A-Data, Chipsbank, AFA, Skymedi, PQI, Corsair Memory: Representing six separate Asian manufacturers of key components of and finished flash memory devices, the most popular of which are so-called USB pen or thumb drives, in the ITC Section 337 investigation Certain Flash Memory Controllers, Drivers, Memory Cards and Media Players and Products Containing Same.
Allergan: Obtained a verdict in favor of Syntex and Allergan in a Hatch-Waxman patent infringement action against Apotex Corporation involving a patent covering an ophthalmic pharmaceutical formulation.
Apple, Inc.: Represented Apple in a patent infringement action brought by PhatRat Technology involving sensors which calculate biometric data for athletes.
Applied Precision/Rudolph Technologies: Represent Applied Precision (now Rudolph Technologies) in patent infringement action brought by Integrated Technology Corporation involving probe card analyzers.
Ariba, Inc.: Representing Ariba in a patent infringement action where they contend that Emptoris infringes four patents directed to methods and systems for electronic auctions. Also represented Ariba in a patent infringement action against Sky Technologies relating to technology for online contract negotiations, which settled successfully at trial immediately prior to closing arguments.
ArrayCom: Representing ArrayCom in a patent infringement action in the Eastern District of Texas involving three patents relating to wireless communications systems.
Atmel Corporation:
Represented Atmel in a major victory in the Philadelphia federal court jury trial Agere v. Atmel. Agere claimed that Atmel infringed four semiconductor patents, including what it touted as its key tungsten patents. Agere sought damages of approximately $200 million, as well as enhancement for claimed willful infringement. After a three-week trial, the jury returned a verdict in Atmel's favor, invalidating the tungsten patents and finding the fourth not infringed as well as invalid, and awarding Agere zero in damages.
Represented Atmel in a series of patent infringement actions over the last decade as counsel on both federal circuit and appellate matters. The federal circuit affirmed the issuance of an International Trade Commission exclusion order barring the importation of infringing flash and other memory chips and circuit boards. In Atmel v. SST, Atmel was awarded a $36.5 million judgment following a jury verdict for willful infringement in its favor.
Bank of America:
Representing Bank of America in a patent infringement action directed to systems and methods for authenticating users and updating personal financial information on network or web-based systems. The technology involved in the dispute enables access to and facilitates user-controlled interaction with databases maintained by the bank and/or vendors.
Representing Bank of America in a patent infringement action involving patents directed to systems and methods for serving web pages of customizable viewable data to browsing devices connected to a network.
Becton, Dickinson and Company: Represented Becton, Dickinson as lead trial and appellate counsel in connection with an application by a foreign company to take discovery in the United States under 28 U.S.C. §1782 for use in foreign proceedings. The matter related to patent rights in Methicillin-resistant Staph aureus (MRSA) detection technology.
BiTEK: Won an appeal to the Federal Circuit, vacating a jury verdict of infringement and a permanent injunction against client, Beyond Innovation Technology Co. Ltd. (BiTEK), in a patent case originally filed by O2 Micro International Ltd. in the Eastern District of Texas.
Blue Heron: Represented Blue Heron in a five patent infringement suit brought by Codon Devices in the District of Delaware on technology related to automated gene synthesis. Obtained a very favorable settlement for the client.
CA, Inc.: Representing CA in a patent infringement action before the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York in which CA seeks declaratory judgment of invalidity, unenforceability and non-infringement of patents relating to Internet portal technology. We secured a Report & Recommendation of non infringement from the Special Master.
Depomed Inc: Represented Depomed in a patent infringement action against generic pharmaceutical manufacturer Ivax. At issue was how to interpret the claims of Depomed patents covering the company's extended release drug dosage technology and whether Ivax infringed those patents. Our client was granted summary judgment of patent infringement, and the case subsequently settled.
Emine Technology: Obtained a finding of no violation by our client Emine Technology in an ITC Section 337 investigation where they had been accused of infringing a patent related to KVM switches made by ATEN Technology, Inc.
Genentech, Inc.:
Represented Genentech in a patent infringement action with its licensee Tercica against several biotechnology companies related to Insmed. The case involved three Genentech patents: one covering the method of producing a special protein by recombinant DNA technology, a second covering DNA molecules related to another special protein and the third covering a method of using those two special proteins to treat children with severe growth deficiency. The jury found the production patent to be valid, the molecule patent had been infringed, and the treatment patent had been willfully infringed.
Represented Genentech in a patent infringement action brought against Amgen in connection with three patents covering the construction of plasmids and production of proteins in host cells. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit overturned a summary judgment ruling in favor of Amgen and the case was remanded to the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California. On the eve of trial, the case was settled very favorably for Genentech.
Huawei Technologies: Represented Huawei in an action brought by Cisco Systems in the Eastern District of Texas, in which Cisco asserted patent infringement, copyright, and trade secret claims relating to the software for network routers. Defeated preliminary injunction seeking worldwide ban on distributing product.
Innogenetics, N.V.: Obtained a jury verdict of $7 million for Innogenetics for Abbott’s infringement of patents involving a method for genotyping the Hepatitis C virus (HCV). A post-trial victory resulted in a permanent injunction against Abbott.
Maxim Integrated Products: Representing Maxim in a declaratory judgment action against Freescale Semiconductor involving process, packaging and circuit patents.
Merck KGaA: Prevailed in the U.S. Supreme Court on behalf of Merck KGaA. The Court's unanimous opinion vindicates the right to conduct pre-clinical cancer research to provide data for FDA approval of clinical trials of new drugs, without fear of patent liability. Considered to be the most significant patent case in the biotech and pharmaceutical industries in a generation. On remand to the Federal Circuit, we won full judgment of non-infringement with respect to all asserted patents.
MorphoSys AG: Represented declaratory judgment plaintiff MorphoSys AG in four separate actions against Cambridge Antibody Technology (CAT) involving patents pertaining to phage display of antibodies. The case filed was tried to a hung jury and later dismissed based on a finding that MorphoSys could not infringe the CAT patent as a matter of law. We also represented MorphoSys in defending against five patents issued to Stuart Kauffman regarding Stochastic Libraries of DNA and peptides.
Mylan: Obtained a stay of injunction from the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit permitting Mylan to launch a generic version of hypertension drug Norvasc. Mylan’s market position was further cemented when we sought and obtained an emergency injunction from the District Court for the District of Columbia enjoining the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) from approving any other generic Norvasc applications, at least until the FDA takes public comment and issues a formal position statement.
Palm, Inc.: Representing Palm in a patent infringement action brought by NTP relating to patents alleged to cover wireless data systems. The Court granted Palm’s motion to stay pending re-examination of the patents at the U.S. PTO.
PPC: Tried and won two patent infringement jury trials against two separate defendants on the same patent owned by PPC relating to coaxial cable connectors.
Power Dekor Group Co.: Representing the Chinese wood flooring industry in their appeal of Certain Laminated Floor Panels, 337-545, to the Federal Circuit where the amount of trade at stake runs into the hundreds of millions of dollars.
RSA Security, Inc.: Represented RSA Security in a patent infringement action against Cylink and Stanford University involving the validity of the basic Stanford public key cryptography patents (Hellman-Merkle and Diffie-Hellman) and the issue of whether those patents dominated the RSA patent on its public key cryptosystem. Following a Markman hearing, the case settled favorably to RSA. We have represented RSA in other matters involving the same technology, including suits against Network Associates and Pretty Good Privacy, Inc., and IONA Technology.
Samsung: Representing Samsung in a patent infringement action where the plaintiffs Advanced Micro Devices and ATI Technologies are asserting six patents related to semiconductor chip fabrication and design used in flash memory chips.
SAP: Represented SAP in the Disc Link litigation in the Eastern District of Texas against well-known licensing company, Acacia, concerning hyperlink technology. Additional defendants we represented in this case include Novell, CA, Altera, Sonic Solutions, and Eastman Kodak.
Seagate:
Representing Seagate in a patent infringement action against STEC where the patents relate to solid-state drives.
Defended Seagate in an ITC Section 337 investigation involving three patents where the plaintiffs sought an exclusion order against Seagate Hard Disk Drives (HDDs), as well as all computers manufactured by Dell and Hewlett Packard that contain Seagate HDDs. The matter settled, terminating Seagate's inclusion in the ITC and parallel district court cases.
SonoSite: Representing SonoSite in defense and counterclaims against General Electric regarding patents on features of ultrasound instruments
Superconductor Technologies, Inc.: Represented defendant and counter-plaintiff Superconductor Technologies (STI) in this patent infringement action involving high-temperature superconductive receiver front ends used in cellular telephone systems. Obtained a verdict finding the patent asserted against STI to be invalid, unenforceable and not infringed. The verdict has been affirmed by the Federal Circuit.
Texas Instruments, Inc. (TI):
Defended Unitrode Corporation, a TI affiliate, in a patent case brought by Linear Technology involving "sleep mode" and current reversal protection aspects of voltage regulators.
Represented TI and Stanford University in litigation concerning ADSL modem technology that involves both patent infringement and antitrust claims, and obtained a $112 million jury verdict.
UMC, ProMOS, Microchip, and Micronas: Representing respondents in USITC Inv. No. 337-TA-648, a multiparty representation concerning semiconductor integrated circuits.
Visa U.S.A. and Visa International: Won summary judgment of non-infringement in a patent infringement action brought by Safeclick over a patent alleged to cover the “Verified by Visa” service for authenticating the identity of a payment cardholder in an on-line transaction. The judgment was affirmed on appeal.
WARF: Successfully resolved a dispute on behalf of The Wisconsin Alumni Research Foundation involving the organization's pioneering stem cell technology. The patent for WARF's primate embryonic stem cells was named one of 10 patents that changed the world by IP Worldwide.
Yahoo! Inc.: Represented Overture Services, a Yahoo! subsidiary, in an action alleging infringement of Overture's pioneering paid search patent by Google's top revenue-producing Internet advertising services. In a highly publicized settlement, Google took a license to this patent and several related patents in exchange for 2.7 million shares of Google stock.
