Martin M. Noonen

Martin M. Noonen

Education

Colorado State University (B.S., 1989)
University of Denver (J.D., 1993)

Bar Admissions

California
U.S. Patent & Trademark Office

Martin Noonen is a partner in the firm’s Intellectual Property Group. He focuses on patent litigation, and he represents clients in a wide range of technologies, including telecommunications, medical devices, interactive programming guides, semiconductors, picture-in-picture televisions, software, computer storage devices, GPS navigation, and musical instruments.

With his background in electrical engineering, Mr. Noonen has been litigating patent cases for almost 20 years for clients such as Verizon Wireless, Research In Motion, Yamaha and Mitsubishi. Although Mr. Noonen is based in Los Angeles, his practice is nationwide. He has helped achieve very favorable results for clients accused of patent infringement in a variety of jurisdictions, including in California, Texas, Delaware, Colorado, Illinois, Wisconsin, and Ohio, and before the International Trade Commission.

In addition to his extensive trial court experience, Mr. Noonen also has helped to preserve district court victories on appeals before the Federal Circuit. Mr. Noonen is registered to practice before the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office, and has worked with the firm’s post-grant practice to file requests to reexamine patents asserted in litigation matters in which he represents alleged infringers.

Vehicle IP v. General Motors et al.
(Western District of Wisconsin). Won summary judgment of non-infringement on behalf of Verizon Wireless and Networks in Motion in a patent infringement action involving downloadable turn-by-turn GPS navigation technology for cell phones. The decision was affirmed by the Federal Circuit.
Ampex v. Mitsubishi Electric
(District of Delaware). Represented Mitsubishi in a patent infringement case involving picture-in-picture television and video cassette recorders. Judgment was entered for Mitsubishi after a jury trial, and affirmed on appeal by the Federal Circuit.
Printless Previews v. Twentieth Century Fox et al.
(Central District of California). Represented multiple major movie studios in a patent infringement action relating to post-production and editing methods. The case was stayed pending reexamination based on a request prepared by our firm. The final rejection of all claims of the patent in suit was affirmed by the Board of Patent Appeals and then the Federal Circuit.
Multi-Format Protests
(U.S. Patent and Trademark Office). Represented consortium of movie studios and consumer electronics companies who had been sued for infringement of a reissue patent by Multi-Format to help file Protests with the PTO that contributed to the eventual abandonment of continuation applications that could have been asserted against firm clients if issued.
Interactive Music Technology v. Roland et al.
(Eastern District of Texas, Central District of California). Represented Yamaha in a patent infringement case on electronic music instruments filed in the Eastern District of Texas. After successfully moving to transfer the case to the Central District of California, the case was stayed pending reexamination based on requests prepared by our firm, and was later dismissed when all claims of the patents in suit were cancelled during reexamination.
DSU v. ITL and JMS
(Northern District of California). Represented defendants in a patent infringement trial resulting in jury verdict. One defendant was found not liable, while the other defendant was found liable for approximately 5 percent of the original damages claim.
Thermage v. Syneron Medical
(Northern District of California). Represented Syneron in patent litigation brought by its competitor. Defeated a preliminary injunction motion brought by Thermage on multiple grounds, allowing our client to continue selling its accused device and facilitating an early, favorable settlement.
Hopkins v. Analog Devices
(Central District of California). Represented Analog Devices in a patent infringement action filed by former employer that settled favorably for client.
SoftVault Systems v. Research In Motion
(Northern District of California). Represented RIM in a patent infringement case on computer security devices. Case settled favorably for client.
Black Hills Media v. Yamaha Corp. of America
(District of Delaware). Currently representing Yamaha in patent suit alleging infringement by AV receivers and home theater systems.
TracBeam v. Verizon Wireless et al.
(Eastern District of Texas). Currently representing Verizon Wireless in defending a patent infringement action related to cellular location-based platforms.
EMSAT Advanced Geo-Location Technology v. AT&T et al.
(Northern District of Ohio). Currently representing Verizon Wireless in defending a patent infringement action directed to telephone network technology. Case is stayed pending inter partes reexamination requests prepared by our firm.
Additional Verizon Wireless Cases
Represented Verizon Wireless in a series of patent litigation matters filed by non-practicing entities that have settled favorably or have been dismissed, including:
Levine v. Samsung et al. (Eastern District of Texas);
IpVenture v. Verizon Wireless et al. (Northern District of California);
ADC Technology v. Verizon Wireless (Northern District of Illinois);
Child Protect LLC v. Verizon Wireless et al. (Eastern District of Texas);
Tendler Cellular v. AT&T Mobility et al. (Eastern District of Texas); and
Traffic Information LLC v. AT&T Mobility et al. (Eastern District of Texas).
Vehicle IP v. TeleCommunication Systems, et al.
(District of Delaware). Currently representing TCS and Verizon Wireless in defending a patent infringement action related to vehicle navigation technology. Won summary judgment of non-infringement which is currently on appeal before the Federal Circuit.
Vehicle IP v. General Motors et al.
(Western District of Wisconsin). Won summary judgment of non-infringement on behalf of Verizon Wireless and Networks in Motion in a patent infringement action involving downloadable turn-by-turn GPS navigation technology for cell phones. The decision was affirmed by the Federal Circuit.
Ampex v. Mitsubishi Electric
(District of Delaware). Represented Mitsubishi in a patent infringement case involving picture-in-picture television and video cassette recorders. Judgment was entered for Mitsubishi after a jury trial, and affirmed on appeal by the Federal Circuit.
Printless Previews v. Twentieth Century Fox et al.
(Central District of California). Represented multiple major movie studios in a patent infringement action relating to post-production and editing methods. The case was stayed pending reexamination based on a request prepared by our firm. The final rejection of all claims of the patent in suit was affirmed by the Board of Patent Appeals and then the Federal Circuit.
Multi-Format Protests
(U.S. Patent and Trademark Office). Represented consortium of movie studios and consumer electronics companies who had been sued for infringement of a reissue patent by Multi-Format to help file Protests with the PTO that contributed to the eventual abandonment of continuation applications that could have been asserted against firm clients if issued.
Interactive Music Technology v. Roland et al.
(Eastern District of Texas, Central District of California). Represented Yamaha in a patent infringement case on electronic music instruments filed in the Eastern District of Texas. After successfully moving to transfer the case to the Central District of California, the case was stayed pending reexamination based on requests prepared by our firm, and was later dismissed when all claims of the patents in suit were cancelled during reexamination.
DSU v. ITL and JMS
(Northern District of California). Represented defendants in a patent infringement trial resulting in jury verdict. One defendant was found not liable, while the other defendant was found liable for approximately 5 percent of the original damages claim.
Thermage v. Syneron Medical
(Northern District of California). Represented Syneron in patent litigation brought by its competitor. Defeated a preliminary injunction motion brought by Thermage on multiple grounds, allowing our client to continue selling its accused device and facilitating an early, favorable settlement.
Hopkins v. Analog Devices
(Central District of California). Represented Analog Devices in a patent infringement action filed by former employer that settled favorably for client.
SoftVault Systems v. Research In Motion
(Northern District of California). Represented RIM in a patent infringement case on computer security devices. Case settled favorably for client.
Black Hills Media v. Yamaha Corp. of America
(District of Delaware). Currently representing Yamaha in patent suit alleging infringement by AV receivers and home theater systems.
TracBeam v. Verizon Wireless et al.
(Eastern District of Texas). Currently representing Verizon Wireless in defending a patent infringement action related to cellular location-based platforms.
EMSAT Advanced Geo-Location Technology v. AT&T et al.
(Northern District of Ohio). Currently representing Verizon Wireless in defending a patent infringement action directed to telephone network technology. Case is stayed pending inter partes reexamination requests prepared by our firm.
Additional Verizon Wireless Cases
Represented Verizon Wireless in a series of patent litigation matters filed by non-practicing entities that have settled favorably or have been dismissed, including:
Levine v. Samsung et al. (Eastern District of Texas);
IpVenture v. Verizon Wireless et al. (Northern District of California);
ADC Technology v. Verizon Wireless (Northern District of Illinois);
Child Protect LLC v. Verizon Wireless et al. (Eastern District of Texas);
Tendler Cellular v. AT&T Mobility et al. (Eastern District of Texas); and
Traffic Information LLC v. AT&T Mobility et al. (Eastern District of Texas).
Vehicle IP v. TeleCommunication Systems, et al.
(District of Delaware). Currently representing TCS and Verizon Wireless in defending a patent infringement action related to vehicle navigation technology. Won summary judgment of non-infringement which is currently on appeal before the Federal Circuit.

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.