Morrison Foerster is an international law firm with lawyers practicing throughout the United States, Asia, and Europe. Click to discover more.

mofo_share_image.jpg

Morrison Foerster

common-default.jpeg

Terms / Notices

Cookies

Privacy Policy

Reporting Hotline

Attorney Advertising

Alumni

  Linkedin

MoFo LinkedIN

  Facebook

MoFo Facebook

YouTube

MoFo Youtube

Morrison Foerster - Footer

The IPO's November DEI Committee Meeting

You have not solved the recaptcha challenge yet or session expired, try again.

Email Disclaimer

Disclaimer

Unsolicited e-mails and information sent to Morrison Foerster will not be considered confidential, may be disclosed to others pursuant to our <a href="https://www.mofo.com/about/privacy-policy.html">Privacy Policy</a>, 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.

Feedback

mofo-logo-2022.svg

People

Capabilities

Resources

About

Community

Offices

Careers

Stay Connected

Mark Whitaker, co-Chair of Morrison Foerster's Global IP Litigation practice and co-Chair of the MoFo Diversity Strategy Committee, will be speaking at the Intellectual Property Owners Association November DEI Committee meeting.

<h3>Sorry, we weren’t able to find the terms you entered.</h3>Please try a different term or keyword.

People

Capabilities

Resources

Not Found Cards

Mark Whitaker, co-Chair of Morrison Foerster's Global IP Litigation practice and co-Chair of the MoFo Diversity Strategy Committee, will be speaking at the Intellectual Property Owners Association November DEI Committee meeting.Mark will participate on a panel entitled, "Is DEI D.E.A.D.?" The panel will discuss the challenges that DEI programs and initiatives currently face, and why these DEI efforts can't stop now.<hr>

Sign Up

Mark Whitaker is a leading member of the firm’s Intellectual Property Litigation practice and has more than 35 years of experience crafting legal strategies in high-stakes patent and trade secret litigation. Mark sees the whole board for each of his clients and works closely with them to define a successful litigation outcome and determine the best path to achieve that goal. He has extensive experience navigating the rules and procedures in the nation’s top patent litigation venues, including U.S. district courts, the International Trade Commission (ITC), and the Court of Federal Claims.Mark regularly acts as lead counsel in matters involving technologies such as semiconductors, photo/optical technologies, chemicals, and database analytics. His clients do business in a broad range of industries including pharmaceuticals, medical devices, consumer products, and telecommunications. He often leads a team of MoFo lawyers representing several defendants in parallel multipatent litigations.A past president of the American Intellectual Property Law Association (AIPLA), Mark was elected to their prestigious Fellows membership in 2019. He is a frequent speaker at the American Bar Association, AIPLA, the Practising Law Institute, the Minority Corporate Counsel Association, and at numerous CLE events all over the country.Mark is a veteran of the U.S. Navy, having served first as a surface warfare officer and later as a member of the Navy Judge Advocate General’s Corps. Drawing on this background, he currently leads the firm’s MoFoVets affinity network. Following his military service, he began his private practice legal career as a commercial litigator before concentrating on IP and technology litigation.<h4>Representative Experience</h4><ul><li>Certain Clear Aligners and Components Thereof, Inv. No. 337-TA-1471. Representing Align Technologies in its complaint at the ITC against Angelalign Technology regarding business-critical patents covering tooth and jaw alignment technology.</li><li>Certain Hydraulic Excavators and Components Thereof, Inv. No. 337-TA-582. Represented Caterpillar, Inc. in an inter partes proceeding regarding a third-party shipment of excavators denied entry to the United States by U.S. Customs and Border Protection’s Exclusion Order Enforcement Branch (EOEB) as subject to the exclusion order issued by the ITC in 2009.</li><li>Certain Cameras, Camera Systems, and Accessories Used Therewith, Inv. No. 337-TA-1400. Recently secured a favorable ITC initial determination for Insta360, a leader and innovator in 360 cameras. The initial ruling confirms the non-infringement or invalidity of Respondent GoPro’s utility patents. The ITC administrative law judge (ALJ) ruled that GoPro’s five utility patents relating to stabilization, horizon leveling, distortion, and aspect ratio conversion are invalid, not infringed, or both. In addition to clearing Insta360 completely as to these five patents, the ALJ confirmed that Insta360’s proactive design updates fall outside the scope of GoPro’s lone asserted design patent.</li><li>Certain Infotainment Systems, Components Thereof, and Automobiles Containing the Same, ITC Inv. No. 337-TA-1119. Secured a complete victory for client Renesas Electronics in an ITC investigation initiated by complainant Broadcom. Following trial, the ALJ issued an initial determination of no violation on all four patents asserted against Renesas, based on findings of non-infringement, invalidity, and/or lack of technical domestic industry. In its final determination, the ITC affirmed the finding of no violation with respect to all patents asserted.</li><li>Certain Semiconductor Devices, Products Containing the Same, and Components Thereof (I) and (II), ITC Inv. Nos. 337-TA-1176, -1177. Represented TSMC and many of its customers (including Xilinx, NVIDIA, MediaTek, Apple, and several others) in parallel ITC investigations initiated by Globalfoundries alleging infringement of patents related to semiconductor design and fabrication. The cases settled favorably shortly after institution.</li><li>Certain Semiconductor Devices, Integrated Circuits, and Consumer Products Containing the Same, ITC Inv. No. 337-TA-1149. Represented TSMC and MediaTek in an ITC investigation initiated by Innovative Foundry Technologies alleging infringement of patents related to semiconductor design and fabrication. The case settled favorably near the close of fact discovery.</li><li>Certain Semiconductor Lithography Systems, and Components Thereof, ITC Inv. No. 337-TA-1137. Represented Nikon Corporation in ITC investigation alleging infringement of patents related to semiconductor lithography equipment. The case settled on favorable terms.</li><li>Certain Lithography Machines and Systems, and Components Thereof (I) and (II), ITC Inv. Nos. 337-TA-1128, -1129. Represented Nikon Corporation in parallel ITC actions alleging infringement of patents related to semiconductor lithography equipment. The cases settled on favorable terms.</li><li>Certain Digital Cameras, Software, and Components Thereof, ITC Inv. No. 337-TA-1059. Represented Nikon Corporation in an investigation alleging infringement of patents related to digital cameras. The case settled after trial on favorable terms.</li><li>Certain Electronic Products, Including Products with Near Field Communication (NFC) System-Level Functionality and/or Battery Power-Up Functionality, Components Thereof, and Products Containing Same, ITC Inv. No. 337-TA-950. Lead counsel representing Dell in a multipatent investigation brought by NXP B.V. involving near field communication devices and battery power up functionality in laptop computers</li><li>Certain Crawler Cranes and Components Thereof, ITC Inv. No. 337-TA-887. Lead counsel for Manitowoc Cranes LLC in a multipatent and trade secrets investigation involving variable position control crawler cranes against Sany Heavy Industries (China) and Sany America. Following a trial on the merits, the ITC issued an order finding that Sany committed unfair acts and awarded a 10-year exclusion order and cease-and-desist order.</li><li>Certain Dynamic Random Access Memory and NAND Flash Memory Devices and Products Containing Same, ITC Inv. No. 337-TA-803. Served as lead counsel for Dell in this multipatent investigation involving DRAM memory technology brought by complainant Intellectual Ventures. Dell settled the investigation just prior to the hearing with a favorable outcome.</li><li>Certain LED Photographic Lighting Devices and Components Thereof, ITC Inv. No. 337-TA-804. Serving as lead counsel for four of the named respondents in this multipatent investigation involving LED lighting technology. The respondents settled the investigation post-hearing with a favorable outcome.</li><li>Certain Hydraulic Excavators and Components Thereof, ITC Inv. No. 337-TA-582. Served as lead counsel on behalf of Caterpillar in a trademark (gray market) infringement case before the ITC against importers and resellers of Caterpillar hydraulic excavators. Ruling on behalf of Caterpillar, the ITC issued general and limited exclusion orders, along with cease-and-desist orders.</li><li>Certain Cold Cathode Fluorescent Lamp (CCFL) Inverter Circuits and Products Containing Same, ITC Inv. No. 337-TA-666. Served as co-counsel to O2 Micro, Inc., in its ITC multipatent infringement investigation concerning technology related to inverter circuits that control LCD backlighting functionality.</li><li>Certain Network Interface Cards and Access Points for Use in Direct Sequence Spread Spectrum Wireless Local Area Networks and Products Containing Same, ITC Inv. No. 337-TA-455. Defended Proxim, Inc., in a patent infringement case concerning the unlicensed importation and sale of network interface cards and access points for use in wireless local area networks (WLANs) and products using the IEEE 802.11b wireless technology standard, which led to a settlement favorable to Proxim.</li><li>Virtru Corporation v. Microsoft Corporation (Western District of Washington). After defeating multiple Microsoft motions—including attempts to delay trial and limit Virtru’s claims—the case concluded with a confidential settlement in June 2025 on the eve of trial. The team successfully opposed Microsoft’s motions to reopen claim construction and delay trial. Following extensive discovery, Microsoft moved for summary judgment on non-infringement and willfulness, which the court denied in full. Additionally, the team secured a favorable Daubert ruling limiting Microsoft’s expert testimony on invalidity.</li><li>Teradata Corp. v. SAP SE, SAP America, and SAP Labs (Northern District of California). Lead counsel for Teradata against SAP in complex litigation alleging misappropriation of trade secrets under the DTSA and California Civil Code, copyright infringement, and antitrust violations. Trial scheduled to take place April 2026.</li><li>BASF v. James Matthey Inc. (District of Delaware). Lead counsel for BASF in patent litigation involving materials used to catalyze and reduce NOx and NH3 oxidation in exhaust systems. Matter was favorably dismissed.</li><li>Realtime Data v. Teradata Corp. (Eastern District of Texas). Lead counsel for Teradata against Realtime in a multipatent litigation involving data compression software technology. Teradata filed a successful motion to transfer the case to the Central District of California. Matter was favorably dismissed.</li><li>Fischell v. Cordis (J&J) (Western District of Michigan). Lead counsel for Cordis against Robert, David, and Thomas Fischell, inventors of heart stents and related technology.</li><li>Kappa Digital v. Iridium Communications et al. (Eastern District of Texas). Lead counsel for defendants Iridium, DeLorme, and Blue Sky Networks against Kappa Digital, a non-practicing entity. After taking strong procedural and invalidity positions, Kappa dismissed the suit without prejudice.</li><li>PanTaurus v. Samsung Electronics America, Inc. (Eastern District of Texas). Served as lead counsel for SEA in a patent litigation filed in the Eastern District of Texas involving computer security systems claims. The case recently settled for an amount significantly below the demanded amount.</li><li>Protegrity Corp. v. SafeNet, Inc. (District of Connecticut). Served as lead counsel for SafeNet in two patent litigations filed by plaintiff in the District of Connecticut. The cases involved patents directed to the protection of encrypted data in software programs. The cases settled favorably one month prior to trial.</li><li>Callaway Golf v. Acushnet Inc. (District of Delaware). Served as co-counsel representing Acushnet in multipatent litigation involving multilayered golf ball technology and Acushnet's Titleist Pro V1 golf balls. Prepared and conducted direct examination at trial of Acushnet’s technical expert, which included an analysis of various chemical compounds and molecules used in the construction of golf balls. The trial team prevailed at trial against Callaway, invalidating all four asserted patents.</li><li>LG Electronics v. ASKO Appliances, Inc. et al. (District of Delaware). Served as lead counsel to all defendants (Daewoo Electronics, Inc., ASKO Appliances, Inc., and ASKO Appliances AB) in multipatent infringement litigation concerning washing machine direct-drive technology. The case settled favorably post trial.</li><li>Teles AG Informationstechnologien v. Cisco Systems Inc. (District of Delaware). Served as co-lead counsel to Teles AG in a multipatent infringement litigation pending in Delaware federal district court involving VoIP mobile telephony technology.</li><li>Rembrandt Data Technologies LP v. AOL LLC, et al. (Eastern District of Virginia). Served as lead counsel representing The Brink’s Company and Brink’s Home Security in a multipatent infringement litigation involving V.8, V.34, and V.90 modem industry standards. Both defendants obtained dismissals (with prejudice) on the merits from the litigation.</li><li>NTP, Inc. v. Research In Motion, Ltd. (Eastern District of Virginia). Served as counsel on behalf of Research In Motion (RIM), the company behind BlackBerry, in its longstanding patent infringement dispute with NTP, a patent holding company.</li><li>Verizon California Inc. v. Ronald A. Katz Technology Licensing, L.P. (Central District of California). Represented Verizon California Inc., a subsidiary of Verizon Communications, Inc. (formerly GTE), in a complex patent infringement litigation that resulted in a favorable settlement between Verizon California and Ronald A. Katz Technology Licensing, Inc.</li><li>L’Oreal S.A./L’Oreal USA v. Procter & Gamble Company (District of Connecticut). Represented P&G in a patent infringement case concerning nonionic polyether urethanes in oxidative hair dyes.</li></ul>

Mark L. Whitaker

Partner

The IPO's November DEI Committee Meeting

15 Nov 2023 2:00 PM - 3:00 PM EST