Experience

  • Intellectual Property
  • Solar

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.

Symbology Innovations v. Muji Ltd.

As lead counsel, successfully defended Muji in the U.S. District Court for Delaware in a multi-patent case relating to QR code technology.

Rothschild Location Technologies v. Popular Ridesharing Company

Defended a popular ridesharing company in Eastern District of Texas patent proceedings from allegations that our client’s on-demand transportation services infringe Rothschild’s patents relating to GPS technology. Obtained a favorable settlement for our client.

Biotech IP Infringement

Represented a bio-tech company in patent infringement litigation, licensing disputes and IP counseling relating to its pharmaceutical products. 

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.

BladeRoom v. Facebook and Emerson

After a five-week jury trial before the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California, our team won for UK-based BladeRoom a $30 million verdict against global manufacturing giant Emerson for willful and malicious misappropriation of trade secrets and breach of a non-disclosure agreement relating to BladeRoom’s revolutionary new methodology for constructing warehouse-sized data centers. The Daily Journal named this one of the “Top Verdicts” in California in 2018. The Court subsequently awarded BladeRoom an additional $30 million in exemplary damages and $17 million in prejudgment interest, for a total judgement exceeding $77 million. Our client settled with Facebook after the first week of trial.

Bench Trial Defense Verdict in Napa County

After a week-long bench trial in Napa County Superior Court, our team won a complete defense verdict on behalf of one of the largest wine grape growers in Napa County, whose family businesses and trusts had been joined to a marital dissolution proceeding. The opponent had sought damages in the millions of dollars and equitable relief, but our client prevailed on all claims. The court awarded our client $75,000 in sanctions for the opponent’s unreasonable litigation conduct.

Atmel Corporation v. Ericsson

We represented Atmel, a leading semiconductor manufacturer, in a multi-week arbitration through which we obtained an award of over $43 million arising from Ericsson's misappropriation of Atmel's patented AVR microcontroller technology and Ericsson's multiple breaches of the parties' license agreement.  The International Centre for Dispute Resolution, International Arbitration Tribunal also awarded Atmel a permanent injunction prohibiting Ericsson from continued misappropriation of Atmel's proprietary technology.

Dolby Laboratories v. Alcatel-Lucent Technologies

We represented Dolby in seeking a declaratory judgment that Dolby’s AC-3 (“Dolby Digital”) technology does not infringe patents that Alcatel-Lucent had asserted against Dolby’s licensees.  Following protracted litigation, in which we obtained discovery sanctions against Alcatel-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.

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. That case settled the week 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. Argued appeal before Federal Circuit seeking recovery of attorney's fees.

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. Final decisions will issue in mid-2019.

Tridia Corp. v. NTT Resonant Corp.

Served as lead counsel for this subsidiary of Japan’s largest telecom company, Nippon Telegraph & Telephone Co., in its first ever patent litigation in the United States. The case filed in Georgia Northern District Court presented unique questions involving the role of special masters to resolve section 101 motions and personal service of Japanese companies in the United States under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. 

Tse v. Google, Inc.

Represented Google in the Federal Circuit Court of Appeals seeking affirmance of a Northern District of California ruling that a digital rights management patent was invalid. The Federal Circuit ruled in favor of our client, affirming invalidity of the asserted patents.

hiQ Labs Inc. v. LinkedIn Corp.

Represented startup hiQ Labs Inc. in a precedent-setting litigation for data analytics, mining, and aggregator companies and their right to access publicly available data under the Digital Millennium Copyright Act, the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act (CFAA), and a California state law on unauthorized computer access. The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed hiQ’s preliminary injunction against LinkedIn.

Waymo LLC v. Uber Technologies, Inc. et al.

Appointed by federal court Judge William Alsup of the Northern District of California, John Cooper is serving as “special master” in Waymo’s trade secrets case against Uber, putting him at a focal point of what could be seen as a battle for the future of the autonomous vehicle industry.

Hall Data v. Dropbox

Defended Dropbox in patent proceedings related to database synchronization technologies initially filed in the Eastern District of Texas. After successfully obtaining transfer of the action from the Eastern District of Texas to the Northern District of California, we obtained a dismissal with prejudice on behalf of our client following a court-ordered settlement conference.

Novartis v. MedImmune, Biogen, Alexion

Served as co-counsel in litigation alleging infringement of patents for a vector for the expression of polypeptides. The cases were resolved by favorable settlements for Novartis. 

Purple Leaf v. Google, Inc.

Defended Google Checkout in the Eastern District of Texas against assertions that it infringed a patent owned by Purple Leaf that purportedly disclosed a way to conduct an online transaction directly between merchant and buyer. After initial pleadings, we were able to attain a dismissal of the claims against Google. 

SharkNinja Operating LLC v. Flexible Technologies, Inc.

We are representing Flexible Technologies in its district court litigation accusing SharkNinja of patent infringement and other intellectual property claims. SharkNinja filed an IPR, and our PTAB team successfully defended our client convincing the PTAB not to institute the requested inter partes review.

Albert Jones v. Google Inc.

Represented Google in a multi-defendant patent infringement action in the Northern District of California involving smart phone, smart watch and headphone technologies. Following a claim construction hearing, the court ruled in favor of defendants.

SoftView v. Dell

Defended Dell against software patent infringement claims brought by SoftView against Dell’s Android phones and tablets in the United States District Court for the District of Delaware. The case was dismissed after all of SoftView’s asserted claims were found unpatentable in inter partes review.

Volterra Semiconductor v. Primarion & Infineon Technologies

We obtained a unanimous verdict in a three-week patent jury trial for our client Volterra Semiconductor in the United Stated District Court for the Northern District of California upholding the validity of Volterra's key patents for flip chip integrated power switches against challenges by defendants Infineon and Primarion. Infringement in favor of our client had been determined prior to trial as a result of key rulings we obtained in favor of Volterra in connection with claims construction and summary judgment proceedings.

Authors Guild v. HathiTrust

We submitted an amicus brief on behalf of the Electronic Frontier Foundation in support of the HathiTrust “mass digitization” project. HathiTrust, backed by a consortium of university libraries and Google, has digitized millions of copyrighted books and incorporated them into a database without the consent of copyright owners. The brief addressed whether changing a work from print form to a digital database in order to add new uses counts as “transformative” under copyright fair use factor 1. In June 2014, the Second Circuit affirmed the district court’s decision that HathiTrust Digital Library’s use of the copyrighted works for full-text search constitutes a “fair use.” The court also affirmed the district court’s ruling that fair use allows the libraries to provide the works in formats accessible to the print-disabled.

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 (two days after the oral argument).

MAZ Encryption v. Dell Inc.

Defending Dell Inc. in the U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware against allegations that its DDPE and DDPA products infringe two patents.

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. Case ended by settlement for Trilliant though another defendant went to trial and suffered a significant loss (eventually overturned by Federal Circuit).

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.

BioMarin v. Shionogi

Represented Shionogi against claims brought by BioMarin in San Francisco Superior Court for breach of a pharmaceutical license agreement.

Firm Highlights

News

Four Farella Intellectual Property Partners Named 2021 IP Stars; Firm Recommended for Patent Litigation

Farella Braun + Martel’s James L. Day , Jeffrey M. Fisher , Eugene Mar , and Stephanie P. Skaff  have been named IP Stars by Managing Intellectual Property in its 2021 guide to the...

Read More
Publication

IP Law up for Best Supporting Role in the COVID-19 Relief Spending Bill and Other New Legislation

The new, more than 5,000-page spending bill (formally known as The Consolidated Appropriations Act), which includes the latest COVID-19 relief, had a few surprises under its cover. Two of those surprises focus directly on...

Read More
Publication

Tips For Banks As USAA Check Deposit Patent Dispute Grows

In January 2020, we wrote a  Law360 guest article  that highlighted some of the risks that followed Wells Fargo Bank NA's strategy in its patent dispute with the United Services Automobile Association over remote deposit check imaging technology. Nearly...

Read More
Publication

SCOTUS Copyright Fair Use Decision: Google vs. Oracle Recap and Takeaways

Eugene Mar and Erik Olson discuss "SCOTUS Copyright Fair Use Decision: Google vs. Oracle Recap and Takeaways." After more than a decade of litigation that included multiple trials and appeals, the Supreme Court of...

Read More
News

Jeff Fisher Named Among Top Trade Secrets Lawyers in California by the Daily Journal

Farella Braun + Martel is proud to announce that Jeffrey M. Fisher was named among 2021’s “Top Trade Secrets Lawyers” in California by the Daily Journal . Jeff is an accomplished trial lawyer with...

Read More
News

Google Wins Unanimous Verdict in Patent Case in Western District of Texas

Farella Braun + Martel client Google LLC won a complete defense verdict from a Texas federal jury in the Western District of Texas on October 6. At issue were allegations that Google's Nest Hub...

Read More
News

Farella Braun + Martel Earns 2022 U.S. News – Best Lawyers® "Best Law Firms" Rankings

SAN FRANCISCO, November 5, 2021: Northern California legal powerhouse Farella Braun + Martel earned national and regional rankings across several practice areas in the 2022 edition of U.S. News – Best Lawyers ® "Best...

Read More
News

51 Farella Lawyers Listed in The Best Lawyers in America© 2022 and Best Lawyers: Ones to Watch

Forty-six Farella Braun + Martel lawyers were selected by their peers for inclusion in the 2022 edition of The Best Lawyers in America © .  Five Farella lawyers were named to Best Lawyers: Ones to...

Read More
Publication

No Quarter: What Claims Doesn’t Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act Protect Platform Companies Against?

Depending on what you read or who you talk to, Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act (47 U.S.C. § 230) (CDA) is either a tool of censorship, a shield of Big Tech that...

Read More
Publication

Data Center Business Deals Gone Bad, and the Risks of the “Known in the Industry” Defense

Exploring business partnerships often involves or even requires sharing highly confidential trade secret information. The data center industry is no exception, and its participants have in recent years faced litigation focused around the intellectual...

Read More