Digital Technology Engagements

• AGF Reassurances v. Spar Aerospace Ltd. - We successfully represented this international manufacturer of telecommunications satellites in multi-million dollar claims related to technical malfunctions.  A favorable settlement was reached prior to trial.

• Creo Products v. Dainippon Screen - We successfully represented Dainippon Screen against patent infringement and trade secret claims brought in the United States District Court for the Western District of Washington.  We obtained summary judgment of non-infringement in our client's favor based on application of prosecution history estoppel, and summary judgment dismissing all other claims and an award for attorneys' fees in favor of our client.  The district court judgment was affirmed in all respects by the Federal Circuit.

• Dolby Laboratories v. Lucent Technologies – We represented Dolby in seeking a declaratory judgment that Dolby’s AC-3 technology does not infringe patents Lucent had asserted against Dolby’s licensees.  Following protracted litigation, in which we obtained discovery sanctions against Lucent on multiple occasions and attorneys fees at the conclusion of the case, we successfully obtained orders granting summary judgment of non-infringement on the patents-in-suit.  The Federal Circuit affirmed the district court's orders awarding summary judgment and attorney's fees.

• Dolby Laboratories v. Smart Devices, Inc. - We represented Dolby in a suit for trademark infringement, unfair competition and false advertising to enforce Dolby’s intellectual property rights related to one of its latest sound innovations – SURROUND EX. The case was filed in the Central District of California and resulted in a favorable settlement for our client.

• Drexler Technology v. Dolby Laboratories, Inc., et al. - This case, filed in the Northern District of California, involved patent infringement claims asserting that Dolby Digital sound-on-film technology infringed patents held by the plaintiff, Drexler Technology Corporation.  In addition to defending Dolby Laboratories, we also represented a number of major entertainment companies (including Walt Disney Pictures, Fox, MGM, Universal Studios and Columbia Pictures) in this action.  After obtaining a claim construction (“Markman”) order supporting virtually every claim construction position we advocated on behalf of our clients, the Court entered summary judgment in our clients' favor on grounds of non-infringement and patent invalidity.

• GTE Wireless v. PCS - We represented GTE Wireless as a plaintiff and counter-defendant in a multi-pronged litigation regarding cellular telephone services carried out simultaneously in federal, state, and bankruptcy court and before the Federal Communications Commission.  The case settled on favorable terms.

• MIT v. Dolby Laboratories - We defended Dolby Laboratories in an action brought by the Massachusetts Institute of Technology relating to a licensing agreement for the development of digital sound technology used in high definition televisions.   After a jury trial in the District Court in Boston, a favorable settlement was reached for our client.

• Steele v. Nokia - We represent Nokia in this first-impression case in which the plaintiff has brought a products liability claim against Nokia arising out of the use of cellular technology in an automobile.  The case is pending in Contra Costa County Superior Court. 

• Trimble Navigation, Ltd. v. SiRF Technology, Inc. - We defended SiRF Technology in an infringement action on three patents related to chipsets for use in Global Positioning Systems (GPS) technology.  After a technical tutorial and the assertion of counterclaims based on limited discovery, and the exchange of initial disclosures under the Local Patent Rules, we achieved a favorable settlement for the client which included licenses to additional patents.