Represent Micron Technology, Inc. in multiple patent litigation matters and related Patent Office challenges and appeals. Representative cases include:
Unification Technologies LLC v. Micron Technology, Inc. (W.D. Tex.) – represented Micron as well as HP Inc. and Dell Technologies in defending against three patents with accusations against memory technologies. Successfully invalidated each asserted patent claim in inter partes review (IPR) challenges and defended that success on appeal to the Federal Circuit.
Netlist, Inc. v. Micron Technology, Inc. (W.D. Tex., E.D. Tex., and D. Del) – representing Micron in a series of cases involving numerous patents with accusations related to memory technologies.
Represent DoorDash, Inc. in multiple patent litigation matters and related Patent Office challenges. Representative cases include:
Fall Line Patents, LLC v. DoorDash, Inc. (E.D. Tex.) – represent DoorDash in patent case and related ex partes review (EPR) challenge related to app feature accusations.
Represent Microsoft Corporation in multiple patent litigation matters and related Patent Office challenges and appeals. Representative cases include:
Exafer Ltd. v. Microsoft Corporation (W.D. Tex.) – represent Microsoft in two patent case related to edge computing accusations.
Lemko Corporation v. Microsoft Corporation (N.D. Tex.) – represent Microsoft in eight patent case and related inter partes review (IPR) challenges related to networking accusations.
LS Cloud Storage Technologies, LLC v. Microsoft Corporation (W.D. Tex.) – represent Microsoft in two patent case and related inter partes review (IPR) challenges related to cache memory accusations.
Represented Apple, Inc. in multiple patent litigation matters and related Patent Office challenges and appeals. Representative cases include:
Personal Audio, LLC v. Apple, Inc. (E.D. Tex.) – represented Apple through a jury trial in a case where two patents were asserted against audio playback technology.
MicroUnity Systems Engineering Inc. v. Apple, Inc. (E.D. Tex) – represented Apple in a seventeen patent case that settled shortly before trial. Led strategy development applicable for Apple and large joint defense group of companies. Patent accusations related to Arm Neon Single Instruction, Multiple Data (SIMD) processor architecture and related features.
Vantage Point Technology v. Apple, Inc., (E.D. Tex.) – represented Apple in cases where three patents were asserted against processor instruction pipelining and cache memory related features. Led strategy development applicable for Apple and large joint defense group of companies. Cases settled shortly after successful transfer request moving the Apple cases to the Northern District of California.
Memory Integrity LLC v. Apple, Inc. (D. Del.) – represented Apple in patent case with accusations related to cache memory. Represented Apple and also Amazon.com, HTC, and Samsung in successfully challenging the asserted patent in inter partes review (IPR) and defending that success on appeal at the Federal Circuit.
Represent VMware, Inc. in multiple patent litigation matters and related Patent Office challenges and appeals. Representative cases include:
Safe Storage LLC v VMware, Inc. (D. Del.) – represented VMware in a case involving RAID memory technology accusations. Case settled after Federal Circuit appeal of inter partes review (IPR) challenge.
Intellectual Ventures II LLC v. VMware, Inc. (W.D. Tex.) – represented VMware in two cases involving ten patents and accusations among virtual computing and networking features. Case settled after success in multiple inter partes review (IPR) challenges.
DesktopSites, Inc. v. VMware, Inc. (W.D. Tex.) – represented VMware in a three-patent case involving virtualization accusations. Successful in obtaining an early-case dismissal after exposing significant flaws in infringement accusations.
Represented HP Inc. in multiple patent litigation matters and related Patent Office challenges and appeals. Representative cases include:
Unification Technologies LLC v. HP Inc. (W.D. Tex.) – represented HP Inc. in defending against three patents with accusations against memory technologies. Successfully invalidated each asserted patent claim in inter partes review (IPR) challenges and defended that success on appeal to the Federal Circuit.
Industrial Print Technologies LLC v. HP Inc. (N.D. Tex.) – represented HP Inc. in Multidistrict Litigation (MDL) case involving five asserted patents with accusations relating to document formatting and high-speed printing.
Abstrax, Inc. v. Hewlett-Packard Company (E.D. Tex.) – represented HP in patent case involving accusations against HP’s manufacturing processes.
Super Interconnect Technologies LLC v. Hewlett-Packard Company (E.D. Tex.) – represented HP in patent case involving accusations against CMOS drivers and on-chip termination.
Zenith Electronics LLC v. Sony Corporation (N.D. Ill.) – represented Zenith in a two patent competitor case with accusations relating to error tracking and digital televisions.
Vigilos, LLC v. Intel Corporation (N.D. Cal.) – represented Intel in in patent case involving accusations against a healthcare management system.
Catheter Flushing v Becton Dickinson and Company (D.UT) – represented Becton Dickinson in patent case with accusations against medical catheters.
Graceway Pharmaceuticals, LLC v Perrigo Company (D.NJ) – represented Graceway in patent case with accusation against pharmaceutical creams.
Roche Diagnostics v Nova Biomedical Corporation (D. Del.) – represented Nova Biomedical in three patent case with accusations involving blood glucose measurement devices and tradesecrets.
Represented The Chamberlain Group LLC in multiple patent litigation matters and related Patent Office challenges and appeals. Representative cases include:
Overhead Door Corporation v. The Chamberlain Group LLC (N.D. Tex. and E.D. Tex.) – represented Chamberlain in multiple competitor cases, including a case that went through a jury trial and appeals. Multiple patents asserted and accusations related to garage door opener, security and networking features.
The Chamberlain Group, Inc. v. Techtronic Industries Co. Ltd. (N.D. Ill. And ITC) – represented Chamberlain in competitor case involving patents and accusations related to garage door opener and networking features. Recognized by The American Lawyer’s “Litigator of the Week” on June 1, 2018 after successfully obtaining an award of treble damages, attorneys’ fees, injunction and costs. The Court stated after the jury trial that “this case was not close,” and observed that the defendant “lost on every issue at trial after less than two hours of jury deliberation.”
Other representative matters include:
Rex Medical, L.P. v. Intuitive Surgical, Inc. (D. Del.) – represented Intuitive Surgical in two patent case related to surgical stapler accusations. Defended Intuitive through a jury trial. Successful in striking damages expert testimony and defending success on appeal to the Federal Circuit. Recognized by The American Lawyer’s “Litigator of the Week” on September 29, 2023 after successfully convincing the judge to strike plaintiff’s damages theory to only $1 and observe that the record was “wholly lacking in evidence” to determine a reasonable royalty rate.
Taasera Licensing v. Palo Alto Networks, Inc. (E.D. Tex. And S.D.N.Y.) – represented Palo Alto Networks in nine patent case related to network security feature accusations. Case consolidated as Judge Gilstrap’s first Multidistrict Litigation (MDL) matter. Case settled after successfully filing multiple inter partes review (IPR) and ex parte reexamination (EPR) challenges, and arguing key issues with respect to claim construction and 35 U.S.C. § 101 patent ineligibility.
Sol IP, LLC v. Ericsson Inc. (E.D. Tex.) – represented Ericsson in 27 patent case related to 3G/4G telecom and WiFi accusations. Case settled after successfully filing multiple inter partes review (IPR) challenges.
Vista Peak Ventures, LLC v. Hisense International Co., Ltd., (E.D. Tex.) – represented Hisense in series of cases involving twelve patents and accusations related to display and television features. Cases settled after successfully filing inter partes review (IPR) challenges.
ZapFraud, Inc. v. Proofpoint, Inc. (D. Del.) – represented Proofpoint in cases involving three patents and firewall and network security accusations. Successful in demonstrating that the asserted patents are not patent eligible under 35 U.S.C. § 101.
Opticurrent, LLC v On Semiconductor Corporation (N.D. Cal.) – represented On Semiconductor in one patent case relating to transistor accusations.
Unification Technologies LLC v. Dell Technologies, Inc. (W.D. Tex.) – represented Dell in defending against three patents with accusations against memory technologies. Successfully invalidated each asserted patent claim in inter partes review (IPR) challenges and defended that success on appeal to the Federal Circuit.
Evolve BioSystems, Inc. v. Abbott Laboratories (N.D. Ill.) – represented Abbott in two patent case related to composition of infant formula. Final judgment entered after dispositive motion success.
Unification Technologies LLC v. Silicon Motion Inc. (E.D. Tex.) – represented Silicon Motion in defending against four patents with accusations against memory technologies and a related inter partes review (IPR) challenge.
Arc Medical Design Ltd. v. Medivators Inc. (S.D. Tex.) – represented Arc Medical and Olympus Corporation in two patent competitor case relating to medical device accusations. Case settled after successfully defending inter partes review (IPR) challenges.
Paradise IP LLC v. Box, Inc. (W.D. Tex.) – represented Box in six patent case related to document management accusations
Rite-Hite Holding Corporation v Systems, LLC (E.D. Wis.) – represented Systems in single patent case with accusations relating to vehicle restraints.
ChargePoint, Inc. v. SemaConnect, Inc. (D.MD) – represented ChargePoint in four patent competitor case with accusations relating to electric vehicle charging stations.
Yeti Coolers, LLC v. RTIC Coolers, LLC (W.D. Tex.) – represented RTIC Coolers in design patent case.
back
