Experience
Trial Victory for Smart Meter Technology Company
Defended a smart meter technology company in a federal bankruptcy court bench trial against billion-dollar damage claims asserted by a technology licensor. Following the two-week trial, the court found for our client on all counts, not only rejecting the licensor’s damage claims but fully vindicating our client's rights under the license agreement.
Profectus Technologies v. Google LLC
Represented Google LLC in its complete defense verdict from a Texas federal jury in the Western District of Texas in a case alleging that Google's Nest Hub and Nest Hub Max devices infringed a patent asserted by Profectus Technologies. The jury found that the asserted claims of the patent were invalid and that Google did not infringe.
Networking and Cybersecurity Solutions Company Patent Infringement Lawsuit
Represented a multinational networking and cybersecurity solutions company in a 6-patent infringement lawsuit in the Western District of Texas and in the related IPR proceedings. The lawsuit accused a broad range of data center-related technology, including routers, switches, firewall devices, and the company’s operating system of infringement. The matter resolved with a settlement favorable for our client.
Huawei Technologies and Futurewei Technologies v. Yiren “Ronnie” Huang and CNEX Labs, Inc.
After a 3-week jury trial in Eastern District of Texas, successfully defended start-up CNEX Labs in a bet-the-company case against all claims of trade secret misappropriation, CFAA, RICO, and tortious interference brought by Huawei Technologies and Futurewei Technologies and attained a finding of misappropriation of trade secrets against Huawei in the field of SSD controller technology.
Security People, Inc. v. Ojmar US, LLC
Defended Spanish touch-pad lock manufacturer Ojmar SA and its US subsidiary in a series of patent infringement actions filed by its direct competitor in the Northern District of California. We succeeded in getting two cases dismissed outright and defeated the third by successfully challenging the asserted patent in an IPR proceeding in the Patent Office—a decision summarily affirmed by the Federal Circuit Court of Appeals. We then filed a Walker Process/Handgards antitrust case on behalf of Ojmar against its dominant competitor. The case settled shortly before trial in June 2018.
Blue Spike v. Adobe Systems
Defended Adobe Systems in a five-patent case relating to signal abstraction technology involving 70+ defendants. We successfully obtained a transfer of venue from the Eastern District of Texas to the Northern District of California followed by a judgment of non-infringement. Pursued recovery of attorneys’ fees through appeal.
Comcast v. Promptu Systems
In response to patent litigation against Comcast, we have filed six IPR petitions challenging the three asserted patents. All six IPRs have been instituted for review on all grounds by the Patent Office.
Goodson v. Titeflex Corp.
In response to patent litigation against Titeflex, we defended the district court litigation and successfully obtained a stay based on two IPR petitions. We prevailed on all claims in both IPRs, and the PTAB’s decision cancelling all of the challenged claims was summarily affirmed by the Federal Circuit.
EON Corp. IP Holdings, LLC v. Landis+Gyr Inc., et al.
Defended Trilliant Inc. in this three-patent case in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Texas against smart meter vendors involving wireless mesh network technology.
Rotatable Technologies v. Motorola Mobility LLC and Quickoffice Inc.
Obtained a non-infringement judgment for defendants Motorola Mobility and Quickoffice Inc. on 47 mobile devices in a patent case in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Texas. Judgment was upheld on appeal.
Cioffi, et al. v. Google Inc
Defended Google in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Texas in a four-patent case relating to multi-process web browsers. The case is currently pending a post-trial invalidity decision based whether the reissue patents improperly recaptured disclaimed subject matter under 35 USC section 251.