Site People

Internet

Fish attorneys are intimately familiar with the technologies that are at the center of the Internet sector. This enables us to pair a client with attorneys who specialize in the client organization's specific area of technology. Our attorneys speak the same language as inventors and technologists, so our learning curve is short and we quickly provide focused, in-depth advice.

Our Internet clients operate in a variety of sub-sectors:

E-commerce
Access
Search
Advertising
Security
Voice over Internet Protocol

We offer Internet clients:

Comprehensive IP strategies involving litigation
Patent portfolio strategy and planning
Patent and trademark application preparation and prosecution
Risk analysis
Reexaminations
Validity and non-infringement opinions
IP-related due diligence and valuations in mergers
Disposition and licensing transactions

Eolas Technologies Inc. et al. v. Adobe Systems Incorporated et al.
Represented Adobe and Go Daddy in a multi-defendant, multi-patent litigation in the Eastern District of Texas relating to interactive content in browsers. Jury verdict of invalidity of all asserted claims.

iLOR, LLC v. Google Inc. (No. 2008-5050)
Fish represented Google in this case where iLor sought a preliminary injunction against the Google Notebook application. The Federal Circuit affirmed the district court's refusal to enter an injunction and also obtained a reading of the iLor patents that led immediately to a finding of summary judgment of non-infringement for Google.

SRI International, Inc. v. Symantec Corporation and Internet Security Systems, Inc
Fish successfully represented SRI International as co-lead counsel in the District of Delaware in securing a jury verdict of infringement and patent validity against both defendants Symantec and ISS. Technology at issue related to computer network intrusion detection. The case is currently in the post-trial motions stage and the issues of damages and willful infringement have been bifurcated.

SRI International, Inc. v. Internet Security Systems, Inc. (511 F.3d 1186)
Fish obtained a reversal of the district court’s summary judgment of invalidity against Fish client SRI. The district court had held four SRI patents invalid due to a prior “publication” that purportedly consisted of a posting on an Internet-connected FTP server. The case raised the novel issue of how the court’s case law on traditional paper publications should extend to the Internet age. The Federal Circuit held that the issue was ultimately one of fact for a jury to decide and remanded the case for trial.

Hyperphrase Technologies, LLC v. Google Inc. (260 F. App’x 274)
Fish successfully obtained affirmance of the district court’s summary judgment of non-infringement in favor of client Google as to Google’s AdSense feature, which was the major element of the case.

DigaComm, LLC v. Vehicle IP, LLC, et al.
Fish was co-counsel to Vehicle IP, LLC and its CEO in an arbitration before the American Arbitration Association regarding a multi-million dollar fee dispute regarding licensing of certain patents. Obtained favorable post-arbitration decision.

Cricket Communications, Inc. v. HipCricket, Inc.
Fish represented Cricket Communications in a trademark infringement, dilution, unfair competition, and cybersquatting action relating to its CRICKET trademark. We obtained a favorable settlement through mediation shortly before trial.

Northeastern University, et al. v. Google, Inc.
Defending Google against claims for patent infringement. The technology at issue relates to techniques for searching large, distributed databases.

Netcraft Corporation v. AT&T Inc., et al.
Represented plaintiff Netcraft in patent litigation involving Internet billing methods. Settled favorably.

Parallel Networks, LLC v. Netflix, Inc., et al.
Representing Netflix, Orbitz, and Priceline against alleged infringement of two patents relating to dynamic webpage creation.

DeepNines Inc. v. McAfee Inc.
Fish represented plaintiff DeepNines in patent litigation related to internet security and obtained a jury verdict of $18 million on direct infringement, induced infringement, and contributory infringement, as well as false marking for the client.

Yodlee v. Ablaise Ltd. and General Inventors Institute A, Inc.
Representing Yodlee in a declaratory judgment action arising from Ablaise’s allegations of patent infringement concerning online data aggregation and banking services.

HyperPhrase Technologies, LLC and HyperPhrase, Inc. v. Google, Inc.
Successfully defended Google, Inc. in a multi-patent case brought by HyperPhrase. The accused technology included Google Search, AdSense, and the autolink feature of the Google toolbar. Won summary judgment of noninfringement of all asserted claims.

NetRatings, Inc. v. WebTrends, Inc.
Defended WebTrends in a patent infringement case relating to web analytics and page tagging. Case settled.

Arendi U.S.A. Inc., et al. v. Microsoft Corp., et al.
Defended Microsoft in a patent case relating to Office XP "smart tag" technology, which involves associating actions with certain content in an electronic document. Won jury verdict of non-infringement (the first ever for Microsoft) after a two week trial. Verdict selected by the National Law Journal as one of the ten top defense verdicts of 2004.

NetJumper Software L. L. C. v. Google, Incorporated
Defending Google, Inc. in a patent case brought by NetJumper Software, L.L.C. relating to methods for navigating among search results in a web browser.

Mirror Image Internet v. DeFelice
Represent this content delivery network in the enforcement of a non-competition and non-disclosure agreement against a former employee. Litigation resolved after the grant of preliminary injunctive relief by the Business Litigation Session of the Suffolk Superior Court.

Internet

News

Events