Quinn emanuel trial lawyers

Patent Litigation
Back to Intellectual Property Litigation

Introduction Print

Intellectual property litigation is the firm’s largest practice area. More than eighty percent of our intellectual property cases involve patents.

We are one of less than a handful of go-to firms for “bet the company” patent litigation, regardless of the jurisdiction where the litigation—often litigations—are filed. We represent many of the world’s leading technology companies in their most important matters. Many of their disputes are fought on multiple fronts and involve multiple litigations in venues around the world. Invariably they involve litigations in the U.S. and the EU.

We have the best patent litigation practice in the EU and we believe that is also true in the U.S. The prestigious German legal directory, JUVE, named us the “IP Law Firm of the Year” and “Patent Law Firm of the Year.” We are the only foreign firm to ever win either award. The American Lawyer ranked us “Top IP Litigation Department of the Year.” The National Law Journal also named us to its inaugural “IP Hot List,” and Managing IP named us “Firm of the Year” in litigation before the International Trade Commission, and “Firm of the Year” in the “Patent Contentious – West” category.

We have won numerous important patent cases both before and at trial in numerous jurisdictions throughout the United States, including the ITC. We have also won many cases in Germany where more than 80% of EU patent litigations are filed. Those cases have involved a wide range of technologies and have often been the subject of substantial media attention. The “Smartphone Wars” are a recent example. We have represented Motorola, Samsung, and HTC in epic battles with Apple.

Our clients hire us because we win. We win because we focus on what matters to the exclusion of what does not. At the beginning of each case, we figure out which issues are the most critical to achieving early victories. By identifying the key pressure points and working to develop case strategies accordingly, we help our clients gain the leverage they need to resolve cases on their terms, not those of their opponents. We do so efficiently.

Our cases are venued in courts throughout the country, including the well-known patent venues in California, Texas, Wisconsin, Delaware, New Jersey, and Virginia. Many also involve parallel litigations in the EU. Both large and small companies hire us because we win. We not only understand complex technologies, we also know how to frame the issues in a manner that judges and jurors will understand.

Note: We are willing to consider representing clients in patent litigation on a fixed or contingent fee basis in appropriate cases.

More than 250 of our lawyers are experienced intellectual property litigators. More than 110 of our litigators are scientists or engineers, with degrees and professional backgrounds that our clients need, including:

Physics, chemistry, pharmacology, molecular biology and biochemistry, computer science, software and database design and information systems, missile guidance systems, and numerous types of engineering: civil, materials science, chemical, electrical, environmental, industrial, mechanical, automotive, and aeronautical.

We have substantial experience over a wide range of technologies, including computer architecture, enterprise and consumer software, network systems, high-power metal oxide semiconductor field effect transistors (MOSFETS), DRAMs, semiconductor fabrication processes, database architectures, flash and computer memory devices, computer graphics, MPEG compression techniques and devices, set-top boxes, satellite, DSL and voiceband modem technology, television remotes, biomedical products, plasmas and LCD displays, microprocessor architectures, automated gaming systems, semiconductor image scanning and inspection equipment, MRI technologies, hazardous waste remediation equipment, home banking systems, wind turbines, monoclonal antibodies, electronic controls, automotive technologies, consumer packaging, chemical adhesives, building materials, balloon dilatation catheters, fiber optic communications, cellular communications, radio frequency identification systems, smart battery technology, night vision systems, inertial navigations systems, aircraft safety systems, industrial automation and direct broadcast satellite systems.

REPRESENTATIVE PATENT CLIENTS

  • Abbott Labs
  • Activision
  • Aliph (aka Jawbone)
  • Alliance Atlantis
  • ALZA Corp.
  • American Express Company
  • AOL
  • Applied Materials
  • Avery Dennison
  • Bally Technologies
  • Belkin
  • Bio-Rad
  • Borland Software
  • Cablevision
  • Catalina Marketing
  • Charter Communications
  • Cisco
  • Connetics Corp./Stiefel Laboratories
  • D-Link
  • Dassault
  • DIRECTV
  • DreamWorks Animation SKG
  • DreamWorks Studios
  • EKR Therapeutics, Inc.
  • Electromagnetic Geo Services
  • Electronic Arts
  • Epson America, Inc.
  • Epson Portland Inc.
  • Forest Laboratories, Inc.
  • Fox
  • Freescale Semiconductor, Inc.
  • Genentech
  • General Electric
  • GlaxoSmithKline
  • Google
  • H. Lundbeck A/S
  • HTC Corp.
  • IAC Search and Media
  • IBM
  • IDEC Pharmaceuticals
  • Intuit
  • Johnson & Johnson
  • Johnson Controls
  • Kraft Foods
  • KV Pharmaceutical
  • Lockheed Martin
  • Macrovision
  • MediaTek
  • Micron
  • Monsanto
  • Motorola
  • Napster
  • Netgear
  • NetSuite
  • Northrop Grumman Corp.
  • Nuance
  • NVIDIA Corporation
  • Oppo Digital Corp.
  • Oracle
  • Qualcomm
  • RealNetworks
  • Recording Industry Association of America
  • Roche Molecular Systems
  • Samsung
  • Seiko Epson
  • Shell Oil
  • Sony
  • Stiefel
  • Symantec
  • Teledyne
  • Tredegar Corp. / Tredegar Film Products Corp.
  • Toshiba Corporation
  • The Dow Chemical Company
  • The Walt Disney Company
  • Yahoo!
  • Zynga, Inc.

Back to Top

Back to Intellectual Property Litigation

Recent Representations  Print

  • Gilead Sciences, Inc. and Royalty Pharma Collection Trust v. Watson Labs., Inc. (DNJ 2017). We represented Gilead Sciences, Inc. against two generic companies in a Hatch-Waxman patent dispute concerning Gilead’s life-extending, $800 million/year cardiovascular drug, Letairis. With the final Pretrial Order filed and trial about to be scheduled, we achieved a very favorable, confidential settlement. The client was thrilled with the result.
  • Jazz Pharmaceuticals, Inc. v. Roxane Laboratories, Inc. (DNJ 2017). We represented Jazz Pharmaceuticals, Inc. in a Hatch-Waxman patent litigation involving Jazz’s Xyrem® (sodium oxybate) drug product, which is indicated to treat cataplexy and excessive daytime sleepiness in narcolepsy patients. After more than six years of litigation, we obtained a favorable settlement for Jazz that does not permit generic entry until 2023, after the majority of the 20 patents covering Xyrem have expired.
  • Carucel Investments, LP v. Novatel Wireless, Inc., Verizon Communications, Inc. and Cellco Partnership d/b/a Verizon Wireless (S.D. Cal. 2017). We represented Novatel Wireless and Verizon in a case involving mobile wireless hotspots and obtained a jury verdict of non-infringement on all 7 asserted claims from 4 asserted patents. The plaintiff, a non-practicing entity, asserted four patents related to a movable base station that they argued covered Novatel’s MiFi hotspot. We argued to the jury that the patents were not infringed, but if read broadly enough to cover the MiFi hotspot, they were invalid. The jury agreed there was no infringement.
  • The Broad Institute, Inc. v. The Regents of the University of California, University of Vienna, and Emmanuelle Charpentier (Patent Trial and Appeal Board 2017). We represented The Broad Institute, Inc. in a patent interference requested by the University of California and Emmanuelle Charpentier in order to challenge key Broad patents directed to use of the breakthrough CRISPR gene-editing technology.  We obtained a victory as the PTAB declared there was no interference in fact and dismissed the interference, thereby allowing our client to retain its key eukaryotic-related patents.  The PTAB decision was widely reported in the press, where it was described as "A Knockout in the Biotech Fight of the Century" (Fortune) and "a blow to the University of California" in "a bitterly fought dispute" (NY Times).  
  • Win for Patent Applicant (2017). We represented a patent applicant in front of the Board of Appeal of the EPO arguing against four decisions of the Examining Division rejecting applications concerning DSL-technology; the first instance decisions were set aside and the cases were sent back to the first instance following our arguments pointing to procedural mistakes made by the Examining Division.
  • Win for Innovator of Novel Technology (2017). We acted for a start-up innovator of novel technology that had entered into exclusive commercialization arrangements with a multinational partner.  That partner had fallen short of its obligations to our client but refused to release our client from its exclusive relationship.  We were instructed to find a route for the client to terminate their arrangements.  This involved two ICC arbitration proceedings and proceedings in the Commercial Court in London.  We have obtained a full exit for our client, together with the transfer to them of substantial additional intellectual property.  The effect of this is that our client can now enter into alternative commercialization arrangements with a new partner.
  • In the Matter of Certain Radiotherapy Systems and Treatment Planning Software, and Components Thereof (ITC 2016). We represented Complainants Varian Medical Systems and affiliates against Respondents Elekta AB and affiliates before the International Trade Commission, asserting patents related to radiotherapy equipment and software that help to treat cancer. After a two-week trial, the Administrative Law Judge issued a 465-page decision in which he found that Elekta infringed three Varian patents, and that such patents were not invalid. The judge further recommended that the ITC issue a limited exclusion order and cease and desist order covering Elekta’s infringing radiotherapy systems.
  • Samsung Electronics Co. v. Apple Inc. (U.S. Supreme Court 2016). We recently obtained a unanimous victory in the U.S. Supreme Court for our client Samsung in a case arising from the so-called “smartphones wars” between Samsung and Apple.  In the first design-patent case to reach the Supreme Court in more than a century, the Court reversed a Federal Circuit decision that had upheld a $399 million judgment against Samsung for design-patent infringement, which represented Samsung’s entire profits on smartphones that were found to infringe Apple’s narrow patents on designs for portions of a smartphone’s exterior case or display screen.  Adopting our reading of the statutory text, the Court held that a design-patent plaintiff is entitled to recover only infringer’s profits made from the “article of manufacture” to which a patented design is “applied,” and that an “article of manufacture” may be a product component (such as a smartphone’s outer case). The Court thus rejected the Federal Circuit’s rule—which Apple had advocated at trial and on appeal—that infringer’s profits must be calculated on the basis of the entire product as sold (such as a smartphone itself). 
  • TEK v. DunlopTech (District Court Mannheim 2016). We represent Sumitomo Rubber Industries against its competitor TEK in both offensive and defensive patent litigation involving tire repair kits.
  • Philips v. Archos, ASUS, HTC, and Wiko (District Court Mannheim 2016). On October 11, 2016, the Mannheim Court dismissed all claims asserted by Philips against the Android OEMs HTC, Asus, Archos and Wiko for infringement of their key speech codec patent EP 0 821 848, allegedly essential for the AMR standard. Speech codecs (codecs for compression of digital speech information) can be used in Android functionalities such as dictation (,e.g., as an input method). This patent was the most serious threat in a series of patent infringement actions that Philips filed globally against Android OEMs (8 patents in Germany, four standard essential, four feature patents). Google decided to intervene in those actions relating to Android, coordinating and actually leading the defense.
  • Opposition against EP 1 482 815 (Board of Appeal of the European Patent Office 2016). We represented Schweitzer-Mauduit International, Inc. in opposition proceedings before the European Patent Office which resulted in the maintenance of one of their key patents relating to certain types of low-ignition proclivity paper wrappers for smoking article (“LIP” technology).
  • David Netzer Consulting Engineer LLC v. Shell Oil Co. et al. (Fed. Cir. 2016). We represented Shell in a patent infringement appeal involving benzene purification, and won a unanimous affirmance from the Federal Circuit that Shell did not infringe the asserted patent.  In a precedential opinion, the Federal Circuit adopted our claim construction and non-infringement arguments in full, holding that the patent required a boiling-point purification process and that Shell's solubility-based purification process did not infringe as a matter of law.
  • Sata GmbH & Co. KG v. Anest Iwata Corp (PTAB 2016). We defended Anest Iwata Corporation against an inter partes review petition filed by its competitor Sata GmbH, obtaining a complete denial of the petition and of Sata’s request for rehearing.
  • SimpleAir, Inc. v. Sony Ericsson Mobile Communications AB (Fed. Cir. 2016). At the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, we obtained a complete reversal of an $85 million verdict of patent infringement against Google in the Eastern District of Texas.  Plaintiff SimpleAir, Inc. had sued Google, Microsoft, and numerous other providers of smartphones and software, claiming its patents covered the technology used to send notifications to mobile devices.  Google, while represented by previous counsel, had been found by two juries to infringe and to owe $85 million in royalties.  On Quinn Emanuel’s successful appeal, the appellate court first reversed the district court’s key claim construction ruling, namely that the term “data channel” could not be a device’s connection to the Internet because that would make the term redundant.  Instead, the Federal Circuit held that the well-known canon of construction that each claim term should be given meaning could not trump the overriding requirement to stay true to the patent’s specification.  As a result, the court of appeals agreed with Quinn Emanuel that the verdicts should be reversed, and instructed the Eastern District of Texas to enter a judgment of non-infringement in favor Google.
  • Brite Smart Corp. v. Google Inc. (E.D. Tex and N.D. Cal. 2016). We recently obtained a dismissal of all claims brought by Brite Smart Corp. against client Google.  Brite Smart filed suit in July 2014 in the Eastern District of Texas asserting four patents allegedly directed at the problem of “click fraud” and accusing Google’s online advertisement systems of infringement.  After taking over the case from predecessor counsel, we obtained an unprecedented writ of mandamus from the Federal Circuit directing the district court to rule on our long-pending motion to transfer and staying all proceedings pending a ruling on that motion.  The district court subsequently granted our motion and transferred the case to the Northern District of California.  Following transfer to the Northern District, plaintiff’s counsel withdrew from the litigation and we obtained a dismissal of all claims for want of prosecution.   
  • Apple Inc. v. Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd., et al. (N.D. Cal. 2014, Fed. Cir. 2016). In a decision by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit that press reports labeled “a major victory for Samsung in a yearslong, multicase patent dispute over smartphones,” we won an appellate victory that completely eliminated a $120 million judgment that Apple had obtained against Samsung in the Northern District of California.  In the second of two trials in that court, Apple had sued Samsung for infringement of five patents, demanding more than $2 billion in damages.  We succeeded at trial in limiting Apple’s damages to $120 million for supposed infringement of three patents.  On our appeal, the Federal Circuit reversed as to all three, holding that Samsung did not infringe Apple’s ’647 (Quick Links) patent and that Apple’s ’721 (Slide to Unlock) and ’172 (Auto Correct) patents are invalid as obvious in light of the prior art.  At the same time, the Federal Circuit affirmed all the rulings we won at trial, including the jury’s findings that Samsung did not infringe Apple’s ’959 (Remote and Local Search) patent or Apple’s ‘414  (synchronization) patent, and that Apple infringed Samsung’s ‘449 (compressing and organizing photos) patent.  With this ruling, Samsung emerges as the net winner:  the only remaining damages are $158,400 that Apple owes to Samsung for infringement of Samsung’s ’449 patent.  
  • 3M v. TransWeb, LLC (D.N.J. 2014, Fed. Cir. 2016). We represented TransWeb in the defense of patent infringement claims asserted by 3M and the pursuit of antitrust claims against 3M.  After a two-and-half-week trial, we obtained a unanimous jury verdict that 3M’s asserted patent claims were invalid, not infringed, and (in an advisory capacity) unenforceable due to inequitable conduct.  The jury also found that 3M violated the antitrust laws by attempting to enforce fraudulently obtained patents against TransWeb and awarded lost profits and attorneys’ fees as antitrust damages, resulting in an approximately $26 million judgment.  The district court subsequently adopted the jury’s advisory verdict that 3M had committed inequitable conduct rendering the asserted patents unenforceable.  On appeal by 3M, the Federal Circuit issued a unanimous and precedential decision affirming the judgments entered below, including specifically the finding of inequitable conduct before the Patent and Trademark Office and the award of trebled attorneys’ fees as antitrust damages pursuant to the Walker Process fraud claim.
  • Broadband iTV, Inc. v. Time Warner Cable, Inc.; Oceanic Time Warner Cable, LLC (D. Haw. 2015). We were retained by Time Warner Cable for a patent case venued in Hawaii. The plaintiff, BBiTV, is a Honolulu-based company that failed in the video-on-demand (VOD) business and turned to asserting its patent portfolio. BBiTV sued TWC for infringement of a patent directed to creating a bridge between the internet and closed, cable systems by using metadata to facilitate the automation, hierarchical organization, and display of video content on customers’ electronic programming guides. TWC invalidated the asserted patent under the Supreme Court’s recent Section 101 jurisprudence holding that abstract ideas are not patentable in the context of software inventions and that the addition of conventional technologies cannot provide the inventive concept.
  • Adaptix v. Alcatel-Lucent USA, Inc. (E.D. Tex. 2015). We won a complete victory against Acacia, a noted patent assertion entity, in the Eastern District of Texas.  In the immediate aftermath, the Acacia's CEO resigned and its stock price plummeted, but the firm pushed for an even more complete victory.  We moved for our attorneys’ fees based on Acacia’s discovery improprieties, and in a recent order the judge approved our motion, allowing us to proceed in negotiating our fee award.
  • Win in patent infringement case about insulation materials (Germany 2015). We represented one of the leading German suppliers of insulation materials against a competitor. We defended the client’s patent in front of the Federal Patent Court and in front of the Federal Supreme Court and finally obtained a victory through three instances in the parallel infringement case confirming infringement on the client’s patent by its competitor.
  • Trusted Knight Corporation v. International Business Machines Corporation and Trusteer Inc. (D. Del. 2015). We obtained a complete defense victory for IBM in a District of Delaware patent case brought by plaintiff Trusted Knight Corp, a small software company with a single issued patent.  Before the close of discovery, we crafted a strategy to knock out every claim of Trusted Knight’s bet the company patent on invalidity grounds.  At claim construction, we argued that every claim of the patent was indefinite, a strategy that is not often successful in Delaware, particularly in front of Chief Judge Stark.  Judge Stark ultimately found that every claim of Trusted Knight’s patent is indefinite. 
  • Celgene Corporation v. Natco Pharma Limited, et al. (D. N.J. 2015). We represented Celgene Corporation in a Hatch-Waxman patent litigation involving Celgene’s Revlimid® (lenalidomide) drug product, which is indicated to treat multiple myeloma and other types of cancer.  After more than five years of litigation, we obtained a favorable settlement for Celgene that does not permit full generic entry until 2026, after all but one of the nearly 30 patents covering Revlimid have expired.
  • SimpleAir v. Google (E.D. Tex. 2015). We recently obtained a complete defense verdict for Google in an E.D. Texas patent case where plaintiff SimpleAir sought hundreds of millions in damages. In a prior case on related patents, handled by predecessor counsel, SimpleAir had prevailed against Google in a 2014 jury trial and obtained an award of $85 million.  SimpleAir had also previously sued on related patents and obtained settlements from a number of large technology companies, including Apple, Microsoft, Amazon, and Facebook.  SimpleAir then filed suit again on two continuation patents, accusing the same Google product of infringing the continuation patents.  We were retained as replacement lead counsel to handle the appeal of the 2014 verdict and to try the second case.  Our team successfully obtained pretrial rulings that precluded SimpleAir from using the 2014 verdict to bolster its infringement and validity arguments in the new trial.  After nearly six hours of deliberation, the jury returned a verdict of no infringement. The Recorder headlined Google’s victory aptly as “Google Gets Sweet Revenge in E.D. Texas Patent Case,” and The American Lawyer headlined the win as “Google Avoids New IP Headache With Help from Quinn Emanuel.”
  • Smartflash v. Samsung Electronics & HTC (Fed. Cir. 2015). We represented Samsung and HTC in a case involving patents related to the online payment for and distribution of content, such as apps, videos, and music.  Weeks before trial, we obtained a reversal of the district court order denying a motion to stay the case pending covered business method review of the patents by the Patent Trial and Appeal Board.
  • France Telecom S.A. v. Marvell Semiconductor, Inc. (N.D. Cal. Court 2015). We represented Marvell Semiconductor in a patent lawsuit filed by France Telecom in NY federal court.  We successfully moved to transfer the lawsuit to San Francisco.  Despite the fact that a number of licensees took licenses under the patent-in-suit, including competitors of our client, and allegations of willful infringement, we successfully obtained critical pre-trial rulings on partial summary judgment, claim construction and to exclude infringement under the doctrine of equivalents and obtained a very favorable jury verdict well below what France Telecom sought, with no enhanced damages and no finding of willfulness.  On post-trial motions, the Court granted judgment as a matter of law and entered a defense judgment, giving Marvell Semiconductor a complete defense victory.  The matter is pending appeal to the Federal Circuit.
  • Google v. Nokia EP’375 (German Federal Patent Court, Sixth Nullity Senate 2015). We represented Google in a nullity action against Nokia concerning the German part, of Nokia’s European patent EP 0 882 375 on “a communication network terminal supporting a plurality of applications”. We obtained a complete victory for our client, with the German Federal Patent Court revoking Nokia’s patent in its entirety and rejecting all of Nokia’s 40 auxiliary requests. The decision is subject to appeal.
  • Everlight Electronics Co., Ltd. v. Nichia Corporation and Nichia America Corporation (E.D. Mich. 2015). We represented Everlight Electronics, Co., Ltd. and its subsidiary Everlight Americas, Inc., in a case involving two patents relating to specific LED technology.  After a two-week jury trial in the Eastern District of Michigan, the jury found that all claims asserted against Everlight were invalid for obviousness, and that certain of the asserted claims were also invalid for lack of enablement.    
  • SME Holding GmbH v. Thomson Sales Europe S.A. (District Court of Hamburg 2015). Our client Technicolor was sued by SME Holding GmbH for damages incurred through third party patentees against a distressed company that Technicolor had sold to SME. QE took over after the initially retained firm had spent three years litigating without bringing the case any further. We completely changed the line of defense and the court dismissed the complaint with prejudice, following us on every major argument.
  • Vasudevan Software, Inc. v. Microstrategy, Inc., et al. (Fed. Cir. 2015). We represented Microstrategy, Inc. in a case involving four patents relating to online analytical processing.  After achieving  a complete win at the district court, we obtained a decision affirming the district court’s rulings on claim construction and non-infringement from the Federal Circuit. 
  • MicroUnity Systems Engineering, Inc. v. Apple, Inc. et al. (E.D. Tex. 2014). We represented Qualcomm Inc. in patent infringement suit brought by MicroUnity Systems Engineering, Inc. in the Eastern District of Texas.  MicroUnity accused Qualcomm of infringing 10 of its patents relating to certain computer architecture and software used to facilitate efficient computer operation and performance, including architectures and software useful in parallel processing.  Case resolved prior to trial through a settlement on terms favorable to Qualcomm.  
  • ViaSat v. Loral (S.D. Cal. 2014). We represented ViaSat, Inc., a company that develops and designs satellites, in a patent infringement and breach of contract suit against Space Systems Loral (“SSL”). The jury found ViaSat’s asserted patents valid. The jury also found that SSL infringed the asserted patents and breached its contractual obligations to ViaSat by improperly using and disclosing ViaSat proprietary information to manufacture a competitive satellite for Hughes Network Systems.  The jury’s findings on liability were affirmed by the District Court.  Thereafter, the parties entered into a global settlement on terms favorable to ViaSat, including $100 million in cash.
  • Agincourt Gaming LLC v. Zynga, Inc., et. al.(D. Nev. and D. Del. 2014). We represented Zynga, Sony Online Entertainment, and Blizzard in the District of Delaware against Agincourt Gaming LLC’s allegations that our clients infringed three patents directed to awarding  prizes based on game outcomes.  We obtained a favorable settlement after filing Markman briefs and winning a critical discovery motion in two jurisdictions.
  • Motorola Mobility Germany GmbH v. Microsoft Corp.(German Federal Patent Court 2014). We represented Motorola Mobility in a nullity action filed with the German Federal Patent Court against Microsoft Corp. regarding the German Part of the European Patent EP 1 304 891. Based on the prior art identified and submitted by the firm, the German Federal Patent Court completely revoked this patent. The decision is subject to appeal.
  • Furuno Electric Co., Ltd., et al. v. Raymarine UK Limited (D. Or. 2014); Furuno Electric Co., Ltd., et al. v. Raymarine, Inc. (D. Or. 2014); Certain Navigation Products, Including GPS Devices, Navigation and Display Systems, Radar Systems, Navigation Aids, Mapping Systems and Related Software (ITC 2014). We represented Furuno Electric in cases brought to enforce their IP rights in maritime navigation patents. Cases were brought in U.S. district court and the ITC. The case settled on extremely favorable terms with each defendant.
  • Gemalto v. HTC et al. (E.D. Tex. 2013, Fed. Cir. 2014). We represented defendants Google, Motorola Mobility, HTC, and Samsung against French digital security company Gemalto, brought and won a motion for summary judgment of non-infringement in the Eastern District of Texas, affirmed by the Federal Cicuit. Plaintiff alleged that Defendants’ Android devices infringed three of its patents directed at allowing Java-based applications to run on smart cards and microcontrollers.
  • Certain Opaque Polymers(ITC 2014). We are representing The Dow Chemical Company and Rohm and Haas against Turkish chemical company Organik Kimya in the International Trade Commission alleging infringement of two patents and numerous trade secrets related to opaque emulsion polymers made in Turkey and imported into the United States. Over the course of a six month discovery period, we obtained multiple orders for forensic inspection of Organik Kimya’s computers and networks, uncovering evidence of alleged trade secret misappropriation and spoliation. Organik Kimya consented to a 25-year exclusion order.
  • Certain Audiovisual Components and Products Containing the Same (ITC 2014). We successfully defended respondents MediaTek, Ralink and Funai in an investigation brought by LSI and Agere alleging infringement of four patents concerning Wi-Fi and MPEG technology.
  • Personalized User Model, LLC v. Google Inc. (D. Del. 2014). We won a complete defense verdict for client Google Inc. Google was accused to have infringed two patents relating to personalization services, and the plaintiff asserted that four different Google products infringed those patents. The jury unanimously found in Google’s favor. It found that one of the named inventors breached his employment agreement with his prior employer (whose rights Google had purchased) by failing to assign the inventions to his employer, that none of Google’s products infringed a single asserted claim of the patents, that the asserted claims were invalid as anticipated by three separate prior art references, and that the asserted claims were invalid as obvious in light of the prior art.
  • Denso Corporation and Clarion Co. Ltd. v. Beacon Navigation GmbH (United States Patent and Trademark Office 2014). We recently won a complete victory for our client, Clarion Co. Ltd, in one of the first-ever filed and argued inter partes review (IPR) proceedings. We coordinated across our Tokyo and Los Angeles offices to identify the strongest Japanese and English language prior art references. Working with a technical expert, we presented a report and extensive briefing to explain the complex references that were found. Because depositions are allowed in IPRs, as opposed to the prior inter partes reexamination system, we were able to establish a number of key admissions from the opposition’s expert that were then used in the invalidation procedure. The IPR culminated in our successful oral argument at the PTAB before a gallery well-attended with legal and automotive industry observers. The IPR concluded when the PTAB issued its final written decision, finding every challenged claim unpatentable and giving our client a total victory.
  • Motorola Mobility Germany GmbH et al. v. Apple Inc. (European Patent Office 2014). We represented Motorola Mobility Germany GmbH in an opposition proceeding against Apple concerning Apple’s European patent EP 2 098 948 on a touch event model. We obtained a complete victory for our client, with the European Patent Office revoking Apple’s patent in its entirety and rejecting all of Apple’s auxiliary requests. The decision can be appealed.
  • Network Protection Sciences LLC v. Fortinet, Inc. (N.D. Cal. 2013). We represented Fortinet, Inc., a publicly traded network-security company, in patent litigation against a non-practicing entity, NPS. In litigation pending in federal court in Northern California, NPS targeted Fortinet’s franchise product line, FortiGate firewall products, and sought damages of over $18 million, trebled to over $50 million. We succeeded in procuring numerous court orders finding that NPS had engaged in litigation misconduct, including attempts to conceal evidence and making false or misleading statements to the court. We also succeeded in procuring a court order excluding NPS’s damages expert from trial. In the face of those rulings, NPS agreed to abandon its campaign outright. The case was dismissed with prejudice and—as disclosed in Fortinet’s recent SEC filing—Fortinet paid nothing at all to NPS for that result. This was a complete win for Fortinet. It was reported widely by Law360, Courthouse News, TechDirt and Network World.
  • Motorola vs. TiVo (E.D. Texas 2013). We represented Motorola Mobility and Time Warner Cable against TiVo in a case involving patented DVR technology and obtained a successful settlement for a fraction of the amount sought by TiVo during trial. We took over the case during expert discovery and less than three months before the start of trial. Our trial strategy resulted in key victories in pre-trial motions that led to the successful settlement.
  • Vasudevan Software, Inc. v. MicroStrategy, Inc. (N.D. Cal. 2013). We represented MicroStrategy, Inc., a database and business intelligence company, in a patent litigation suit filed by Vasudevan Software, Inc., a NPE, in the Northern District of California. The plaintiff asserted that MicroStrategy infringed four related patents. The court granted summary judgment that all four patents were invalid due to lack of enablement and adopted our construction of a key claim term that prompted the plaintiff to stipulate to non-infringement.
  • Motorola v. Apple (German Federal Patent Court 2013). We represented Motorola in a nullity action against the German part of EP 2 059 868 (member of Apple’s ‘rubber band patent’ family) and obtained full nullification (decision appealable).
  • Nokia v. HTC et al. (District Court of Mannheim 2013). We represented Google, intervening in a case involving the alleged infringement of one of Nokia’s video coding patents through the VP 8 codec used in Android and obtained a dismissal for non-infringement.
  • Certain Electronic Digital Media Devices and Components Thereof (ITC 2013). We represented Samsung against Apple in the U.S. International Trade Commission in an investigation based on seven Apple patents. After a trial in June 2012, the Commission issued its Final Determination on August 9, 2013, finding violations of Section 337 based on old designs but permitting importation of newer Samsung products that use designs adjudicated by the Commission to be non-infringing.
  • Motorola Mobility Germany GmbH vs. Apple Inc. (Federal Patent Court of Germany 2013). We represented Motorola Mobility in a nullity action against Apple concerning the German part of Apple’s European patent EP 1 430 380 on dynamic light effects for computing devices. We obtained a complete victory for our client, with the German Federal Patent Court revoking Apple’s patent in its entirety and rejecting all of Apple’s auxiliary requests. The decision can be appealed.
  • Motorola Mobility Germany GmbH et al. v. Apple Inc. (Federal Patent Court of Germany 2013). We represented Motorola Mobility Germany GmbH in a nullity action against the German part of EP 1 964 022, Apple’s often cited ‘slide to unlock patent’ and obtained nullification in its entirety (first instance).
  • Function Media, LLC v. Google, Inc. and Yahoo, Inc.(E.D. Tex. 2010, Fed Cir. 2013). We were brought in five months before trial to defend Google’s AdSense advertising products against Function Media’s $600 million claim of infringement of three patents. We won a unanimous jury verdict of both non-infringement and invalidity in the Eastern District of Texas in Google’s first patent trial and a complete affirmance of the judgments from the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit.
  • Micron Technology, Inc. v. Rambus Inc. (D. Del. 2013). On behalf of Micron Semiconductor Products, Inc. and Micron Technology, Inc., we obtained a ruling declaring 12 Rambus patents unenforceable due to Rambus’s bad faith spoliation of evidence.
  • SpendingMoney LLC v. American Express Company and Visa U.S.A. Inc. d/b/a Visa U.S.A. (D. Conn. 2012, Fed. Cir. 2013). We won a Federal Circuit affirmance of the summary judgment of non-infringement that we won for American Express Company against SpendingMoney LLC in the District of Connecticut, in which the court ruled that American Express’s Travelers Cheque Card does not infringe SpendingMoney’s patent. Confirming the strength of our brief and oral argument on appeal, the Federal Circuit entered its affirmance under Fed. Cir. Rule 36, meaning that we showed that each of SpendingMoney’s appellate arguments lacked substantial merit.
  • Finjan v. Symantec (D.Del. 2012). We obtained a complete defense verdict for Symantec Corporation following a three week jury trial in the District of Delaware before Chief Judge Gregory M. Sleet. The jury concluded that Symantec and two other defendants did not infringe two patents owned by Finjan Inc. relating to the protection of computers and networks against hostile “downloadable” programs. The jury further found the asserted patents to be invalid, handing the defense a complete victory. Finjan asserted that Symantec’s consumer and enterprise security products—including its popular Norton AntiVirus and Symantec Endpoint Protection lines—violated the asserted patents. Finjan’s attorneys argued that the patents covered “behavior-blocking” technology to protect against known and unknown malware threats, and it sought over $1 billion dollars in damages from Symantec based on past damages, willful infringement, and an ongoing running royalty. This victory comes on the heels of an earlier case brought by Finjan against Secure Computing, in which Finjan prevailed in a jury trial before Judge Sleet that involved one of the two patents later asserted against Symantec.
  • Stiefel Labs v. Perrigo (D. Del. 2012). We represented plaintiff Stiefel in Paragraph IV patent infringement litigation involving Olux®–E clobetasol propionate emulsion foam.
  • Apple Inc. v. Samsung Electronics Co. (N.D. Cal., Fed. Cir. 2012). In a widely covered decision, the court vacated a preliminary injunction issued against our client Samsung in the Apple-Samsung smartphone wars, holding that Apple failed to show causal nexus to harm that would justify a preliminary injunction against Samsung’s Galaxy Nexus. The opinion clarifies and strengthens the legal standard for finding causal nexus between patent infringement and the irreparable harm required to issue an injunction. For products like modern smartphones, which contain hundreds or thousands of patented features, this decision will make it more difficult for any patent holder to justify an injunction based on alleged infringement of a single feature patent. The court also held that, under the proper claim construction, the Galaxy Nexus likely does not infringe Apple’s ‘604 patent.
  • Certain Projectors with Controlled-Angle Optical Retarders, Components Thereof, and Products Containing Same (ITC 2012). We represented Sony in an ITC Investigation regarding ultra-high resolution LCD projectors, including those used in movie theaters throughout the U.S. Two weeks before trial and for nothing in return, Complainants requested that the investigation be terminated in its entirety, securing a total defense victory on behalf of Sony.
  • Deep9 Corporation v. Barnes & Noble (W.D. Wash. 2012, Fed. Cir. 2013). After being brought into the case as lead trial counsel several months before trial, we obtained summary judgment of non-infringement on behalf of Barnes & Noble in a case involving allegations that Barnes & Noble’s NOOK eReader devices infringed two patents claiming methods of synchronizing data in multiple devices over a network. The Federal Circuit subsequently affirmed the summary judgment of noninfringement.
  • Microsoft Incorporation v. Motorola Mobility Germany GmbH (District Court Munich 2012). We represented Motorola in a preliminary injunction proceeding for patent infringement brought by Microsoft. We obtained a full dismissal of the action.
  • Plantronics, Inc. v. Aliph, Inc. (N.D. Cal. 2012). We obtained a complete defense victory in a patent case for Aliph, Inc., the maker of popular Bluetooth products known as Jawbone headsets and Jambox speakers. Aliph, a venture backed company, was sued by the much larger headset manufacturer, Plantronics, Inc. for infringement of a patent allegedly covering the earbud component of all Jawbone headsets. We were retained after the patent had emerged from reexamination and the case had been transferred to Northern California from Texas. We obtained a favorable claim construction relatively early in the case, then moved for summary judgment of both noninfringement and invalidity. The court issued a 32-page opinion in Aliph’s favor, finding that Aliph both did not infringe and that the patent was invalid, despite Plantronics’ argument that the reexamination strengthened the patent against an invalidity challenge.
  • 3M v. Tredegar (D. Minn. 2012). We obtained a complete victory on behalf of our client Tredegar against 3M. 3M had asserted four patents related to elastomeric film laminates commonly used in diapers. The court issued a Markman order in which we won on virtually every issue. After considering the devastating effect of this ruling on its infringement claims, 3M stipulated to non-infringement and the district court entered judgment in favor of Tredegar.
  • Motorola v. Apple (District Court Mannheim 2011/2012 and Court of Appeal Karlsruhe 2012). In the ongoing patent dispute between Motorola Mobility and Apple, we scored an important strategic victory for Motorola. In December 2011, we achieved a widely noticed first-instance victory for Motorola when the Mannheim District Court awarded an injunction against Apple Sales International out of a standard essential mobile communications patent. In February 2012, we scored a second offensive victory (case is now pending on appeal) for Motorola against Apple Sales International, this time based on a patent claiming the synchronization of, inter alia, the message status of a plurality of transceivers such as mobile phones or tablet computers. Very recently, this first-instance victory was repeated against the ultimate parent company of the Apple group, Apple Inc. (case is now pending on appeal). Motorola asserted said synchronization patent against Apple’s MobileMe and iCloud services. The patent was also asserted against Apple’s mobile devices for contributory infringement. The Mannheim court found that Apple’s synchronization method directly infringed Motorola’s patent and issued an injunction. The court also found that the accused mobile devices indirectly infringed Motorola’s patent and issued an injunction in this regard as well. Following the judgment, Apple switched off the “push” synchronization functionality of its iCloud and MobileMe services in Germany.
  • Motorola Mobility Inc. v. Microsoft (District Court Mannheim 2011 and Court of Appeal Karlsruhe 2012). We have been representing Motorola Mobility Inc. and its subsidiaries in the German courts on a regular basis. We won very important first instance victories for Motorola Mobility Inc. and its subsidiary General Instrument Corp. in patent infringement cases against Microsoft Corp. and its subsidiaries Microsoft Germany GmbH and Microsoft Ireland Operations Ltd. On behalf of General Instrument, we asserted two patents essential to the H.264 video coding standard which is used e.g. in the software products Windows 7, Internet Explorer 9, Media Player 12, and the video game console Xbox 360. General Instrument sued Microsoft for infringement of its patents with the District Court Mannheim back in July 2011, and we achieved a full win for the client. We won another important first instance victory for Motorola Mobility Inc. and its subsidiary Motorola Mobility Germany GmbH in defending the Android operating system against a complaint brought by Microsoft Corp. After two oral hearing, we achieved a complete dismissal of the complaint by establishing non-infringement on the patent. The cases are pending on appeal level now.
  • St. Gobain Isover v. Knauf (German Federal Supreme Court 2011 (nullity action), District Court Mannheim 2011/2012 and Court of Appeal Karlsruhe (infringement case)). We are representing St. Gobain-Isover in a patent infringement case against Knauf and in the parallel nullity action. We managed to maintain the patent in suit before the German Federal Supreme Court in December 2011. Following this decision, infringement was litigated before the Mannheim court. We obtained a full win for the client. The hearing in the infringement case was mostly about claim construction, but also on rules for evidence (when does the burden of proof shift from the plaintiff to the defendant). The infringement case is pending on appeal level now.
  • University of Virginia Patent Foundation v. General Electric Company et al. (W.D. Va. 2011). We defended GE in a patent infringement case brought by The University of Virginia Patent Foundation in the Charlottesville Division of the Western District of Virginia—the Patent Foundation’s “home court.” The Patent Foundation’s asserted patent covered magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) technology. Shortly after the Patent Foundation filed the case, GE successfully sought reexamination of the asserted patent. During reexamination, the Patent Foundation filed an amendment and, in response, the USPTO issued a reexamination certificate. We then filed a motion for partial summary judgment of no liability prior to the issuance of the reexamination certificate. The court granted our motion—substantially reducing the potential damages that the Patent Foundation could recover if it prevailed on liability—and the case soon settled on very favorable terms.
  • ICHL, LLC v. Sony Electronics Inc. et. al. (E.D. Tex. 2010, Fed. Cir. 2011). We obtained a complete victory for Sony Electronics Inc. (“Sony”) and 15 other defendants in a patent infringement action in the Eastern District of Texas and the Federal Circuit against Intellectual Capital Holdings Limited (“ICHL”). In a case that had far reaching damages implications for Sony and other manufacturers of computers, gaming consoles, televisions and any other products that use a heat sink to reduce internal heat, we convinced the Magistrate Judge, District Court Judge, and the Federal Circuit that the defendants’ products did not infringe ICHL’s patent.
  • Soverain Software LLC v. J.C. Penney et al. (E.D. Tex. 2011). We won a unanimous jury verdict on both infringement and validity in the Eastern District of Texas. The technology at issue in this case concerned e-commerce technology that retailers use to facilitate sales made through their websites.
  • Eon-Net LP et al. v. Flagstar Bancorp (Fed. Cir. 2011). We obtained a complete victory on claim construction, a stipulated judgment of non-infringement, and an award of over $600,000 in attorney fees and sanctions for our client Flagstar Bancorp in a patent infringement case related to converting hard copy documents to computer files using templates and content instructions. On appeal, the Federal Circuit affirmed the judgment for our client in its entirety.
  • OptimumPath, L.L.C. v. Belkin International et al. (N.D. Cal. 2011, Fed. Cir. 2012). We obtained a complete summary judgment victory for clients Belkin, Cisco, DLink, and NETGEAR. The plaintiff filed suit against our clients in the District of South Carolina. We successfully moved to have the case transferred to the Northern District of California. We then obtained summary judgment of non-infringement and invalidity on all asserted claims. On appeal, we won affirmance of summary judgment of non-infringement and invalidity.
  • Toshiba Corporation v. Coby Electronics Co., Ltd. (AAA/ICDR 2011). We won a $18.5 million dollar AAA/ICDR arbitration award for Toshiba Corporation (as Licensor for the DVD6C Patent Licensing Group) in a patent license dispute against Coby Electronics, a manufacturer of DVD video players, for unpaid and underreported royalties.
  • SmartMetric, Inc. v. American Express Company (C.D. Cal. 2011 and Fed. Cir. 2012). In June 2011, we won a stipulation of non-infringement in a patent infringement case for American Express concerning Amex’s contactless ExpressPay® card products. The suit was originally filed in December 2010 in the Central District of California, and we structured the case for an early claim construction. A claim construction hearing, consolidated with a related case, was held in March 2011, and the court adopted verbatim American Express’s proposed construction of the key claim term, issuing its claim construction ruling in May 2011. This construction completely undermined the plaintiff’s case, making it impossible for the plaintiff to prove infringement. The stipulation of non-infringement followed. Plaintiff appealed the key claim construction to the Federal Circuit, and we won an appellate affirmance in April 2012.
  • Creative Internet Advertising Corp. v. Yahoo! Inc. (Fed. Cir. 2011). We obtained a complete reversal of a $12 million patent infringement judgment on behalf of Yahoo! Inc. The plaintiff alleged that the Yahoo! Instant Messenger feature called “IMVironments” infringed a patent on displaying advertisements in the background of electronic messages. The trial in the Eastern District of Texas, at which Yahoo! was represented by another firm, resulted in a finding of willful infringement and no invalidity, and the district court ordered a 23% ongoing royalty. On appeal, we persuaded the Federal Circuit that the district court erred by not resolving a key claim construction dispute and not granting Yahoo!’s motion for judgment as a matter of law of no infringement.
  • Paid Search Engine Tools, LLC v. Yahoo! Inc., et al. (E.D. Tex. 2010, Fed. Cir. 2012). Representing Google, we brought and won an early summary judgment motion of invalidity. The patent-in-suit was asserted against Google by Paid Search Engine Tools (“PSET”). PSET had accused Google’s AdWords system of infringing the patent, which involved a bid management system that could adjust bidders’ bids in online auctions in order to obtain their desired positions and eliminate “bid gaps.” The Federal Circuit affirmed the district court’s order per curiam.
  • Alpla Werke Alwin Lehner GmbH & Co.KG v. Cobarr S.p.A. (Nullity action before German Federal Patent Court, Munich). We obtained a complete victory in a patent nullity action on behalf of INVISTA Resins and Fibers GmbH who joined the action as intervener. The patent-in-suit related to a gas barrier functionality of polyester bottles. The nullity action was filed in response to a patent infringement action brought before the District Court Düsseldorf by Cobarr S.p.A. (a subsidiary of M&G). The court adopted our position and revoked the relevant claims of the patentin-suit. As a result, the corresponding infringement action was fully withdrawn.
  • Zamora Radio, LLC v. Last.FM, Ltd et al. (S.D. Fla. 2010). On behalf of clients Real Networks and Rhapsody, we won summary judgment of non-infringement on all grounds in an internet radio patent infringement case filed in the Southern District of Florida.
  • PrivaCash, Inc. v. American Express Company et al. (W.D. Wis. 2010 and Fed. Cir. 2011). We successfully represented American Express and its affiliate in a patent infringement action targeting their gift card products, in which plaintiff PrivaCash sought over $100 million in past damages and future royalties. The firm obtained a dismissal of co-defendant American Express Incentive Services, LLC (“AEIS”) early in the case after proving that AEIS’s gift cards were distributed and sold in the business-to-business environment and therefore could not infringe plaintiff’s patent. We then sought and secured a favorable claim construction ruling for remaining defendant American Express, and shortly thereafter filed a motion for summary judgment of non-infringement. Approximately one month before trial, the District Court granted American Express’s motion and entered summary judgment of non-infringement. In August 2011, the Federal Circuit affirmed the District Court’s summary judgment of non-infringement in favor of American Express.
  • Bright Response LLC v. Google Inc. and Yahoo Inc. (E. D. Tex 2010). Defending Google against a $128 million patent infringement claim brought by Bright Response LLC against Google’s AdWords advertising system in the Eastern District of Texas, we won a complete non-infringement and invalidity verdict after a six-day jury trial.
  • Software Rights Archive, LLC v. Google Inc., Yahoo! Inc., IAC Search and Media, Inc., AOL, LLC, and Lycos, Inc. (E.D. Tex. 2010). Our client, IAC Search and Media, Inc. (“IACSAM”), was sued by a patent troll for the alleged infringement of several patents that allegedly covered key parts of the search algorithms used in IACSAM’s Internet search engine. The plaintiff, who was represented by several plaintiffs’ firms, sought extensive damages for the alleged infringement by IACSAM and other search engine operators, such as Google and Yahoo!. Our firm played a key role in the preparation of invalidity contentions on behalf of the joint defense group, and the filing of a motion to transfer the case to the Northern District of California, which was recently granted. The plaintiff agreed to a favorable settlement for IACSAM in an amount that was significantly smaller than the plaintiff’s initial demand.
  • Performance Pricing Inc. v. Google Inc., et al. (E.D. Tex., Fed. Cir. 2010). On behalf of Google and AOL, we won affirmance of summary judgment of non-infringement in a patent infringement litigation in which the patent-in-suit was asserted against the defendants in September 2007 by Performance Pricing Inc., an Acacia entity. Performance Pricing had accused Google’s AdWords and AOL’s Search Marketplace systems of infringing the patent, which involved a method of doing business over the Internet “wherein various forms of competition and/or entertainment are used to determine transaction prices between buyers and sellers.”
  • PA Advisors, LLC v. Google Inc. and Yahoo! Inc. (E.D. Tex. 2010). On behalf of Google Inc., we obtained summary judgment of non-infringement, of all asserted claims of the patent owned by nXn Tech. f/k/a/ PA Advisors LLC, a non-practicing entity of Erich Spangenberg. The plaintiff had accused Google’s personalized search and advertising products of infringing a patent that involved a method of personalizing search results based on “linguistic patterns” favored by a user. Plaintiff had sought $121 million in damages and an ongoing royalty.
  • Catalina Marketing Corporation and Catalina Health Resource v. LDM Group, LLC. (E.D. Mo. 2010). We were retained by plaintiffs Catalina Marketing Corporation and its wholly owned subsidiary, Catalina Health Resource (collectively “Catalina”), to take over as lead counsel in an action alleging infringement of U.S. Patent No. 6,240,394 (“the ‘394 patent”) shortly before the Markman hearing. The ‘394 patent disclosed and claimed a novel method and computer system for generating targeted messages for pharmacy patients at the point of sale. Catalina alleged that LDM Group LLC’s “Carepoint” product and related services infringed the ‘394 patent. The parties resolved the case informally pursuant to a confidential settlement agreement.
  • Societa Italiana per lo Sviluppo dell’Elettronica S.p.A. (Sisvel S.p.A.) v. Hamg Shing Technology Corp. (Court of Appeal Karlsruhe/Germany 2010). We have been representing Sisvel for years enforcing the Philips, France Telecom, IRT and TDF patents covering MP3 in numerous cases. In March 2010, the first decision was rendered by the Court of Appeal Karlsruhe confirming infringement and rebutting the counterpart’s antitrust defense based on the standard essentiality of the enforced patent
  • ESN, LLC v. Cisco Systems, Inc. (E.D. Tex. 2010, Fed. Cir. 2010). We obtained a complete victory for Cisco in this closely watched patent infringement dispute. The plaintiff, a patent holding company, asserted a patent on a method for Voice over Internet Protocol telephony against Cisco’s line of Integrated Services Routers. We discovered that the invention had been conceived while the inventor was subject to an invention assignment agreement with his former employer. We moved to dismiss the complaint for lack of standing, arguing that because the patent was related to the former employer’s business, ownership was automatically transferred to the employer under the assignment agreement. The court agreed and dismissed the case. The Federal Circuit subsequently affirmed after oral argument.
  • Source Search Technologies, L.L.C. v. LendingTree, LLC, IAC/InterActiveCorp, and ServiceMagic, Inc. (D.N.J. 2009, Fed. Cir. 2010). On behalf of our clients, IAC/InterActiveCorp, LendingTree, and ServiceMagic, we obtained a summary judgment of invalidity. The District Court granted our motion for summary judgment that the asserted claims were invalid for obviousness. If the patent had survived, it could be asserted against any and all Internet buyer-vendor matching sites.
  • Desenberg v. Google, Inc. (S.D.N.Y 2009). We defended Google in a patent infringement suit brought by Roger Marx Desenberg, the inventor of U.S. Patent No. 7,139,732. The patent claims a method for connecting consumers and service providers with matching interests. Mr. Desenberg alleged that Google’s AdWords system infringed the patent by targeting users of its search engine for service-related advertisements based on the user’s queries. Mr. Desenberg claimed more than $1 billion in damages and sought a preliminary injunction. We successfully defeated the preliminary injunction and simultaneously obtained dismissal of Mr. Desenberg’s claims. The asserted claims required acts by multiple independent parties, including separate “users” and “service providers” to interact with a third-party matching system, and then purchase services based on that match. Google did not and could not play each of these separate roles, and could not credibly be alleged to control the acts of Internet users. The court accepted our position in its entirety, denying the preliminary injunction and dismissing Mr. Desenberg’s claims with prejudice.
  • IGT v. Alliance Gaming Corp., Bally Gaming, Inc., and Bally Gaming International, Inc. (D. Nev. 2009). We defended Bally in a patent infringement suit brought by IGT, a Fortune 100 Company and the dominant player in the gaming machine industry. IGT asserted patents pertaining to its Wheel of Fortune slot machine, which is widely regarded as the most successful slot machine in the history of gaming. Bally counterclaimed that IGT violated federal and state antitrust laws by asserting these wheel game patents it knew to be invalid and unenforceable in an attempt to eliminate competition from the marketplace. Bally prevailed on invalidity, with the court finding one of the wheel patents indefinite and the remainder invalid as obvious. The court also granted Bally’s summary judgment motion of non-infringement with regard to the wheel patents and found all but one of the remaining asserted patents not infringed, invalid, or both. The court denied IGT’s motion for summary judgment on Bally’s antitrust counterclaims. When word of the impending summary judgment rulings obtained by our firm reached the market (the day before the written orders issued), Bally’s stock price increased 10%, even though the Dow Jones Industrial Average declined over 8% that day.
  • Sony Corporation v. Westinghouse Digital Electronics, LLC (C.D. Cal. 2009) We won a Final Judgment by Consent on behalf of client, Sony Corporation, in a patent-infringement suit against Westinghouse Digital Electronics, LLC over patents directed to digital closed captioning, on-screen display and digital copy protection technologies used in digital televisions and monitors. Sony filed a complaint for infringement of seven of its patents in the United States District Court for the Central District of California and later amended its complaint to add three additional patents. Just nine months after Sony filed its original complaint, Westinghouse Digital acknowledged infringement of each of Sony’s ten patents. Westinghouse Digital also admitted to the validity and enforceability of each of the patents and agreed to take a license under the patents, which was a complete victory for Sony. Sony has also commenced a patent infringement action under the same ten patents against Vizio, Inc., whose televisions are manufactured by Taiwan-based AmTRAN Technologies, Inc. The action against Vizio is currently pending before the same judge who entered the consent judgment against Westinghouse Digital.
  • Micron Technology, Inc. v. Rambus Inc., et al. (D. Del. 2009) We represented Micron Technology in its long running battle against Rambus in a patent case arising out of Dynamic Random Access Memory (“DRAM”) technology. The U.S. District Court of Delaware trifurcated the trial into three phases – the “unclean hands” phase, the “patent” phase, and the “conduct” phase. In the unclean hands phase, the court, following a five-day bench trial, issued a written opinion finding that Rambus spoliated evidence and declared the patents in the suit unenforceable. The case was appealed to the Federal Circuit which upheld the finding that Rambus destroyed documents in anticipation of litigation and remanded for further proceedings regarding bad faith and prejudice.
  • Activision Publishing Inc. v. Gibson Guitar Corp. (C.D. Cal. 2009) We represented Activision and won summary judgment of non-infringement in a patent infringement litigation, disposing of all patent claims in the case. The litigation concerned the popular Guitar Hero® video games, one of the best-selling video games of all time. Activision filed the lawsuit in the Central District of California, seeking a declaration that the accused video games did not infringe a patent owned by Gibson directed to a “System and Method for Generating and Controlling a Simulated Musical Concert Experience.” The court’s ruling was issued less than a year after the case was filed.
  • Bid For Position v. AOL (Fed. Cir. 2009). We won affirmance of summary judgment of non-infringement for Google in a patent infringement litigation in which plaintiff sought in excess of $150 million in past damages and a royalty on future revenue in the billions. The litigation concerned the AdWords auction system used by Google to sell advertisement space on search results pages for Google.com and partner sites.
  • Girafa.com v. Amazon Web Services LLC; Amazon.com, Inc., Alexa Internet, Inc.; IAC Search & Media, Inc.; Snap Technologies, Inc.; Yahoo! Inc.; Smartdevil, Inc.; Exalead, Inc.; and Exalead S.A. (D. Del. 2009). We defeated a patent troll at the pretrial stage, having claims declared either invalid or not infringed. The patent addressed the use of thumbnails and storage and the retrieval of the same in the context of a search engine.
  • Web Tracking Solutions, LLC and Daniel Wexler v. Google, Inc. (E.D.N.Y. 2008).  We represented Google against an Acacia entity (Web Tracking Solutions) and a Brooklyn-based inventor (Daniel Wexler) in a suit alleging infringement of United States Patent No. 5,960,409.  The patent purported to cover basic tracking mechanisms for online advertisements, including the use of a third-party tracking service.  Plaintiffs claimed they were owed royalties on essentially all of Google’s advertising revenues.  Based on aggressive claim construction strategies, we secured favorable claim constructions with two Brooklyn-based judges: first, a favorable ruling by Magistrate Jose Reyes, following an eight-hour Markman hearing; and second, a confirmation of that favorable ruling by Judge Roslyn Mauskopf, after several months of briefing.  In light of the Court's claim construction, plaintiffs stipulated to dismiss the case. 
  • ShuffleMaster v. Bally Technologies (D. Nev. 2008). We won a summary judgment of non-infringement and obviousness on asserted patents concerning casino table game monitoring.
  • Litton/Northrop v. Tyco (C.D. Cal. 2008). We won six consent judgments and over $170 million on a single patent covering optical fiber amplifiers.
  • Intertainer, Inc. v. Apple Computer, Inc., Google Inc., and Napster, Inc. (E.D. Tex. 2008). We represented Google in a case brought against it, Apple and Napster by Intertainer claiming infringement of U.S. Patent No. 6,925,469, which relates to a digital entertainment service platform. We responded by requesting an inter partes reexamination of all claims of the ‘469 patent. The Patent Office issued a non-final office action rejecting all claims. As a result of the reexamination victory, the plaintiff sought a stay of the infringement lawsuit pending completion of the reexamination proceedings.
  • IBM v. PSI (S.D.N.Y. 2008). We represented IBM in a patent, trade secret, and antitrust case involving mainframe computer technology. The case settled on terms very favorable to IBM.
  • Gillette v. Dorco (D. Mass 2008). Representing Pace Shave and various Dorco entities as defendants, we successfully obtained a cost-effective and early global settlement in this razor industry litigation involving eleven patents spanning over 250 claims, as well as numerous assertions of trademark and trade dress.
  • University of Texas v. BenQ (W.D. Tex. 2007, Fed. Cir. 2008). We represented most of the cell phone industry (30+ defendants) in a patent case in Texas brought by the University of Texas involving predictive text messaging. After convincing the court to stay discovery on everything except claim construction and hold a separate trial on validity of the patent, the court granted defendants’ motion for summary judgment of non-infringement. The Federal Circuit upheld this judgment on appeal.
  • Friskit v. RealNetworks (N.D. Cal. 2007). We won summary judgment of invalidity due to obviousness on all four asserted patents, based on KSR Int’l v. Teleflex, in a case involving Internet media search and playback technology. This was the first reported post-KSR summary judgment decision resulting in a dismissal based on obviousness.
  • Ethos v. RealNetworks (D. Mass. 2006). We won a defense jury verdict of patent invalidity and non-infringement for a major Internet digital media delivery company in a five-week trial in which plaintiff sought in excess of $200 million in damages.
  • Unova/Intermec v. Hewlett Packard (C.D. Cal. 2006). We obtained seven consent judgments and over $250 million on a portfolio of patents covering the smart batteries used in notebook computers.
  • Planet Bingo LLC v. GameTech International 472 F.3d 1338 (Fed. Cir. 2006). We obtained by motions in limine a judgment of non-infringement in the defense of GameTech and three of its officers or directors, and won an order invalidating various claims of the plaintiff’s asserted patents. Those rulings were affirmed by the Federal Circuit.
  • Freedom Wireless Inc. v. Boston Communications Group Inc. (D. Mass. 2005). We conducted a 15-week trial against 12 defendants for infringement of prepaid wireless telephone systems and methods. We won a $128 million jury verdict against several wireless telephone carriers. The verdict was the largest ever awarded in Massachusetts, and was the eighth biggest verdict awarded in the U.S. that year.
  • LL International Shoe Co. v. Nike (C.D. Cal. 2005, Fed. Cir.). We defended Nike in $40 million trade dress and design patent infringement claims over Nike’s Air Jordan basketball shoes. We obtained a concession on the trade dress claims and summary judgment of non-infringement on the patent infringement claim, which was later affirmed by the Federal Circuit.
  • TME Enterprises v. Dakota Block (C.D. Cal. 2005). We won summary judgment of non-infringement for multiple defendants on patents involving chemical adhesives for construction materials.
  • Hoffer v. IBM (N.D. Cal., Fed. Cir. 2005). We won a summary judgment of noninfringement and invalidity on behalf of IBM in a case alleging infringement by IBM’s Universal Description Discovery and Integration offering. The Federal Circuit affirmed the lower court’s finding of non-infringement.
  • Adkins v. Mattel (C.D. Cal. 2005). We successfully defended Mattel in a patent infringement suit involving clam-shell packaging used for Mattel’s famous HOT WHEELS line of die-cast cars. The final judgment included a declaration of noninfringement.
  • Seiko Epson v. Print-Rite (D. Or. 2004). We obtained a summary judgment of infringement of Epson’s ink jet cartridge patent portfolio against a major aftermarket supplier.
  • Farmer v. Medo Industries (N.D. Cal. 2003). One of our partners was retained two months before trial by Medo Industries and Pennzoil-Quaker State in a two-patent patent infringement action related to various after-market automobile products. He obtained summary judgment of non-infringement on all claims asserted.
  • Bancorp v. Hartford (E.D. Mo. 2002). We earned a jury verdict of $118.3 million and a judgment of $134 million for a plaintiff financial products company in a misappropriation of trade secrets and breach of confidentiality agreement case against a major insurance company.
  • InTouch v. Amazon (N.D. Cal. 2002). We won a summary judgment for a defendant entertainment company that invalidated the independent claims of a notable on-line music patent asserted against over 200 on-line music companies. The court found non-infringement as to the remaining claims, ruled that the case was exceptional and awarded defendant its costs and fees.
  • Tegic Communications v. Zi (N.D. Cal. 2002). We were retained by AOL subsidiary Tegic Communications less than three months before the trial date. During a threeweek jury trial involving complex text input software technology, we defeated the attack on the validity of two Tegic patents and won a unanimous verdict of willful infringement and $9 million in compensatory damages.
  • Xircom v. 3Com/Palm (C.D. Cal. 2002). In patent infringement suits involving PC card technology, we obtained for 3Com/Palm an approximately $15 million settlement payment and cross-licenses.
  • 3M v. Seiko Instruments (W.D. Tex. 2001). Representing Seiko Instruments, we obtained a summary judgment of non-infringement of 3M patents directed to fiber optic ferrule designs and manufacturing techniques.
  • Cadence v. Audiodigital Imaging (C.D. Cal. 2000). We defeated Cadence’s motion for a temporary restraining order against our client and successfully compelled arbitration in a dispute regarding patent rights to MPEG video chips. Cadence then abandoned and dismissed the suit.
  • Avery Dennison v. ACCO (C.D. Cal. 1999). We represented Avery Dennison in a suit for infringement of several adhesive patents. After Avery Dennison moved simultaneously for a preliminary injunction and summary judgment, the defendant agreed to cease manufacture of all goods utilizing the accused materials.

 

RECENT PHARMACEUTICAL/LIFE SCIENCE REPRESENTATIONS  

  • Coalition for Affordable Drugs VI LLC v. Celgene Corporation (USPTO PTAB 2015). We represented Celgene Corporation in connection with an IPR petition filed by Hedge fund manager Kyle Bass and patent troll Erich Spangenberg (and related funds and other entities) against Celgene Corporation’s U.S. Pat. No. 5,635,517, which covers the active ingredient in Celgene’s blockbuster cancer therapy, Revlimid®.  The Patent Trial and Appeal Board denied institution of the IPR, adopting nearly all of Celgene’s arguments against institution.
  • Avanir Pharmaceuticals, Inc. et al. v. Par Pharmaceutical Inc. et al. (Fed.Circ. 2015). We secured a key victory at the Federal Circuit for our client Avanir Pharmaceuticals, Inc., an innovator pharmaceutical company, in a “bet-the-company” Hatch-Waxman patent litigation relating to Avanir’s flagship Nuedexta® product. Chief Judge Leonard P. Stark of the District of Delaware had previously issued a well-reasoned and thorough 63-page opinion in Avanir’s favor. Our adversary appealed, and oral argument was held on Friday, August 7, 2015. The morning of Monday, August 10, 2015—less than one business day later—the Federal Circuit issued a Rule 36 affirmance of the District Court’s decision, thereby ensuring patent protection for Nuedexta® until 2026.
  • Merck Sharp & Dohme Corp. v. Xellia Pharms. ApS & Xellia Pharms. Inc.(D. Del. 2015). We represented Merck in a Hatch-Waxman patent litigation involving Xellia’s proposed generic version of Merck’s CANCIDAS product.  After a two-day bench trial, the Court found that Xellia’s proposed generic product infringes Merck’s patent and issued an injunction prohibiting approval of Xellia’s generic product until the expiration of Merck’s patent. 
  • Dow Chemical Co. v. Nova Chemicals Corp. (D. Del. 2010, Fed. Circ. 2012, D. Del 2014). We represented The Dow Chemical Company in a supplemental damages proceeding of a patent infringement suit against Nova Chemicals Corporation (Canada) and Nova Chemicals Inc.  The district court awarded Dow more than $30 million in supplemental damages following up on an earlier verdict that Nova infringed Dow’s patents on a new type of plastic.  The total damages awards between the two cases, including interest, exceeded $107 million.
  • Classen Immunotherapies, Inc. v. Shionogi, Inc. and Merz Pharmaceuticals, LLC (D.Md. 2014).We represented Merz in a patent infringement case involving Merz’s Cuvposa drug product brought by Classen Immnunotherapies. We successfully had the Complaint dismissed in the early stages of the case, avoiding costly litigation and potential damages for Merz.
  • BSN Medical v. Mölnlycke Healthcare AB (German Federal Patent Court 2012). We represented Mölnlycke Healthcare AB (“MHC”), a global leader in the field of wound care products, in a German nullity action filed by BSN medical. The action concerned the German part of a European patent covering gel coated wound dressings. At the end of the trial, the German Federal Patent Court maintained MHC’s patent in the form requested by MHC.
  • Jazz Pharmaceuticals, Inc. v. Roxane Laboratories, Inc. (D.N.J. 2012). On September 14, 2012, we obtained a favorable claim-construction ruling for Jazz Pharmaceuticals, Inc. in a patent-infringement action against Roxane Laboratories, Inc. regarding Jazz’s narcolepsy treatment Xyrem® in which the court ruled in Jazz’s favor on virtually all disputed claim terms.
  • Sanofi-Aventis Deutschland v. Genentech, Inc. and Biogen Idec, Inc. (N.D. Cal. 2011, Fed. Cir. 2012) We successfully defended Genentech, Inc. in high-stakes patent litigation brought by Sanofi-Aventis Deutschland in the Eastern District of Texas. Sanofi sought damages on Genentech’s Rituxan® and Avastin® products, which earn billions of dollars in revenues each year. After we secured a writ of mandamus from the Federal Circuit transferring the case to the Northern District of California—in an opinion now routinely cited in transfer motions—the district court granted summary judgment of non-infringement of all asserted claims, which the Federal Circuit subsequently affirmed.
  • Atos Medical AB v. Servona GmbH (District Court Munich 2011). In Germany, we obtained reversal of ex parte preliminary injunction preventing our client from selling medical products based on alleged infringement of competitor’s patents.
  • Apotex Inc. v. Forest Laboratories, Inc., Forest Laboratories Holdings, Ltd. and H. Lundbeck A/S (E.D. Mich.). We helped innovator pharmaceutical companies Forest Laboratories, Inc., Forest Laboratories Holdings, Ltd., and H. Lundbeck A/S protect their multi-billion-dollar blockbuster antidepressant LEXAPRO® in a lawsuit brought by generic drug company Apotex Inc. in the Eastern District of Michigan. Through early motion practice, we made the case unwinnable for Apotex, which voluntarily dismissed the case only six months after filing it.
  • Affymax, Inc. v. Ortho-McNeil-Janssen Pharmaceuticals, Inc. (7th Cir. 2011). We represented Ortho-McNeil, a Johnson & Johnson subsidiary, in a unanimous victory that made an important new law narrowing “manifest disregard of the law” almost to the vanishing point as a ground for district court vacatur of arbitral awards. Some courts have treated this ground as a freestanding warrant to vacate arbitral awards for purported legal error even though it falls outside the statutory criteria in the Federal Arbitration Act. The Seventh Circuit flatly rejected such an approach, reversing the district court’s partial vacatur of the award and remanding for full confirmation of an award that favored Ortho in a dispute over inventorship and ownership of two patent families relating to new biological drugs for the production of red blood cells— products potentially worth billions of dollars in annual sales.
  • Billups-Rothenberg Inc. v. ARUP Laboratories and Bio-Rad Laboratories Inc. (C.D. Cal. 2010, Fed. Cir. 2011). We achieved a complete defense victory in a biotech patent case relating to genetic testing for an iron disorder. We obtained a ruling that one patent was invalid for failing the written description requirement of the patent laws, and another patent was invalid over prior art. This successful judgment was affirmed in a precedential opinion in the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit on April 29, 2011.
  • Infosint S.A. v. H. Lundbeck A/S, Lundbeck, Inc., Forest Laboratories, Inc., and Forest Pharmaceuticals, Inc. (S.D.N.Y. 2010 and Fed. Cir. 2011). We successfully represented Forest Laboratories and H. Lundbeck as defendants in a patent infringement action brought by Infosint in the Southern District of New York regarding the manufacture of their antidepressant drugs CELEXA® and LEXAPRO®, which had over $2 billion in annual U.S. sales. In June 2010, the S.D.N.Y, Judge Kaplan presiding, ruled that no reasonable jury could fail to find the asserted patent invalid due to obviousness. The Federal Circuit subsequently affirmed, and did so decisively, issuing a Rule 36 affirmance three days after the appellate oral argument in March 2011. The district court JMOL and Federal Circuit affirmance eliminated a claim for damages and ongoing royalties of roughly $600 million, and removed the possibility of any type of injunction being entered with respect to CELEXA® or LEXAPRO®.
  • Medicis Pharmaceutical Corp. v. Nycomed U.S. Inc. et al. (S.D.N.Y. 2011). We represented Medicis Pharmaceutical in series of Hatch Waxman actions related to Loprox® shampoo. Obtained favorable settlement.
  • Tyco Healthcare Group LP, et al. v. Applied Medical Resources Corp. (E.D. Tex. 2010). We successfully represented Tyco Healthcare Group LP in a patent infringement jury trial against Applied Medical Resources Corp. to enforce Tyco patents against certain of Applied’s surgical trocar products. The jury returned a verdict of infringement by Applied and awarded Tyco $4,810,389 in damages, out of Applied’s alleged total profit of $6,734,544 on the infringing sales.
  • Mölnlycke Health Care AB v. Smith & Nephew GmbH and Smith & Nephew Medical Ltd. (District Court Düsseldorf 2010). We are representing Mölnlycke Health Care, one of the world’s leading providers of single-use surgical and wound care products and services to the health care sector. Defendants are its competitors (i.e. the Smith & Nephew group), which is another leading player in this field. Accused devices are certain wound care products. This new generation of wound care products with silicone are significant for the leading players in this market. We achieved a full victory for the client in the first instance; however, an appeal is pending as well as a nullity action against the patent in suit.
  • Medicis Pharmaceutical Corp. v. Taro Pharmaceuticals U.S.A., Inc. et al. (S.D.N.Y. 2010). We represented Medicis Pharmaceutical in series of Hatch Waxman actions related to the topical steroid Vanos®. Obtained favorable settlement.
  • LifeCycle Pharma A/S v. Impax Laboratories, Inc. (D. Del. 2010). We represented LifeCycle Pharma and Shionogi Pharma in Hatch Waxman action related to the cholesterol lowering drug Fenoglide®. Obtained favorable settlement.
  • Connetics v. Pentech Pharmaceuticals (N.D. Ill. 2009). We represented plaintiff Connetics in Paragraph IV patent infringement litigation involving Luxiq® betamethasone valerate foam. Settled on favorable terms.
  • Connetics v. Pentech Pharmaceuticals (N.D. Ill. 2009). We represented Connetics in Paragraph IV patent infringement litigation involving Olux® clobetasol propionate foam. Settled on favorable terms.
  • PDL Biopharma, Inc. and EKR Therapeutics, Inc. v. Sun Pharmaceutical Industries Ltd. (D.N.J 2009). We obtained summary judgment in favor of our client EKR Therapeutics, Inc., in a Hatch Waxman dispute involving infringement of EKR Therapeutics’ patent covering the manufacturing formula for its brand name drug Cardene® I.V. Cardene® I.V. is one of the leading therapies for the treatment of acute hypertension in emergency settings. Generating sales of about $360 million per year, Cardene® I.V. came under attack from the generic drug company Sun Pharmaceuticals Industries, Ltd., which was threatening to launch a generic copy of Cardene® I.V. prior to expiration of the patent-in-suit. Believing that it would prevail on a theory that it characterized as “unavoidable,” Sun Pharmaceuticals filed an early motion for summary judgment of noninfringement in July 2008. The firm’s decision to oppose that motion by having EKR Therapeutics file its own cross-motion for summary judgment paid off. On March 31, 2009, the court issued an order and opinion finding that Sun Pharmaceuticals’ generic copy of Cardene® I.V. infringes the patent-in-suit, both literally and under the doctrine of equivalents.
  • Bio-Rad v. Eppendorf (N.D. Cal., E.D. Tex. 2008). We represented Bio-Rad Laboratories, Inc. as lead counsel in multiple patent infringement suits regarding microplate, electroporation, and multiporation technology. Multiple cases were settled on favorable terms for Bio-Rad.
  • Wade v. Nobel Biocare USA (JAMS 2006). We represented an individual inventor in an arbitration involving a snap-fit device used for dental implants. Immediately following the claim construction hearing, Nobel initiated discussions that resulted in a favorable settlement.
  • Regents of the University of California v. Monsanto (N.D. Cal. 2006). We defended Monsanto when the plaintiff patentee alleged that Monsanto’s recombinant bovine growth hormone product infringed its patent. The plaintiff sought $1.8 billion in treble damages and a permanent injunction. After we won summary judgment eliminating one of the two accused products, the case settled favorably the day before trial.
  • Szoka v. ALZA (N.D. Cal. 2006). We defended ALZA in a patent inventorship dispute in which two individuals alleged that they were the inventors of an ALZA patent covering liposomes used for the targeted delivery of pharmaceuticals. After a one-week bench trial, the court rejected the claim of inventorship and entered judgment for ALZA.
  • Connetics v. Agis Industries (D.N.J. 2005). We represented Connetics in Paragraph IV patent infringement litigation involving Olux® clobetasol propionate foam. The case settled following a favorable claim construction and after the defendant’s motion for summary judgment of no infringement was denied.
  • Reliant Pharmaceuticals v. Abbott Laboratories (D. Del. 2004). Representing Reliant in a patent litigation related to competing branded fenofibrate products, we sought a declaratory judgment of non-infringement, invalidity and unenforceability due to inequitable conduct. The case then settled on favorable terms.
  • Genentech v. Columbia University (N.D. Cal., D. Mass. 2004). When Columbia demanded that Genentech license a “new” patent on co-transformation--a widely used recombinant DNA technique for producing protein in a host cell--we sued for obviousness-type double patenting. With our summary judgment motion looming, the university filed a broad covenant not to sue Genentech for past, current or future infringement of the “new” patent or any reissued patent with the same or similar claims.
  • Mentor H/S v. MDA and Lysonix (C.D. Cal. 1999). We prevailed in a jury trial regarding a pioneering patent on the ultrasonic liposuction method, winning a multimillion dollar verdict and a finding of willful infringement later affirmed by the Federal Circuit.

SUPREME COURT RECENT REPRESENTATIONS

  • Stanford University v. Roche Molecular Systems and Roche Diagnostics (Supreme Court 2011). We represented Roche in a patent infringement case brought by Stanford University for infringement of Stanford HIV patents relating to viral load and AIDS therapy decisions. Roche initially asserted that it owned the patents because the patents arose from a collaboration between Stanford and Roche’s predecessor, Cetus Corporation. The Court denied this defense. After extensive litigation and claim construction, Roche moved for—and the Court granted— summary judgment that the Stanford patents asserted against Roche were invalid because they were obvious in light of the prior art. The lead prior art reference was a joint publication between Stanford and Cetus in the Journal of Infectious Diseases. On appeal, the Federal Circuit agreed with our defense that Roche was a co-owner of the patents in suit due to the collaboration. With the support of the Solicitor General’s office, Stanford petitioned the United States Supreme Court to reverse the Federal Circuit and allow Stanford to void its prior contracts based on the existence of federal funding for research at Stanford. The Supreme Court agreed with Roche and ruled 7-2 that Stanford must abide by its contracts and that the Bayh Dole Act— the statute governing federal research funding—does not give automatic ownership of patents to universities.
  • KSR, International v. Teleflex (Supreme Court 2007). Representing Time Warner, IAC/Interactive and Viacom, we filed an amicus brief. The Supreme Court adopted an argument we made that many high technology inventions are not published, thus making that strict requirement of documentary evidence unwarranted.
  • EBay v. MercExchange (Supreme Court 2006). Representing Time Warner, Amazon, Chevron, Cisco, Google, Shell, Visa, IAC/Interactive, Infineon, and Xerox, we filed an amicus brief arguing against automatic injunctions because with respect to high technology products, a patent may relate only to a small and relatively insignificant component. Justice Kennedy’s concurring opinion adopted our argument as a basis for opposing the issuance of automatic injunction.

Back to Top

Partners

Partners