Leo L. Lam

Cases of Note

Apple Inc. v. HTC Corp: We served as lead counsel for HTC, a Taiwan-based manufacturer of handheld devices, in its battle with Apple over smartphone technology. Apple first sued HTC in district court and before the International Trade Commission (ITC), claiming our client had infringed on 20 patents related to various computer-related technologies, including user interfaces, operating systems, power management, and digital signal processing. The ITC hearing that went to decision resulted in a favorable ruling, and HTC obtained a settlement to become the first Android handset maker licensed by Apple.

Chiron Corp. v. Genentech, Inc.: We represented Genentech, Inc. in a high-stakes patent trial. The plaintiff claimed our client's recombinantly engineered, “humanized” therapeutic for breast cancer infringed on the plaintiff's patent. We obtained a jury verdict invalidating the asserted patent on written description and enablement grounds. The verdict was later affirmed on appeal.

Broadcom Corporation, et al. v. Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation: On behalf of Broadcom, we led a joint-defense group of wireless chip manufacturers, PC manufacturers, and cellular network carriers. The plaintiff, CSIRO, asserted patent claims that allegedly covered a wide variety of products that offer wireless functionality under the IEEE 802.11 standard for local area networks. We settled the case favorably on the eve of trial.

Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation v. Semiconductor Company: We represented a leading semiconductor company in a patent trial brought in the Eastern District of Texas. The Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation (CSIRO) asserted patent infringement claims against more than a dozen of the world's leading technology companies, including our client. CSIRO contended the defendants' Wi-Fi products infringed on CSIRO's patent, and sought nine to ten figure royalty payments. A week into the jury trial, we reached a favorable settlement with CSIRO, and the remaining parties also settled favorably.

Network Appliance v. BlueArc Corporation: We obtained summary judgment for technology industry newcomer BlueArc Corporation in a multi-patent case. The plaintiff, industry stalwart Network Appliance, asserted more than 50 patent claims concerning fileserver hardware and software, and sought an injunction which would have ended our client's business. The victory on summary judgment was upheld on appeal.

Rembrandt Technologies, Inc. v. Comcast Cable Communications, LLC: We won a complete victory for Comcast Cable Communications, LLC in a patent infringement case involving high-speed Internet and digital TV services. Rembrandt Technologies, Inc. originally filed the case in the Eastern District of Texas, but in conjunction with other co-defendants, we obtained consolidation and transfer to the District of Delaware. Following completion of discovery, claim construction, and summary judgment briefing, Rembrandt conceded non-infringement of all patents, preserving only its right to appeal the claim construction as to the ninth. The Federal Circuit upheld the claim construction that resulted in non-infringement.

Caritas Technologies v. Comcast Cable Communications, LLC: The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit upheld our successful defense of a $2.2 billion patent infringement claim against Comcast Cable Communications, LLC. The plaintiff had asserted that Comcast’s Digital Voice service infringed on its patents for Voice over Internet Protocol (VoIP) technology. We obtained a non-infringement judgment in the Eastern District of Texas, which was sustained on appeal.

Harris Corporation v. DRAM Technology Users: On behalf of the Harris Corporation, we brought a series of patent-infringement actions to enforce a portfolio of patents covering various fundamental features of DRAM technology. The defendants included Hyundai, Siemens, Mosel-Vitelic, Atmel, Nanya, and others. We helped our client license more than 90% of the DRAM industry collectively for nine-figure royalties.

evYsio Medical Devices v. Advanced Cardiovascular Systems: We represented evYsio Medical Devices in asserting patents for its cardiac stent technology. Prior to jury selection, the case became part of a global settlement between Medtronic and Abbott. Our client, the inventor of several stents in the suit, received $42 million as part of the settlement.

Plaintiff v. Semiconductor Company: On behalf of a Taiwan-based semiconductor company, we brought a declaratory judgment action in the Northern District of California to resolve patent claims that purported to target computer-mouse products relying on optical tracking. We settled the case favorably for our client.

Plaintiffs v. Telecommunications Company: In a patent infringement suit concerning video-conferencing systems, our client's competitor and its patent-holding arm sought an injunction and demanded damages against all products and services in our client’s core business. We settled the case favorably for our client after summary judgment briefing.

Broadcom Corporation v. SiRF Technology and CSR: We served as trial counsel for Broadcom, one of the world’s leading semiconductor companies, against SiRF, a GPS chip manufacturer, and its parent CSR. Broadcom asserted multiple patents covering graphics, video processing, and digital signal processing techniques, as well as claims arising under the Lanham Act and unfair competition laws. This case, along with other actions between the parties, was settled shortly before trial on terms that were very favorable to Broadcom.

Wisconsin Alumni Research Foundation v. Semiconductor Company: The patent arm of the University of Wisconsin brought patent claims against our client for its core microprocessor technology. As co-lead counsel we defended the company, and settled the case favorably on the eve of trial.