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

Media Coverage

Fish Wins $18 Million Jury Verdict for DeepNines Technologies

January 21, 2009

Media Coverage

Fish Wins $18 Million Jury Verdict for DeepNines Technologies

January 21, 2009

Back to News Listing

Fish & Richardson recently won an $18 million jury verdict of willful infringement in the Eastern District of Texas for DeepNines Technologies against McAfee in a patent infringement law suit over intrusion protection system technology that is used in Internet security applications.

In a unanimous verdict, the jury found that McAfee’s IntruShield product line directly infringes DeepNine’s ‘976 patent and that McAfee actively induced and contributed to its customers’ infringement of DeepNines technology. Judge Ron Clark also ruled on McAfee’s claims of inequitable conduct and returned judgment that DeepNines did not commit inequitable conduct in the case. McAfee also made counterclaims on three patents that were dropped before trial.

The case began when DeepNines, a Dallas company that develops internet software/hardware security systems, saw a press release from McAfee, the world’s largest dedicated security technology company, announcing a product that appeared to be very close to DeepNine’s ‘976 patent for an intrusion protection system that works with a firewall, but is “smarter.” Deep Nines filed an interference with the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (PTO) and the PTO ruled in March 2004 that they were first to invent. DeepNine’s patent issued in 2006 and the company filed its suit against McAfee in August 2006.

“This was a classic David versus Goliath case and we are thrilled with the jury’s verdict,” said Tom Melsheimer, a Fish principal and DeepNine’s lead trial counsel. “This was revolutionary Internet security technology developed by DeepNine’s founder and CEO Sue Dark, and the jury sent a clear message that an industry giant like McAfee can not utilize its strength and position in the industry to squelch a smaller, innovative competitor like DeepNines.”

McAfee was also found guilty during the trial of false marking – or deceiving the public – because they continued to mark 14 of their products (including the IntruShield product line) with the ‘122 patent that the PTO had ruled was invalid since DeepNines was the first to invent. Damages for false marking should be calculated by the end of August 2008 – with half going to DeepNines and half to the U.S. government. The court can fine McAfee for $500 per instance of each false marking.

Stay current with Fish Sign up for our Newsletter