|
Experience
ITC Section 337 Actions
Certain Capacitive Touch Sensing Systems, Capacitive Touch Sensing Controllers, Microcontrollers with Capacitive Touch Sensing Functionality, and Components Thereof, U.S. International Trade Commission Investigation No. 337-TA-1268
Counsel for respondents STMicroelectronics, Inc., STMicroelectronics (North America) Holdings, Inc., and STMicroelectronics NV, in a four-patent case before Administrative Law Judge Clark S. Cheney concerning capacitive touch sensing devices; settled favorably prior to the hearing.
Certain Portable Battery Jump Starters and Components Thereof, U.S. International Trade Commission Investigation No. 337-TA-1256
Counsel for respondents Shenzhen Carku Technology Co., Ltd., 70mai Co., Ltd., Antigravity Batteries LLC, Gooloo Technologies LLC, Great Neck Saw Manufacturers, Inc., Horizon Tool, Inc., Matco Tools Corporation, Nekteck, Inc., Paris Corporation, PowerMax Battery (U.S.A.), Inc., and Shenzhen Gooloo E-Commerce Co., Ltd., in a two-patent case before Administrative Law Judge David P. Shaw concerning portable vehicle jump-start devices; pending.
Certain Polycrystalline Diamond Compacts and Articles Containing Same, U.S. International Trade Commission Investigation No. 337-TA-1236
Counsel for respondents Element Six Abrasives Holdings, Ltd., Element Six Global Innovation Centre, Element Six GmbH, Element Six Hard Materials (Wuxi) Co., Ltd., Element Six Limited, Element Six Production (Pty) Limited, Element Six Technologies U.S. Corporation, Element Six Trading (Shanghai) Co. Limited, and Element Six U.S. Corporation in a five-patent case before Administrative Law Judge Elliot concerning polycrystalline diamond compacts (PDCs) for drilling applications; settled favorably prior to the hearing.
Certain Digital Video-Capable Devices and Components Thereof, U.S. International Trade Commission Investigation No. 337-TA-1224
Counsel for respondents TCL Electronics Holdings Ltd. f/k/a TCL Multimedia Technology Holdings Ltd., TCL Industries Holdings Co., Ltd., TCL King Electrical Appliances (Huizhou) Company Ltd., TCL MOKA International Ltd., TCL Moka Manufacturing, SA de CV, TCL Smart Device (Vietnam) Company, Ltd., and TTE Technology, Inc. in a four-patent case before Administrative Law Judge Cameron Elliot concerning alleged secure authenticated distance measurement in television devices; initial determination of no violation of Section 337 after evidentiary hearing; the commission affirmed the initial determination of no violation, terminating the investigation in favor of TCL.
Certain Portable Gaming Console Systems with Attachable Handheld Controllers and Components Thereof II, U.S. International Trade Commission Investigation No. 337-TA-1197
Counsel for respondents Nintendo Co., Ltd. and Nintendo of America Inc. in a one-patent case before Administrative Law Judge Shaw concerning game console systems; initial determination of no violation of Section 337 after evidentiary hearing; the commission affirmed the initial determination of no violation, terminating the investigation in favor of Nintendo; appeal to the Federal Circuit voluntarily dismissed by Gamevice, terminating the appeal.
In the Matter of Certain Movable Barrier Operator Systems and Components Thereof, U.S. International Trade Commission Investigation No. 337-TA-1118
Counsel for respondents Nortek Security & Control LLC f/k/a Linear, LLC, Nortek, Inc., and GTO Access Systems, LLC in a three-patent case before Administrative Law Judge MaryJoan McNamara concerning garage door and gate openers; pending.
In the Matter of Certain Portable Gaming Console Systems with Attachable Handheld Controllers and Components Thereof, U.S. International Trade Commission Investigation No. 337-TA-1111
Counsel for respondents Nintendo Co., Ltd. and Nintendo of America Inc. in a two-patent case before Administrative Law Judge Cheney (later reassigned Administrative Law Judge David Shaw) concerning game console systems; after a favorable claim construction order, an unopposed motion of summary determination of non-infringement was granted, resulting in an initial determination of no violation of Section 337; the commission affirmed the initial determination of no violation, terminating the investigation in favor of Nintendo; summary affirmance at the Federal Circuit.
In the Matter of Certain Multi-Domain Test and Measurement Instruments, U.S. International Trade Commission Investigation No. 337-TA-1104
Counsel for complainant Tektronix, Inc. in a two-patent case before Administrative Law Judge Cheney concerning multi-domain test and measurement instruments; terminated after consent order stipulation by respondents agreeing not to import products at issue.
In the Matter of Certain Touchscreen Controllers and Products Containing Same, U.S. International Trade Commission Investigation No. 337-TA-957
Counsel for respondents Shenzhen Goodix Technology Co., Ltd. (f.k.a. Shenzhen Huiding Technology Co., Ltd., d.b.a. Goodix) and Goodix Technology Inc. in a four-patent investigation before Administrative Law Judge Essex (later transferred to Administrative Law Judge McNamara) concerning touchscreen controllers used in smartphones; settled after the hearing. At the time of the hearing the Office of Unfair Import Investigations recommended a finding of no violation. Participated in filing of nine IPR petitions during the pendency of the investigation challenging the asserted patents, five of which were instituted and four pending at the time of settlement.
In the Matter of Certain Audio Processing Hardware and Software and Products Containing Same, U.S. International Trade Commission Investigation No. 337-TA-949
Counsel for non-parties Fortress Investment Group LLC and AND34 Funding LLC in a five-patent investigation before Administrative Law Judge Pender concerning processing audio signals to avoid interference in tablets, desktops, and laptops; the commission selected the investigation for the second ever 100-Day pilot program to determine within 100 days whether complainant has standing to sue or if the investigation should be immediately terminated for failure to include Fortress Investment Group LLC or AND34 Funding LLC as additional complainants; the administrative law judge found that complainant has standing to sue, and the commission denied respondents’ motion for oral argument and determined not to review the administrative law judge’s initial determination; settled by the parties before the hearing.
In the Matter of Certain Point-To-Point Network Communication Devices and Products Containing Same, U.S. International Trade Commission Investigation No. 337-TA-892
Counsel for respondents AmTRAN Technology Co., Ltd. and AmTRAN Logistics, Inc. in a three-patent investigation before Administrative Law Judge Shaw concerning smart televisions, blu-ray players and other devices and software involved in point-to-point communications and content delivery networks; complainant Straight Path IP Group, Inc. sought to terminate the investigation days before the hearing and the parties subsequently settled.
In the Matter of Certain Electronic Imaging Devices, U.S. International Trade Commission Investigation No. 337-TA-850
Counsel for respondents HTC Corporation and HTC America Inc. in a four-patent investigation before Administrative Law Judge Essex concerning camera functionality, messaging, and image processing systems in smartphones; prior to the hearing one-patent was dismissed; obtained final determination finding non-infringement, and none of the domestic industry licensees practiced two of the remaining three asserted patent. Complainant FlashPoint Technology, Inc. did not appeal the final determination.
In the Matter of Certain Consumer Electronics and Display Devices and Products Containing Same, U.S. International Trade Commission Investigation No. 337-TA-836
U.S. International Trade Commission
Counsel for respondents HTC Corporation and HTC America Inc. in a four-patent investigation before Administrative Law Judge Essex concerning CPU architecture, floating point rasterization and framebuffering, and large area wide aspect ratio flat panel technologies; settled favorably prior to the hearing.
In the Matter of Certain Portable Electronic Devices and Related Software, U.S. International Trade Commission Investigation No. 337-TA-797
Counsel for Respondents HTC Corporation and HTC America Inc. in an investigation before before Administrative Law Judge James Gildea concerning smartphones; settled favorably after the hearing.
In the Matter of Certain Electronic Imaging Devices, U.S. International Trade Commission Investigation No. 337-TA-726
U.S. International Trade Commission
Counsel for respondents HTC Corporation and HTC America Inc. in a three-patent case investigation before Chief Administrative Law Judge Paul Luckern concerning camera functionality in smartphones; win at trial and initial ID finding non-infringement, invalidity based on-sale bar, and none of the domestic industry licensees practiced the asserted patents; commission reviewed the ID, affirmed the findings on petition and also found HTC had an implied license to practice the asserted patents for its Windows-based products; Other respondents Nokia and RIM settled shortly before trial and LG settled after trial and before the initial determination; summary affirmance at the Federal Circuit.
In the Matter of Certain Automotive Multimedia Display and Navigation Systems, Components Thereof, and Products Containing Same, U.S. International Trade Commission Investigation No. 337-TA-657*
Counsel for respondents Alpine Electronics Inc. and Alpine Electronics of America, Inc. in a six-patent investigation concerning global positioning systems and vehicle navigation systems; settled favorably prior to the hearing.
U.S. District Court Litigation
ValveTech, Inc. v. Aerojet Rocketdyne, Inc.
U.S. District Court for the Western District of New York
Counsel for ValveTech, Inc. in a lawsuit before Chief Judge Frank P. Geraci, Jr. alleging breach of contract, trade secret misappropriation, and unfair competition; pending.
Neodron Ltd. v. STMicroelectronics, Inc. et al
U.S. District Court for the Western District of Texas
Counsel for respondents STMicroelectronics, Inc., STMicroelectronics (North America) Holdings, Inc., and STMicroelectronics NV, in a four-patent case before Judge Alan D. Albright concerning capacitive touch sensing devices; settled favorably.
Koninklijke Philips NV et al v. TTE Technology, Inc. d/b/a TCL USA et al
U.S. District Court for the Central District of California
Counsel for TTE Technology, Inc., TCL King Electrical Appliances Huizhou Co. Ltd., TCL Moka Intl Ltd., TCL Industries Holdings Co., Ltd., Shenzhen TCL New Technology Co., Ltd, TCL Smart Device (Vietnam) Co LTD, TCL Electronics Holdings Ltd., TCL Moka Manufacturing, S.A. de C.V. in an three-patent case before Judge Cormac J. Carney concerning alleged secure authenticated distance measurement in television devices and LCD backlights; pending.
Carnegie Institution of Washington et al v. Pure Grown Diamonds, Inc. et al
U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York
Counsel for Carnegie Institution of Washington and M7D Corporation in a two-patent case before Judge Jed S. Rakoff concerning diamond manufacturing; settled favorably.
Wi-LAN Inc. et al v. Huizhou TCL Mobile Communication Co. Ltd. et al
U.S. District Court for the Central District of California
Counsel for Huizhou TCL Mobile Communication Co. Ltd., TCL Mobile Communication (HK) Co., Ltd., TCT Mobile (US) Inc., and TCT Mobile, Inc. in a three-patent case before Judge James V. Selna concerning alleged wireless communication device technologies; pending.
Tektronix, Inc. v. Rohde & Schwarz USA, Inc., Rohde & Schwarz GmbH & Co. KG, and Rohde & Schwarz Vertriebs GmbH
U.S. District Court for the District of Oregon
Counsel for Tektronix in a two-patent case before Judge Marco A. Hernandez concerning multi-domain test and measurement instruments; terminated after termination of parallel ITC investigation.
The Chamberlain Group, Inc. v. Nortek Security & Control LLC
U.S. District Court for the Southern District of California
Counsel for Nortek Security & Control LLC f/k/a Linear, LLC in a three-patent case before Judge Janis L. Sammartino and Magistrate Judge Andrew G. Schopler concerning garage door and gate openers; pending.
Lund Motion Products, Inc. v. T-Max (Hangzhou) Technology Co., Ltd., T-Max (Qingdao) Industrial Co., Ltd., T-Max (Qingdao) International Trading Co., Ltd., and T-Max Industrial (Hk) Co., Ltd.
U.S. District Court for the Central District of California
Counsel for T-Max in a three-patent and one-copyright case before Judge Cormac J. Carney and Magistrate Judge Jean P. Rosenbluth concerning retractable vehicle step automotive accessories; pending.
Central Garden & Pet Company v. Shenzhen Liown Electronics Co., Ltd.
U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois
Counsel for Shenzhen Liown Electronics in a contract dispute before Judge Gary Feinerman and Magistrate Judge Susan E. Cox; dismissed as a result of settlement.
Oy Ajat Ltd. v. Genoray Co. Ltd. and Genoray America, Inc.
U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Florida
Counsel for Genoray in a three-patent case before Judge Roy B. Dalton, Jr. and Magistrate Judge David A. Baker concerning power supply and image processing for dental x-ray imaging applications; dismissed as a result of settlement.
TracBeam, LLC v. T-Mobile US, Inc.
U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Texas
Counsel for T-Mobile US, Inc., T-Mobile USA, Inc. and intervenor defendant TeleCommunication Systems, Inc. in a four-patent case before Judge Schroeder concerning locating devices in a communications network; settled favorably a few weeks before trial.
Vehicle IP LLC v. AT&T Mobility LLC
U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware
Counsel for Cellco Partnership (doing business as Verizon Wireless Inc.), TeleCommunication Systems, Inc. and Networks In Motion, Inc. in a one-patent case before Judge Stark concerning systems for determining estimated times of arrival of vehicles; stipulated entry of final judgment of noninfringement after favorable claim construction order shortly before trial; the Federal Circuit affirmed the district court’s construction; the parties filed a stipulated entry of final judgment based on noninfringement, ending the case.
CallWave Communication LLC v. Verizon Services Corp. et al.
U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware
Counsel for Verizon in a five-patent case before Judge Richard G. Andrews concerning location determination services; Judge Andrews granted a motion invalidating the asserted patent under Section 101; claims relating to asserted patent dismissed as a result of settlement.
IP Cube Partners Co., Ltd. v. Telecommunication Systems, Inc.
U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York
Counsel for TeleCommunication Systems Inc. in an IP asset sale contractual dispute before Judge Laura Taylor Swain and Magistrate Judge Ronald L. Ellis; case dismissed due to settlement after motion to dismiss fraud and negligent misrepresentation counts was granted.
Koninklijke Philips N.V. and U.S. Philips Corporation v. HTC Corporation and HTC America, Inc.
U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware
U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California
Counsel for HTC in a 11-patent case before Judge Sleet involving user interfaces, audio processing and streaming, data compression, and device data entry; case transferred to the Northern District of California; pending.
Chrimar Systems, Inc. D/B/A CMS Technologies and Chrimar Holding Company, LLC v. Alpha Networks Inc.
U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Texas
Counsel for Alpha Networks Inc. in a four-patent case before Judge James Rodney Gilstrap concerning networking equipment; dismissed as a result of settlement.
Nonend Inventions, N.V. v. Amazon, Inc. and Amazon.Com LLC
U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Texas
Counsel for Amazon, Inc. and Amazon.com LLC in a one-patent case before Judge Gilstrap concerning streaming media content and media playback; dismissed as a result of settlement.
Nonend Inventions, N.V. v. Fujitsu America, Inc., and Fujitsu Limited
U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Texas
Counsel for Fujitsu America, Inc. and Fujitsu Limited in a three-patent case before Judge Gilstrap concerning streaming media content and media playback; dismissed as a result of settlement.
Nonend Inventions, N.V. v. Hewlett-Packard Company
U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Texas
Counsel for Hewlett-Packard Company in a three-patent case before Judge Gilstrap concerning streaming media content and media playback; dismissed as a result of settlement.
Nonend Inventions, N.V. v. HTC America, Inc.
U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Texas
Counsel for HTC America, Inc. in a one-patent case before Judge Gilstrap concerning streaming media content and media playback; dismissed as a result of settlement.
Nonend Inventions, N.V. v. Microsoft Corporation
U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Texas
Counsel for Microsoft Corporation in a three-patent case before Judge Gilstrap concerning streaming media content and media playback; dismissed as a result of settlement.
Nonend Inventions, N.V. v. Panasonic Corp. and Panasonic Corp. of North America
U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Texas
Counsel for Panasonic Corporation and Panasonic Corporation of North America in a three-patent case before Judge Gilstrap concerning streaming media content and media playback; dismissed as a result of settlement.
Largan Precision Co., LTD. v. Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd, et al.
U.S. District Court for the Southern District of California
Counsel for Largan Precision in a six-patent case before Judge Sabraw concerning optical lenses in smartphones, tablets, and other products; case terminated via settlement eight days before trial.
Rothschild Storage Retrieval Innovations, LLC v. HTC Corporation and HTC America, Inc.
U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida
U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California
Counsel for HTC in a one-patent case before Magistrate Judge Laporte concerning camera, image filtering, and image transmission functionality in smartphones; case transferred to the Northern District of California; stayed during the pendency of an inter partes review trial involving the asserted patent; the parties jointly moved for entry of a stipulated order of dismissal of all claims with prejudice; the order was granted, terminating the litigation.
Qurio Holdings, Inc. V. DirecTV, LLC
U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois
U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California
Counsel for DirecTV in a three-patent case before Judge Lee concerning gateways and control of media players over a wireless network; case transferred to the Northern District of California and before Judge Gilliam; filed three inter partes review petitions against the asserted patents; stayed during the pendency of the inter partes review proceedings; Qurio cancelled all claims for which an inter partes review trial was instituted; a joint stipulation of dismissal resulted in termination of the case.
TransVideo Electronics, Ltd. v. Hulu, LLC
U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware
Counsel for Hulu in a two-patent litigation before Judge Stark relating to video distribution systems; initiated an early claim construction proceeding on a case dispositive term; after obtaining a favorable claim construction ruling for Hulu, the parties jointly moved for entry of a stipulated order of dismissal of all claims with prejudice; the order was granted, terminating the litigation.
TransVideo Electronics, Ltd. v. Netflix, Inc.
U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware
Counsel for Netflix in a two-patent litigation before Judge Stark relating to video distribution systems; initiated an early claim construction proceeding on a case dispositive term; after obtaining a favorable claim construction ruling for Netflix, the parties jointly moved for entry of a stipulated order of dismissal of all claims with prejudice; the order was granted, terminating the litigation.
e-Watch, Inc. and e-Watch Corporation v. HTC Corporation and HTC America, Inc.
U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Texas
Counsel for HTC in a two-patent case before Judge Gilstrap concerning capture and transmission of digital images; filed two inter partes review petitions against the asserted patents, and two inter partes review trials were instituted; stayed during the pendency of the inter partes review trials; the parties jointly moved for entry of a stipulated order of dismissal of all claims with prejudice; the order was granted, terminating the litigation.
E.Digital, Inc. v. Transcend Information Inc.
Counsel for Transcend in a one-patent case before Judge Huff concerning flash memory devices; dismissed as a result of settlement.
Monolithic Power Systems, Inc. v. Silergy Corporation, Compal Electronics, et al.
U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California
Counsel for Monolithic Power Systems in three-patent infringement and breach of contract litigation concerning power integrated circuits; settled favorably.
FlashPoint Technology, Inc. v. HTC Corporation and HTC America, Inc.
U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina
U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware
Counsel for HTC in a six-patent case before Judge Sleet concerning camera, file system, and graphics processing functionality in smartphones; case transferred to the District of Delaware; filed five inter partes review petitions against the asserted patents, and five inter partes review trials were instituted; dismissed as a result of settlement.
Wireless Mobile Devices LLC v. HTC Corporation and HTC America, Inc.
U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Texas
Counsel for HTC in a six-patent case before Judge David C. Godbey concerning navigation devices, and synchronization of data over a network; filed six inter partes review petitions against the asserted patents; dismissed as a result of settlement before institution of inter partes review petitions.
Graphics Properties Holdings Inc. v. ASUSTeK Computer Inc. and ASUS Computer International, et al.
U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware
Counsel for ASUS in two cases before Judge Leonard Stark concerning five-patents involving floating point rasterization and framebuffering, removable backlighting in flat panel displays and large area wide aspect ratio flat panel technologies; dismissed as a result of settlement.
Graphics Properties Holdings Inc. v. HTC Corporation, HTC America, Inc., et al.
U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware
Counsel for HTC in two cases before Judge Richard G. Andrews concerning four-patents involving CPU architecture, floating point rasterization and framebuffering, and large area wide aspect ratio flat panel technologies; stayed pending collateral U.S. ITC proceeding (Inv. No. 337-TA-836); dismissed as a result of settlement.
StylePath, Inc. v. Just Fabulous, Inc.
U.S. District Court for the Central District of California
Counsel for Just Fabulous in patent litigation before Judge Philip S. Gutierrez related to e-commerce websites, online marketing and product selection; dismissed as a result of settlement.
MyPort IP Inc. v. HTC Corporation and HTC America, Inc., et al.
U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Texas
Counsel for HTC in a two-patent case before Judge Leonard Davis concerning techniques for embedding searchable information in a file for transmission, storage, and retrieval; prepared and filed inter partes reexamination requests that were subsequently granted and as a result obtained a stay of the case just weeks before claim construction hearing; stayed during pendency of proceedings before the USPTO; the PTAB affirmed the examiner’s rejection of all claims of both asserted patents.
FlashPoint Technology Inc. v. Aiptek Inc., et al.
U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware
Counsel for HTC in a 10-patent case before Judge Gregory Sleet concerning camera user interface functionality in smartphones; obtained a stay of the entire case after Judge Sleet lifted previous stay due to completion of reexaminations, in light of FlashPoint’s filing of a complaint asserting four of the 10 patents before the U.S. International Trade Commission (Inv. No. 337-TA-850); dismissed as a result of settlement.
Datascape, Inc. v. Kyocera Wireless Corp.
U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Georgia
Counsel for Kyocera in a six-patent case before Judge Clarence Cooper relating to data transaction systems which communicate over a network with a plurality of non-standard I/O remote terminals. Datascape accused Kyocera cellular handsets and smartphones of infringement; settled favorably before trial.
Pro Bono Litigation
Social Security Administration Disability Appeal
Social Security Administration Office of Disability Adjudication and Review
Lead counsel for a pro bono client in a disability insurance benefits claim and appeal of a denial of benefits. The client was referred through the San Diego Volunteer Lawyer Program HIV/AIDS Legal Services Project. Represented the client at hearing in San Diego, California before Administrative Law Judge William K. Mueller. The client was granted disability benefits based on a finding of disability by the administrative law judge.
Social Security Administration Disability Appeal
Social Security Administration Office of Disability Adjudication and Review
Lead counsel for a pro bono client in an appeal of a cessation of disability insurance benefits. The client, a Navy veteran, was referred through the San Diego Volunteer Lawyer Program. Represented the client at hearing in San Diego, California before Administrative Law Judge Peter J. Valentino. The client’s disability benefits were reinstated based on a finding of disability by the administrative law judge.
