Search Team

Search by Last Name
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
I
J
K
L
M
N
O
P
Q
R
S
T
U
V
W
X
Y
Z

Fish Cases

Patent litigation examples

Fish Cases

Patent litigation examples

Back to Case Listing

In-Depth

Multimedia Patent Trust v. LG, et al. No. 10-CV-2618 H (S.D. Cal.) – Defended LG in a three-patent trial related to H.264 video compression. Tried to a jury verdict in December 2012. Jury found no infringement of any asserted claim.

Multimedia Patent Trust v. DIRECTV 09-CV-0278 H (S.D. Cal.) – Defended DIRECTV against assertion of video coding patents. MPT dropped its allegations regarding two of five asserted patents after invalidity contentions. Case settled favorably.

Dimension One Spas v. Coverplay (S.D. Cal.) – Representing Dimension One on a patent related to spa covers. Won bench trial rejecting Coverplay’s defense of inequitable conduct. Won summary judgment of infringement.

Lucent v. Microsoft No. 07-CV-2000 H (S.D. Cal.) – Defended Microsoft in patent trial relating to MPEG-1, MPEG-2, and VC-1 video compression. Tried to a jury verdict in April 2008. Jury found asserted claim of Lucent’s video patent invalid and not infringed.

Lucent v. Microsoft No. 02-CV-2060 B (S.D. Cal.) – Defended Microsoft in patent trial relating to MP3 audio compression. Tried to a jury verdict in February 2007. Obtained Judgment as a Matter of Law in August 2007, reversing $1.538 Billion verdict, the largest in patent law history. Federal Circuit affirmed (2008 WL 4349326).

DuFresne v. Microsoft et al. (D. Mass. 2007) – (internet software) Counsel for Microsoft, Adobe Systems, Inc., and Macromedia, Inc. in litigation involving client-server programming environment where executable tags are embedded in an html file. Case settled favorably.

Coppola v. Powerware Corp. (C.D. Cal.) – Defended Powerware in patent infringement case relating to uninterruptible power supplies for computers and computer networks. Case favorably settled.

Other Litigation Examples
Alford, et. al. v. County of San Diego – Representing plaintiffs in class action challenging the County’s provision of medical care. The 4th District Court of Appeal ruled that care must be provided to the working poor who can afford to pay for some, but not all, of their treatment. (2007 WL 1489313).