As profiled below, we have achieved incomparable results in patent litigation. Our success reflects the depth and talent of the lawyers in our patent practice. It also reflects the strategic and results-oriented focus we adopt for every facet of a patent case - including discovery, claim construction, summary judgment, trial, appeal, as well as alternative dispute resolution. Our approach enables us to obtain the best possible results for our clients - by out-litigating without out-spending our opposition.
Cases of Note
Oracle America, Inc. v. Google Inc.: We represented Google in a high-stakes patent and copyright war brought by Oracle with billions of dollars at stake. Oracle, which bought the Java programming language by acquiring Sun Microsystems in January 2010, alleged that Google’s Android mobile technology infringed Oracle's Java patents and copyrights. An expert for Oracle estimated Google owed Oracle up to $6 billion in damages for infringement. Our team defended Google against all the patent and copyright claims, and also argued that the damage estimates were wildly inflated. Following repeated rounds of motions and briefing, the judge dismissed the bulk of Oracle’s copyright claims, and at trial the jury rendered a unanimous verdict rejecting all claims of patent infringement. Although the jury decided that Google infringed an Oracle copyright on nine out of millions of lines of source code, the case is considered a sweeping victory for Google, with zero damages.
VS Technologies LLC v. Twitter Inc.: By winning a defense verdict in this federal jury trial, we protected Twitter Inc. from a patent infringement suit and $40 million damages claim. Virginia-based VS Technologies had obtained a patent for “an interactive virtual community of famous people,” and sued Twitter over its virtual community technology. During the six-day trial, we argued that Twitter's Browse Interests feature did not infringe the terms of the patent and that in fact, the patent was invalid. The jury agreed, and found Twitter not liable for patent infringement.
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.
Genentech, Inc. v. The Trustees of the University of Pennsylvania: On behalf of Genentech, we sought a declaration of non-infringement and invalidity of a University of Pennsylvania patent that purported to cover a specific breast cancer therapy. After a very successful pretrial conference, we were able to negotiate a settlement which greatly benefitted our client.
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.
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.
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.
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.
ThermaWave v. Jenoptik: We represented semiconductor test equipment manufacturer ThermaWave in a patent infringement case against a German competitor, Jenoptik. We won a jury verdict of infringement and validity, and secured a permanent injunction barring Jenoptik from importing its equipment.
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.
STC.UNM v. Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Company: We secured a very favorable settlement and then the dismissal of an International Trade Commission (ITC) investigation on behalf of TSMC. The licensing arm of the University of New Mexico claimed our client's advanced semiconductor processes infringed on a university patent.