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 & Richardson #1 PTAB Law Firm in the U.S. for 2014 – Managing Intellectual Property

Press Release

Fish Wins Jury Verdict of Non-infringement for Citrix Systems Inc.

February 3, 2016

Press Release

Fish Wins Jury Verdict of Non-infringement for Citrix Systems Inc.

February 3, 2016

Back to News Listing

Fish & Richardson announced that it won a jury verdict of non-infringement for its client Citrix Systems Inc. in a patent case that had been brought by Toronto, Canada-based 01 Communique Laboratory Inc.​​​​

On January 19, 2016, a Northern District of Ohio jury found – after less than one day of deliberations – that Citrix does not infringe 01 Communique’s patent, U.S. Patent No. 6,928,479. Fish principals Ruffin Cordell and Indranil (Indy) Mukerji served as lead trial counsel for Citrix.

Citrix solutions power business mobility through secure, mobile workspaces that provide people with instant access to apps, desktops, data and communications on any device, over any network or cloud. Its solutions are in use at more than 400,000 organizations and by over 100 million users globally.

01 Communique sued Citrix in 2006, alleging that Citrix’s GoToMyPC infringed its patent, and that Citrix induced others to infringe the patent. Nearly eight years after 01 Communique started the litigation, Citrix brought Fish in as trial counsel. After a shortened discovery and second claim construction process, Fish was able to prove to a jury that Citrix did not infringe 01 Communique’s patent. 01 Communique was seeking nearly $80 million in damages, and asking for enhancement of that sum based on an accusation of willful infringement.

“This was a terrific victory for our client. We are gratified that the jury understood the nuances of Citrix’s cutting-edge technology and how it differed from the patent,” said Mukerji. “Several times now, Ruffin Cordell and I have been brought in by companies when it appears a case will actually be tried, and this case presented some of the most challenging circumstances we’ve ever inherited.” “This was one of the hardest-working Courts I’ve ever seen, and several of the Court’s thoughtful and thorough pretrial rulings were instrumental in the case being tried efficiently,” added Cordell.

Stay current with Fish Sign up for our Newsletter