EPOS Technologies, Ltd. v. Pegasus Technologies, Ltd.
(District of Columbia). Obtained summary judgment in favor of EPOS on all six patents-in-suit in declaratory relief action relating to ultrasound digital pen technology.
|
Bayer
In August 2005, plaintiff Abbott Labs filed suit in the Northern District of California against Bayer and Roche, two of the leading manufacturers of blood glucose meters and strips, asserting infringement of two of plaintiff's patents. After our client Bayer won summary judgment on one of the patents, the case was reassigned to a new judge, who consolidated it for trial with a related set of cases involving Becton-Dickinson and set a trial date within six weeks on the second patent. The court broke the trial into three phases. Roche settled before trial. After a six-day bench trial in June 2008, in a 54-page opinion, the court found in Bayer's favor on all claims. The court invalidated every asserted claim as obvious, and also found the patent unenforceable because two Abbott employees concealed material information from the Patent Office during prosecution. Bayer has now prevailed on both patents and all asserted claims.
|
Defense of Altera Corporation
Successful defense of the Altera Corporation in a patent case involving reprogrammable computer chips. Federal District Court, San Jose.
|
Echostar Communications Corporation
We obtained a defense jury verdict for EchoStar in a patent lawsuit brought by Forgent Networks Inc. against essentially the entire cable and satellite television industry, including EchoStar, DIRECTV, Comcast, Cable One, Time Warner, Charter, and Cox, as well as Motorola, Digeo, and Scientific-Atlanta, in Tyler, Texas. The case involved patents allegedly directed to DVRs. Forgent alleged that it invented the DVR in 1991. All defendants other than EchoStar settled shortly before trial, leaving EchoStar as the sole defendant. In May 2007, after approximately an hour of deliberations, an eight-person jury found all of the asserted claims invalid as anticipated, obvious, and lacking an adequate written description. EchoStar did not contest infringement at trial and argued only invalidity. We believe this is only the second defense jury verdict in a patent case in the Eastern District of Texas.
|
Novell, Inc.
In SCO v. Novell, Inc., we won a multi-million dollar award in representation of Novell in a high-profile trial in the District of Utah regarding Novell's right to royalty payments from UNIX software licenses granted by SCO. We won dismissal with prejudice on behalf of Novell in two software patent cases (IAS v Novell and France Telecom v Novell, D. Del.), after decisive pre-trial victories. We currently represent Novell in litigation brought by the SCO Group (SCO v. Novell, D. Ut.) that is embroiling the Linux industry. SCO has sued Novell for "slander of title" based on Novell's contention that ownership of the UNIX copyrights that are at issue in broader litigation initiated by SCO did not transfer to SCO. We won summary judgment for Novell in a much-watched suit brought by SCO concerning ownership of the copyrights to UNIX and UnixWare. In 2003, SCO claimed that Linux was an illegal knockoff of the UNIX operating system, which SCO alleged it had purchased from Novell. The court held that, as a matter of law, Novell was in fact the owner of those copyrights. The Wall Street Journal described the ruling as "a boon to the 'open source' software movement...that has become an alternative to Microsoft Corp.'s Windows operating system." The matter then proceeded to a bench trial, at which Novell was awarded over $3 million on its counterclaims. The matter is currently on appeal before the 10th Circuit.
|
Pioneer Corporation
In Pioneer Corp. v. Samsung SDI Co. (United States District Court, Eastern District of Texas), we represented Pioneer Corporation and its affiliates in two patent disputes with Samsung involving plasma display panel (“PDP”) technology. Pioneer and Samsung are two of the largest manufacturers of plasma display panels. Pioneer is the plaintiff in both disputes, one of which is a declaratory judgment action. In September 2006, Pioneer filed an action against Samsung and its affiliates in the Eastern District of Texas, asserting infringement of two of Pioneer's patents. Samsung SDI then filed counterclaims, asserting that Pioneer and its affiliates infringed Samsung's PDP patents. On October 28, 2008, a jury in the Eastern District of Texas decided that three Samsung entities had willfully infringed the patents in suit and awarded Pioneer $59.3 million in compensatory damages. The case has since settled.
|
ANDA Litigation
Represented major generic manufacturers in ANDA litigation, including manufacturers of sedatives, direct thrombin inhibitors, and psychostimulant prodrugs.
|
Eastman Kodak Company v. Ricoh Company, Ltd. (S.D.N.Y. 2012)
Lead counsel for Ricoh in Kodak's suit alleging breach of a patent license agreement and seeking significant royalties claimed to be owed by Ricoh to Kodak as a result of Ricoh's acquisition of Pentax Imaging Systems.
|
Fractus v. Kyocera
(Eastern District of Texas). Reached a favorable settlement on behalf of Kyocera (minutes before opening statements in a jury trial), after Kyocera was accused of infringement by a Spanish internal cell phone antenna developer.
|
Oracle America v. Google (Northern District of California)
Representing Oracle America in an action for copyright and patent infringement based on Google's inclusion of Java platform technology in the Android software platform and operating system.
|
Teva v. Sandoz
(Southern District of New York). Successfully represented the manufacturer of a generic version of Copaxone in a three-week trial under the Hatch-Waxman Act. On appeal, the Federal Circuit invalidated the patent with the longest remaining term, allowing the client to launch its generic product more than one year earlier than expected.
|
Elan Pharma International Limited v. Abraxis Bioscience
(Distrcit of Delaware). Represented Abraxis BioScience in defending its lead product, Abraxane, against claims by Elan Pharmaceutical of infringing Elan’s patents for coated nanoparticles used to deliver paclitaxel for the treatment of metastatic breast cancer. This was the first nanotechnology patent case taken to jury trial. The case settled in 2011.
|
ICHL v. Mitsubishi Digital Electronics America, Inc.
(Eastern District of Texas)Obtained judgment of non-infringement for Mitsubishi in patent litigation involving heat sink assemblies in televisions. (2009-2012)
|
Palomar Medical Technologies v. Candela Corp. & Syneron Inc.
(District of Massachusetts) Obtained favorable settlements for industry-leading laser-hair-removal companies in patent litigation.
|
Palomar Medical v. Candela Corporation
(District of Massachusetts) Won summary judgment for Candela Corporation on 11 of 12 claims asserted by Palomar in this patent infringement suit involving laser hair removal devices. The summary judgment ruling knocked out over half of the damages at issue and led to a favorable settlement of this case and another patent case brought by Palomar against Syneron Inc. involving the same patents.
|