Our lawyers and staff are focused on seeking exceptional results for our clients. We deliver value by creating solutions to legal problems through high quality work and innovative strategy designed to meet client objectives.
Select a practice area from the list below to view the results from that area.
|
Represented Imation Corporation in a case of alleged patent infringement related to flash memory technology owned by SanDisk Corporation. The technology is used in several devices, most notably portable USB memory cards. Based on prior art, the International Trade Commission determined that patent 7,137,011 was invalid for obviousness and that Imation Corporation's products do not infringe the asserted claims.
Counsel for Imation Corporation:
|
|
WNS Holdings LLC et al. v. Northwest Airlines Inc.: Defended Northwest Airlines, Inc. in a patent infringement suit relating to GPS and avionics technology. Specifically, Plaintiffs accused Northwest of infringing the patents through the alleged use of Automatic Dependant Surveillance, including ADS-B. After extensive discovery, a dismissal of the action was obtained, and the client secured the right to potentially recover its fees and costs in the event of any future litigation.
Counsel for Northwest Airlines Inc.:
|
|
Great Clips, Inc., v. Hair Cuttery of Greater Boston, L.L.C. and Great Cuts, Inc.: Summary judgment granted to client, Great Clips, Inc., against defendant Great Cuts' claims for trademark infringement.
Counsel for Great Clips, Inc.
|
|
Grantley Patent Holdings, Inc. v. Clear Channel Communications, Inc., a patent infringement case in which a federal jury in the Eastern District of Texas awarded Grantley Corporation $66 million. The jury found that Clear Channel Communications, Inc. infringed on four of Grantley Corporation's patents related to an integrated inventory management system for radio advertising time. The jury also found that the infringement was willful. The verdict was announced on April 22, 2008. On June 11, 2008, the court enhanced the damages by more than $16.5 million, awarded prejudgment interest and entered judgment totaling more than $89 million. The case settled while on appeal under confidential terms.
Trial counsel for Grantley Patent Holdings
|
|
Defended Pitney Bowes in a patent infringement involving communications and control within Pitney Bowes' mailing machines. The case was tried in the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey, Trenton Division, with Judge Brown presiding. The jury returned a verdict of invalidity in favor of Pitney Bowes finding anticipation of all 18 asserted claims. In addition, during trial, the Court entered summary judgment of anticipation of four additional claims. Jury decision was affirmed in a post-trial memorandum by the district court and summarily affirmed by the Federal Circuit.
Trial Counsel for Pitney Bowes
|
|
Patent infringement case relating to alpha-hydroxy acid (AHA) anti-aging skin technology. The firm's client, TriStrata Technology, Inc., was awarded $26,359,405 in damages plus interest. The jury ruled in TriStrata's favor on all issues of infringement and validity. The U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware in Wilmington, Del. issued a final judgment March 31, 2006 granting prejudgment and post-judgment interest to TriStrata Technology, Inc. bringing the total award to over $43 million. Case was summarily affirmed by the Federal Circuit on January 10, 2007.
Trial counsel for TriStrata Technology, Inc.
|
|
TVI v. Microsoft (N.D. Calif). TVI is the owner of several patents covering the autoplay feature of Windows. TVI sued Microsoft in the Northern District of California alleging that all versions of Microsoft Windows since Windows 95 infringed these patents. The case settled in October 2005 a little more than one week before trial. Microsoft took a license under the patents. All other terms of the settlement are confidential.
Trial Counsel for TVI
|
|
Defended General Electric in a patent infringement action brought by General Motors involving planetary and compressor bearings used diesel locomotive engines. Summary judgment which found invalidity of the patents on the basis of on-sale bar was upheld by the Federal Circuit in Electromotive Div. of General Motors Corp. v. Transportation Systems Div. of General Elec. Co., 417 F.3d 1203, 75 U.S.P.Q.2d 1650 (Fed. Cir. 2005).
Trial counsel for General Electric
|
|
Represented a manufacturer of large format inkjet printers in a trade secret case. The firm was retained just five weeks before trial and won a jury verdict of $2.2 million which is one of the largest trade secret verdicts in the jurisdiction.
Trial counsel for LaserMaster
|
|
Represented Intergraph Corp. in patent litigation involving microprocessor system design. Recovered, to date, a total of $500 million in settlements as follows: Hewlett-Packard $141 million, with cross licenses; Dell/Intel $225 million; Gateway/emachines $12 million plus ongoing royalties; AMD $20 million plus potential future royalty profits; IBM $10 million plus a license to IBM’s portfolio; Toshiba and NEC, confidential settlements
Lead Licensing campaign following litigation: Trial counsel for Intergraph
|
|
Represented Pitney Bowes in a patent infringement case against Hewlett-Packard involving patents on laser-jet printer technology. The case settled, on the morning opening statements were to be made, for $400 million and other business considerations.
Trial Counsel for Pitney Bowes
|
|
Represented St. Clair Intellectual Property Consultants, Inc. in a patent infringement case in which a federal jury in Wilmington, Delaware awarded $3 million after a finding that Fuji infringed four patents relating to digital camera technology. The verdict was announced on October 25, 2004.
Trial counsel for St. Clair
|
|
Represented St. Clair Intellectual Property Consultants, Inc. in a patent infringement case in which a federal jury in Wilmington, Delaware awarded $34.7 million after a finding that Canon infringed four patents relating to digital camera technology. The verdict was announced on October 8, 2004.
Trial counsel for St. Clair
|
|
Represented Eolas Technologies, Inc. and the Regents of the University of California, in action for patent infringement of web browser technology for the delivery of interactive applications embedded in web pages. The case was tried in United States District Court, Northern District of Illinois, Eastern Division, Chicago, Illinois, Zagel, Judge. Jury verdict in favor of Eolas and the University of California, on issues of infringement, validity, and damages in the amount of $520.6 million. On January 14, 2004, the court entered judgment for $565,894,868 which includes the amount of the original verdict plus prejudgment interest. On appeal, the Federal Circuit affirmed the finding of infringement and the damages award, and ordered that Microsoft's invalidity and inequitable conduct defenses be retried. The case settled on a confidential basis four days before the start of the invalidity trial.
Trial counsel for Eolas and University
|
|
Defense of patent infringement and judicial interference action in Central District of California. Summary Judgment in favor of Unocal, affirmed by the Federal Circuit Court of Appeals, certiorari granted, vacated, remanded by the U.S. Supreme Court. On October 28, 2003, the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit unanimously ruled in favor of Unocal on all issues in this matter.
Counsel for Unocal
|
|
A patent infringement action tried to a jury in which the firm represented the patent owner Tulip, a Dutch corporation. The case settled two days before going to the jury with Dell paying Tulip $49.5 million.
Trial counsel for Tulip Computers
|
|
No. 01-557 (D. Del., filed Aug. 14, 2001) a case in which a federal jury in Wilmington, Delaware awarded, St. Clair, $25 million after a finding that Sony infringed four patents relating to digital camera technology. The verdict was announced on February 25, 2003. The parties entered into a license agreement two days later, the terms of which are confidential.
Trial counsel for St. Clair
|
|
Represented Unocal in a patent infringement case over Unocal's patent on gasoline. Jury verdict for $69 million in favor of Unocal on liability and damages and court judgment also in favor of Unocal on defendants' claims that patent was unenforceable. With interest and attorney fees, the judgment in favor of Unocal amounted to $91 million. Verdict upheld on appeal.
Trial counsel for Unocal
|
|
Trial counsel on behalf of Honeywell Inc., in action for patent infringement of color filters in video cameras. The case was tried in the U.S. District Court, District of Minnesota, St. Paul, Minnesota, Frank, Judge. Jury verdict in favor of Honeywell for $30 million, which reflects royalties of two percent of JVC's sales of the accused camcorders to calculate past damages for the unlicensed use of the technology.
Trial counsel for Honeywell
|
|
Represented Fonar Corporation and Dr. Raymond V. Damadian in a patent infringement action against General Electric involving patents on magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) machines. At trial the jury awarded Fonar $110.5 million. The Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit affirmed almost the entire award, ordering General Electric to pay $103.4 million, reported at the time to be the largest patent infringement jury verdict ever upheld on appeal (IP Worldwide). Fonar Corporation v. General Electric Co., 107 F.3d 1543 (Fed. Cir.), cert. denied, 118 S.Ct. 266 (1997). After the Supreme Court denied certiorari, General Electric paid Fonar $128 million (judgment plus interest).
Trial counsel for Fonar
|
|
Represented Honeywell in a patent infringement case against Minolta involving patents on autofocus cameras. After a five-month trial, the jury awarded Honeywell $96.3 million. The case subsequently settled for $127.5 million. Additional litigation against other autofocus camera manufacturers resulted in total settlements of approximately $500 million.
Trial counsel for Honeywell
|
|