E. Dale Buxton II

E. Dale Buxton II

Education

Vanderbilt University (B.S., 1995)
Vanderbilt University (M.S., 1997)
Northwestern University (M.B.A., 2002)
Northwestern University School of Law (J.D., 2002)

Bar Admissions

California

Dale Buxton is Of Counsel in the firm’s Intellectual Property Group. Mr. Buxton’s practice focuses on intellectual property litigation. His experience spans a wide range of technology, encompassing software development, medical instrumentation, image and signal processing, wireless communications, and satellite broadcasting. Mr. Buxton’s role includes developing noninfringement/infringement and invalidity positions, as well as working with the technical personnel within the clients’ companies and preparing expert witnesses for deposition and trial. Mr. Buxton regularly develops the e-discovery strategy and leads implementation efforts for cases throughout Morrison & Foerster, including many cases with large joint defense groups.

Before joining Morrison & Foerster, Mr. Buxton founded and led a software development company with offices in the United States, China, and Australia. Through his software experience, Mr. Buxton is well versed in software development, and proficient in a variety of computer languages and hardware architectures. He also is a member of the Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers (IEEE).

At Vanderbilt University, Mr. Buxton received a B.S. in both electrical engineering and biomedical engineering before going on to earn his M.S. in electrical engineering while continuing to focus on digital signal processing in the Intelligent Robotics Lab, as well as working on medical device projects for recording, analyzing, and interpreting signals from biological systems. In business school at the Kellogg Graduate School of Management, Mr. Buxton’s concentration was marketing and intellectual property management. Mr. Buxton studied for three semesters abroad in Australia at Sydney University Law School and the Australian Graduate School of Management, where he focused on business and legal transactions involving intellectual property in the Asia-Pacific region. Mr. Buxton received his J.D. from Northwestern University School of Law, where he focused on intellectual property law.

Broadcast Innovation v. EchoStar Communications Corp.
(District of Colorado). Member of the team defending EchoStar in a patent infringement case filed in the District Court for Colorado with respect to data broadcasting and conditional access patents. The court declared the conditional access patent invalid after ruling in EchoStar’s favor that the asserted claims were indefinite under 35 U.S.C. Section 112.
Acacia Media Technologies v. EchoStar Communications Corp.
(Western District of Texas). Represented EchoStar in a patent infringement case filed in the District Court of California with respect to the compression and transmission of video-to-receiver units. The MPEG-2 algorithm was of specific importance in this case. EchoStar settled on favorable terms.
McKesson Information Solutions v. Bridge Medical, Inc.
(Eastern District of California). Key technology member of the team analyzing noninfringement positions. Became intimately familiar with the origins and operations of handheld and tablet hardware and software, including wireless operations in an 802.11 network. The defense of Bridge Medical resulted in the court finding McKesson’s patent unenforceable due to inequitable conduct during its patent prosecution.
Tandis Research, Inc. v. Chipcards, Inc.
(Orange County Superior Court). Analyzed the allegedly infringing smartcard assembly equipment, combining electrical, mechanical, and software engineering aspects.
QLogic Corp. v. Emulex Corp.
(District of Delaware). Worked with the Emulex engineers to analyze accused storage area networks (SANs) and fibre channel switches. This analysis involved analyzing circuit diagrams and the electrical properties of individual transistors and diodes.
Centillion Data Systems v. Qwest Communications, Inc.
(Southern District of Indiana). Led the technical analysis efforts in developing noninfringement and invalidity defenses in a matter involving telecommunications billing systems. Client prevailed on two motions for summary judgment of noninfringement based on these theories. The case was ultimately narrowed on appeal, which led to a favorable settlement.
Fractus, S.A. v. Kyocera Communications, Inc.
(Eastern District of Texas). Defended Kyocera in a patent infringement action relating to mobile phone antennas. He developed the noninfringement positions for the matter, deposed all witnesses, and prepared the experts for trial. The case ultimately settled on terms favorable to Kyocera.
Computer Software Protection, LLC v. Nuance Communications, Inc.
(District of Delaware). Developed the defense strategies and led the efforts to locate prior art related to software activation systems, which resulted in a favorable settlement for Nuance.
Flashpoint Technology, Inc. v. Huawei Technologies Co., Ltd.
(International Trade Commission, 337-TA-850). Developed the noninfringement defenses and prepared experts for deposition and trial, which led to a ruling by Administrative Law Judge Essex that there was no Section 337 violation by Huawei in relation to the lawsuit brought by Flashpoint Technology.
Broadcast Innovation v. EchoStar Communications Corp.
(District of Colorado). Member of the team defending EchoStar in a patent infringement case filed in the District Court for Colorado with respect to data broadcasting and conditional access patents. The court declared the conditional access patent invalid after ruling in EchoStar’s favor that the asserted claims were indefinite under 35 U.S.C. Section 112.
Acacia Media Technologies v. EchoStar Communications Corp.
(Western District of Texas). Represented EchoStar in a patent infringement case filed in the District Court of California with respect to the compression and transmission of video-to-receiver units. The MPEG-2 algorithm was of specific importance in this case. EchoStar settled on favorable terms.
McKesson Information Solutions v. Bridge Medical, Inc.
(Eastern District of California). Key technology member of the team analyzing noninfringement positions. Became intimately familiar with the origins and operations of handheld and tablet hardware and software, including wireless operations in an 802.11 network. The defense of Bridge Medical resulted in the court finding McKesson’s patent unenforceable due to inequitable conduct during its patent prosecution.
Tandis Research, Inc. v. Chipcards, Inc.
(Orange County Superior Court). Analyzed the allegedly infringing smartcard assembly equipment, combining electrical, mechanical, and software engineering aspects.
QLogic Corp. v. Emulex Corp.
(District of Delaware). Worked with the Emulex engineers to analyze accused storage area networks (SANs) and fibre channel switches. This analysis involved analyzing circuit diagrams and the electrical properties of individual transistors and diodes.
Centillion Data Systems v. Qwest Communications, Inc.
(Southern District of Indiana). Led the technical analysis efforts in developing noninfringement and invalidity defenses in a matter involving telecommunications billing systems. Client prevailed on two motions for summary judgment of noninfringement based on these theories. The case was ultimately narrowed on appeal, which led to a favorable settlement.
Fractus, S.A. v. Kyocera Communications, Inc.
(Eastern District of Texas). Defended Kyocera in a patent infringement action relating to mobile phone antennas. He developed the noninfringement positions for the matter, deposed all witnesses, and prepared the experts for trial. The case ultimately settled on terms favorable to Kyocera.
Computer Software Protection, LLC v. Nuance Communications, Inc.
(District of Delaware). Developed the defense strategies and led the efforts to locate prior art related to software activation systems, which resulted in a favorable settlement for Nuance.
Flashpoint Technology, Inc. v. Huawei Technologies Co., Ltd.
(International Trade Commission, 337-TA-850). Developed the noninfringement defenses and prepared experts for deposition and trial, which led to a ruling by Administrative Law Judge Essex that there was no Section 337 violation by Huawei in relation to the lawsuit brought by Flashpoint Technology.

Email Disclaimer

Unsolicited e-mails and information sent to Morrison & Foerster will not be considered confidential, may be disclosed to others pursuant to our Privacy Policy, may not receive a response, and do not create an attorney-client relationship with Morrison & Foerster. If you are not already a client of Morrison & Foerster, do not include any confidential information in this message. Also, please note that our attorneys do not seek to practice law in any jurisdiction in which they are not properly authorized to do so.

©1996-2017 Morrison & Foerster LLP. All rights reserved.