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.
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).
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.
UC Regents v. QD Vision
Represented the Regents of the University of California against QD Vision for infringement of patents relating to nanocrystal technology in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California.
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.
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.