Alexander J. Hadjis is a member of the firm’s Patent Litigation Group. His practice focuses on intellectual property litigation and cases involving the interface between intellectual property and antitrust law. He also has extensive experience litigating cases involving technology standards.

Mr. Hadjis has served as lead counsel in cases before several federal district courts and the U.S. International Trade Commission. The cases he has litigated include patent, antitrust and breach of contract cases that cover the semiconductor, optical storage media, liquid crystal display, telecommunications, electronic systems, computer network, software, xerography, chemical, and automotive component fields.

Mr. Hadjis is responsible for successfully employing an antitrust-based patent misuse trial defense against Philips in the ITC case styled, Certain Recordable Compact Discs and Rewritable Compact Discs. He also has litigated numerous cases in the semiconductor technology area for companies such as Intel, Genesis Microchip, MediaTek, Cypress Semiconductor, and Atmel.

Consistently recognized by Chambers USA as one of America’s leading IP attorneys, Mr. Hadjis is regularly asked to speak about intellectual property issues in the U.S. and abroad. Recently, he gave a presentation on antitrust-based patent misuse issues at the Federal Circuit Bar Association’s Sixth Bench and Bar Conference.

Prior to joining Morrison & Foerster, Mr. Hadjis practiced at Sonnenschein Nath & Rosenthal LLP, where he was Chair of its Patent Litigation Group, and Weil, Gotshal & Manges LLP, where he was the head of its Washington, D.C. Patent Litigation Group. Mr. Hadjis served as a law clerk to the Honorable Wilson Cowen of the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit. He is a member of the Virginia, District of Columbia, and the Federal Circuit Bars. He also is registered to practice before the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office.

Mr. Hadjis has a degree in Electrical Engineering from The Ohio State University, and he received his J.D. from the University of Pittsburgh. He also received a Master of Laws from The George Washington University Law School.

Representative Patent Cases

• Matsushita Electrical Industrial Co., Ltd. v. CMC Magnetics Corp., Hotan Corp., KHyperMedia Corp. (N.D. Cal.) — Lead counsel for CMC Magnetics, Hotan, and KHyperMedia. Successfully defended CMC Magnetics, Hotan, and KHyperMedia in a three patent suit brought by Matsushita on recordable and rewritable optical disc technology. The case settled favorably for the defendants.
• TimeCertain, LLC v. AuthentiDate Holding Corp. and AuthentiDate, Inc. (M.D. Fla.) — Lead counsel for AuthentiDate. Successfully defended AuthentiDate in a multi-patent suit against TimeCertain. Obtained a Markman order dispositive of non-infringement that led to a successful settlement. The case involved software cryptography technology.
• Certain Color Television Receivers and Color Display Monitors and Components Thereof (USITC) — Lead trial counsel for Thomson. Successfully prosecuted patent infringement claims through a full trial in a multi-patent suit against BenQ Corporation and AU Optronics Corporation. The case settled favorably for Thomson before a decision issued. The case involved LCD panel processing and circuitry technology.
• MicroUnity Systems Engineering, Inc. v. Intel Corp. (E.D. Tex.) — Successfully defended Intel against patent infringement claims in a multi-patent case brought by MicroUnity. This case settled and involved microprocessor and microprocessor chipset technology.
• Certain Optical Disk Controller Chips and Chipsets and Products Containing Same, Including DVD Players and PC Optical Storage Devices II (USITC) — Lead counsel for MediaTek Inc. Represented MediaTek against Zoran Corporation, Oak Technology, Inc., and Sunext Technology Co., Ltd. in a multi-patent suit involving optical disc drive controller technology.
• Certain Display Controllers and Products Containing Same (USITC) — Lead counsel for Genesis Microchip. Successfully prosecuted patent infringement claims against MStar Semiconductor, Inc. and Media Reality Technologies, Inc. through a full trial. Obtained an exclusion order after the administrative law judge’s decision was reviewed and adopted by the full Commission. The case involved semiconductor and LCD panel controller technology.
• Certain Recordable Compact Discs and Rewritable Compact Discs (USITC) — Lead counsel for Princo Corporation, Gigastorage Corporation, and Linberg Enterprises. Successfully employed an antitrust-based patent misuse defense to defend Princo, Gigastorage, and Linberg against patent infringement claims of Philips. All six of the patents that Philips asserted were deemed unenforceable, and were part of a billion-dollar patent pool. The ITC declined to issue an exclusion order against Princo, Gigastorage, and Linberg after the administrative law judge’s decision was reviewed and adopted by the full Commission. The case involved optical storage medium and CD-R and CD-RW technology.
• Intel Corp. v. Broadcom Corp. (D. Del.) — Represented Intel. Successfully prosecuted patent infringement claims against Broadcom. This case settled and involved standard setting defenses and semiconductor packaging technology.
• Certain Semiconductor Timing Signal Generator Devices, Components Thereof, and Products Containing Same (USITC) and Certain Power Saving Integrated Circuits and Products Containing Same (USITC) — Successfully represented Cypress Semiconductor as patentee/complainant and respondent against Integrated Circuit Systems. One of the two ICS patents at issue was eliminated from the case as a result of a summary determination motion. The case settled favorably for Cypress, as, among other things, ICS agreed to stop selling an entire line of products. The case involved standard-setting defenses and semiconductor and phase-lock loop (PLL) technology.
• Certain Integrated Repeaters, Switches, Transceivers and Products Containing Same (USITC) — Successfully prosecuted patent infringement claims for Intel against Altima Communications through a full trial. Lead lawyer for Intel on the patent that covered most of the Altima products at issue. Obtained an exclusion order covering each of those products at issue. The case involved semiconductor technology and the patent for which Mr. Hadjis was responsible involved semiconductor packaging technology.
• Altima Communications, Inc. v. Intel Corporation (N.D. Cal.) — Lead counsel for Intel. Successfully prosecuted patent infringement claims for Intel against Altima Communications. This case settled and involved semiconductor packaging technology.
• Atmel Corp. v. STMicroelectronics, Inc. (D. Del.) and STMicroelectronics, Inc. v. Atmel Corp. (N.D. Tex.) — Represented Atmel against STMicroelectronics. A total of 17 patents involving memory and microcontroller chips were asserted in both cases. Cases settled favorably.
• Telecom Technical Servs. v. Siemens Rolm Communications (N.D. Ga.) — Defended Siemens against Kodak-based antitrust claims brought by independent service organizations and prosecuted multiple patents against the ISOs. The case was decided in favor of Siemens on summary judgment. This case involved telecommunications and PBX technology.
• PMC and Gemstar v. Scientific Atlanta (N.D. Ga.) — Prosecuted patent infringement claims for Gemstar against Scientific Atlanta in a seven-patent case involving cable set-top box and media broadcasting technology.
• Certain SDRAMs, DRAMs, ASICs, RAM-and-Logic Chips, Microprocessors, Microcontrollers, Processes for Manufacturing Same, and Products Containing Same (USITC) — Successfully prosecuted patent infringement claims through a full trial. The case settled favorably for the client before the administrative law judge issued a decision. The case involved semiconductor and memory technology.
• Xerox Corp. v. Mita Copystar Am. Inc. (N.D. N.Y.) — Represented Xerox. Prosecuted multiple xerography patents against Mita. Case settled favorably.
• Asha Corp. v. Dana Corp. (E.D. Mich.) — Defended Dana against Asha. Patent and breach of contract case involving automotive component and limited slip differential technology.
• MCI Corp. v. AT&T Am. Transtech, Inc. (E.D. Pa.) — Defended Cincinnati Bell against MCI. Multi-patent case involving telecommunications technology. Case settled favorably.
• Premier Networks v. Quest (N.D. Ill.) — Defended Quest against Premier Networks. Multi-patent case involving telecommunications technology.

Representative Antitrust Cases

• Certain Recordable Compact Discs and Rewritable Compact Discs (USITC) — Lead counsel for Princo Corporation, Gigastorage Corporation and Linberg Enterprises. Successfully employed an antitrust-based patent misuse defense to defend Princo, Gigastorage and Linberg against patent infringement claims of Philips. All six of the patents that Philips asserted were part of a billion-dollar patent pool and were deemed unenforceable. The ITC declined to issue an exclusion order against Princo and Gigastorage. The case involved optical storage medium and CD-R and CD-RW technology.
• Telecom Technical Servs. v. Siemens Rolm Communications (N.D. Ga.) — Defended Siemens against Kodak-based antitrust claims brought by independent service organizations and prosecuted multiple patents against the ISOs. The case was decided in favor of Siemens on summary judgment. This case involved telecommunications and PBX technology.

Representative Contract Cases

• Vocus, Inc. v. Cypress Semiconductor Corporation (Md. State Ct.) — Lead counsel for Cypress Semiconductor. Represented Cypress against Vocus in a breach of contract action involving software. Case settled favorably.
• Asha Corp. v. Dana Corp. (E.D. Mich.) — Defended Dana against Asha. Patent and breach of contract case involving automotive component and limited slip differential technology.

Publications

• “Making an Impact on the Entire Case Through Effective Markman Hearings,” Conducting Markman Hearings in Patent Infringement Lawsuits, Aspatore Books (2007)
• “FTC Targets Abuse of Standard-setting Bodies,” National Law Journal (October 16, 2006)
• “An Odd Year,” IP Law & Business (January 2005)
• “Patent Pools Gain Popularity,” National Law Journal (December 6, 2004)
• “Odetics and Kahn: Has the Federal Circuit Unnecessarily Unearthed a Monster?” 10 Fed. Cir. B.J. 119 (2000)

Speaking Engagements

• Enforcement of IP Rights at the Border Conference (Tysons Corner, VA)
• American Intellectual Property Law Association Annual Meeting (Washington, DC)
• Sixth Federal Circuit Bench and Bar Conference (Colorado Springs, Colorado)
• Asian Pacific Legal Institute (George Washington University Law School, Washington, DC)
• Chinese National Federation of Industries (Taipei, Taiwan)