Express Mobile v. Microsoft, Google, Facebook, eBay (ND Cal and WD Texas) - Representing plaintiff Express Mobile in multiple patent infringement cases concerning distributed programming, web and mobile application systems.
Broadband iTV, Inc. v. AT&T, DirecTV, Dish Network LLC (WD Texas) - Represented pioneering video on demand and content management technology company, BBiTV, in three consolidated 5-patent cases filed in December 2019.
Wapp Technology v. Micro Focus (ED Texas) - Represented plaintiff Wapp Technology against Micro Focus in the Eastern District of Texas relating to mobile application development technology. Won $172.5M jury verdict.
Uniloc v. Microsoft (CD California) – Representing plaintiff Uniloc in multiple patent lawsuits relating to distributed and cloud software, software security, mobile and wireless technologies.
Uniloc v. Netflix, Uniloc v. Hulu, Uniloc v. Roku, Uniloc v. ABC (CD California) – Represented plaintiff Uniloc in four patent infringement cases involving digital streaming and video coding and compression technologies.
Uniloc v. AT&T, Uniloc v. Verizon (ED Texas) – Representing Plaintiff Uniloc in four patent infringement cases involving 4G LTE and LTE-A, cellular and video coding technologies in the Eastern District of Texas against AT&T and Verizon.
Polaris PowerLED v. VIZIO, TPV, TCL (CD California) – Representing plaintiff Polaris in multiple patent infringement cases concerning LED backlight systems.
OpenTV, Inc. v. NFL Enterprises, LLC. - Represented OpenTV in a seven patent case involving verifying PIN codes giving users access to password-restricted websites and applications, methods of inserting content into video streams using time-code indicators, methods of allowing users to interact with videos and a method of connecting multiple video metadata sets, methods of programming software to identify if a computer does not have the right applications to run certain media, methods of combining multiple media data streams into a single broadcast stream and methods of connecting streaming videos with other websites via a link.
Intellectual Ventures I and Intellectual Ventures II v. Motorola Mobility (District of Delaware and Southern District of Florida) – Represented Intellectual Ventures in back to back patent infringement trials in Delaware and won both trials. The asserted patents relate to technology in smart phones including sending MMS messages, power allocation and conservation and docking stations.
Parthenon Unified Memory Architecture v. Apple (Eastern District of Texas) – Represented Apple in a patent case involving memory architecture and video coding technology.
Papst Licensing GMBH & Co. v. Apple et al. litigation (Eastern District of Texas) – Represented Apple in a patent case involving computer interface and data transfer technology.
Intellectual Ventures II v. JPMorgan et. al. (Southern District of New York) – Currently representing Intellectual Ventures II in a patent infringement matter against several JPMorgan Chase entities. The asserted patent relates to a cryptographic co-processor for processing RSA or ECC algorithms.
Intellectual Ventures II v. Citibank et. al. (Southern District of New York) – Currently representing Intellectual Ventures II in a patent infringement matter against several Citibank entities. The asserted patent relates to a cryptographic co-processor for processing RSA or ECC algorithms.
Interval Licensing LLC v. Apple et al. (Western District of Washington) – Represented Apple in a patent case involving computer display technology.
DSS Technology Management, Inc. v. Apple (Northern District of California) – Represented Apple in a patent case involving Bluetooth technology.
Apple v. HTC - Represented claimant Apple in a patent infringement case in the International Trade Commission involving smart phone and computer-related hardware and software. The case settled prior to an initial determination.
HTC v. Apple - Represented Apple as respondent in a patent infringement case in the International Trade Commission involving smart phone and computer-related hardware, software and power management systems. The Administrative Law Judge found the patents not infringed and no violation of Section 337.
Sun Microsystems v. Network Appliance (Northern District of California) – Represented Sun in three separate patent infringement cases involving processors, servers, networking and storage technology.
Qualcomm, Inc. v. Broadcom Corp. (Southern District of California) – Represented plaintiff Qualcomm in patent infringement case involving baseband processors and wireless technologies, including CDMA, UMTS, GPRS, and GSM technologies. Obtained favorable settlement.
Saxon v. Palm et al. (Eastern District of Texas) – Represented defendant, Palm, Inc., before Judge Davis in a patent infringement case involving handheld devices and wireless technology.
Gateway v. Hewlett-Packard (International Trade Commission) – Represented defendant computer manufacturer in patent infringement trial concerning multimedia computer technology combining digital television and audio technologies. The Administrative Law Judge found the patent unenforceable and invalid on multiple grounds and no violation of Section 337.
Hewlett-Packard v. Acer; Acer v. Hewlett-Packard (ED Texas; WD Wisconsin) – Represented Hewlett-Packard in multi-jurisdiction patent infringement dispute relating to personal computer architecture and design, microprocessors and peripheral devices. Obtained favorable settlement.
AuthenTec v. Hestia Technologies (Middle District of Florida) – Represented plaintiff manufacturer of biometric fingerprint sensors in IP dispute involving semiconductor packaging technology. Successfully obtained an exceptional case ruling and favorable settlement for client.
Hewlett-Packard v. Gateway (Southern District of California) – Represented plaintiff computer manufacturer in patent infringement case in the Southern District of California. Case involved 19 patents (14 asserted by plaintiff and 5 asserted by defendant) relating to personal computer architecture and design, microprocessors and peripheral devices, such as monitors, keyboards and projectors. Obtained favorable Markman rulings and settlement.
Hewlett-Packard v. Gateway (ITC) – Represented plaintiff computer manufacturer in patent infringement case in the International Trade Commission involving patents related to computer architecture, microprocessors, peripherals and monitors. Obtained favorable settlement.