images.

• In Corbis Corporation v. Independent Nursing Services (S.D.N.Y. 2006), Evette represented Corbis in a copyright infringement enforcement action concerning Corbis' copyrighted images.

• In Corbis Corporation v. Global InfoTech (S.D.N.Y. 2006), Evette represented Corbis in a copyright infringement enforcement action concerning Corbis' copyrighted images.

• In Corbis Corporation v. Munters (W.D. Tex.), Evette represented Corbis in a copyright infringement enforcement action concerning Corbis' copyrighted images.

Representative Trade Secret Matters

Evette’s trade secret engagements have had her on both sides of the “v”, which has helped her to both obtain and successfully resist temporary restraining orders and preliminary injunctions.  Trade secret litigation is often fast paced with requirements for immediate action in foreign jurisdictions making this experience as both a plaintiff and a defendant extremely helpful.  Some of Evette’s trade secret matters include:

• In Maxwell Technologies v. Zhong (San Diego Sup. Ct. 2011), Evette represents Maxwell Technologies in a trade secret and breach of loyalty case involving claims that a Maxwell employee took Maxwell information and disclosed it to a Chinese competitor.  Evette successfully obtained a temporary restraining order and preliminary injunction against the employee.

• In SuccessFactors v. Halogen (N.D. Cal. 2011), Evette represented Halogen against trade secret claims brought by a competitor stemming from alleged competitive intelligence.

• In Zynga Game Network v. Kyle McEachern (N.D. Cal. 2009), Evette represented Zynga against a former employee and contractor who hacked Zynga’s secure servers post- employment, and misappropriated company code. Evette obtained a temporary restraining order and preliminary injunction against the employee. After the court threatened to hold the plaintiff in criminal contempt, the case settled with a permanent injunction and monetary judgment against the employee.

• In Navitaire v. easyJet Airlines and Bullet Proof Software (D. Utah 2005), Evette represented easyJet Airlines and BulletProof in a trade secret misappropriation and copyright infringement lawsuit filed by Navitaire arising out of the alleged theft and copying of Navitaire's reservations software. Upon the successful trial of a corresponding copyright infringement and breach of contract lawsuit in the U.K., the case settled very favorably.

• In Research-In-Motion v. Good Technology, Inc. (Orange Sup. Ct. 2003), Evette represented Good Technology in a trade secret action filed by Research-In-Motion against allegations that Good Technology had misappropriated RIM’s customer lists and reverse engineered part of its software for a competing solution. The team successfully defeated RIM’s motion for a temporary restraining order and motion for a preliminary injunction. The case settled favorably.

Representative Class Action and Business Litigation Matters

While Evette’s practice has primarily focused on intellectual property matters, Evette has also been engaged to represent clients in a wide variety of other matters, including consumer class action, failed partnership, and other contract matters.  Some of Evette’s other business litigation matters include:

• In Catalina. v. Coupons (Arbitration 2011), Evette was part of a team pursing breach of contract claims against Coupons, Inc.  Evette assisted in a five day parole evidence hearing in San Francisco to determine the scope of certain disputed contract terms.

• In Interserve v. Fusion Garage (N.D. Cal. 2009), Evette successfully prevented entry of a preliminary injunction against Fusion Garage and obtained dismissal of alleged “misappropriation of business idea” claims in an alleged failed partnership case.

• In DeFatta v. Intuit Inc. (N.D. Cal. 2007), Evette successfully defended software publisher Intuit against an asserted California class action where the plaintiff asserted claims that the company wrongfully removed certain tax forms.

• In Simmons v. Intuit Inc. (Santa Clara Sup. Ct. 2006), Evette successfully defended software publisher Intuit against an asserted California class action where the plaintiff asserted claims that the company was charging customers for unordered technical support.

• In PLS-Pacific Laser v. Toolz, Inc. (N.D. Cal. 2001), Evette obtained summary adjudication of breach of contract claims brought by competitor against Toolz’ CEO.

• In Brickhill v. Activision (C.D. Cal. 2004), obtained favorable settlement for Electronic Arts and employee in employment contract action brought in Los Angeles Superior Court.