Litigation examples
Allergan, Inc. v. Barr Labs., Inc. and Sandoz, Inc. – No. 09-333-SLR (D. Del.) – Representing Allergan in Hatch-Waxman action asserting patents relating to Allergan's LUMIGAN® (bimatoprost) glaucoma treatment.
Allergan, Inc. v. Sandoz, Inc., Hi-Tech Pharm. Co., Inc., Alcon, and Apotex – No. 2:09-cv-097 (E.D. Tex.) – Representing Allergan in Hatch-Waxman action asserting patents relating to Allergan’s COMBIGAN® glaucoma treatment.
Microsoft Corp. v. Lucent Technologies, Inc. -- No. 06-CV-0684 H (S.D. Cal.). Defended Microsoft in seven-week patent infringement trial. Plaintiff sought more than $400 million in past damages on patent relating to video compression technology. Tried to jury verdict in April-June 2008. Jury found that Microsoft's products do not infringe and awarded no damages. Named, with the case below, one of the "Top 10 Litigation Wins of 2008" by IP Law and Business.
Microsoft Corp. v. Lucent Technologies, Inc. -- No. 07-CV-2000 H (S.D. Cal.). Defended Microsoft in six-week patent infringement trial involving four patents relating to video compression, video displays, stylus-based input devices and user interfaces. Tried to jury verdict in February-April 2008. Jury found Lucent’s video compression patent invalid and not infringed, found Lucent’s video display patent not infringed, and awarded significantly reduced damages on the other two patents. Named, with the case above, one of the "Top 10 Litigation Wins of 2008" by IP Law and Business.
Callaway Golf Co. v. Acushnet Co. -- No. 06-91 (D. Del.). Representing Callaway Golf in asserting that Acushnet's popular Titleist Pro V1 and Pro V1x golf balls infringe four Callaway Golf patents on golf ball construction. Tried to jury verdict in December 2007, then again in March 2010, with intervening appeal to the Federal Circuit. Published at 523 F. Supp. 2d 388 (D. Del. 2007); 576 F.3d 1331 (Fed. Cir. 2009).
United States ex rel. Gonzalez v. Fresenius Medical Care – No. 07-CV-247 (W.D. Tex.). Defended Fresenius Medical Care in qui tam action involving seven counts under the False Claims Act. Tried to jury verdict in month-long trial in El Paso, Texas in February 2010. Jury found for Fresenius on all claims.
Avid Identification Sys., Inc. v. Philips Semiconductors Inc. -- No. 2:04-cv-183 (E.D. Tex.). Represented Avid in two-week jury trial asserting patent infringement (3 patents) and Lanham Act claims relating to RFID transponders and readers. Tried to jury verdict in May 2006. Obtained mid-trial settlement from two defendants and jury verdict against remaining defendants, including Lanham Act damages of $6 million. Published at 2006 WL 278265 (E.D. Tex. May 18, 2006); 2006 WL 278265 (E.D. Tex. February 3, 2006); 2007 WL 2901415 (E.D. Tex. Sept. 28, 2007); 603 F.3d 967, 973 (Fed. Cir. 2010)
Stonebreaker v. Medical Management Int'l, Inc. -- No. GIC 830293 (Cal. Sup. Ct.). Represented Stonebreaker and Avid Identification Systems in trial asserting unfair competition under California Code Section 17200 and the Lanham Act relating to RFID technology. Tried to jury in July 2005. Obtained mid-trial settlement that included recovery of damages and a stipulated permanent injunction against the defendant.
Coppola v. Powerware Corp. -- CV 03-03667 (C.D. Cal.). Defended Powerware in patent infringement case relating to uninterruptible power supplies for computers and computer networks. Case settled prior to Markman hearing.
Maxim Integrated Products adv. Microelectronics Modules Corp. -- No. 01 C 0272 (E.D. Wi.). Defended Maxim in patent infringement case relating to circuit design for switching voltage regulators. Case settled after favorable Markman ruling.
Lemelson Medical, Educational & Research Foundation v. Intel Corp. -- No. 98-1413 (D. Ariz.). Defended Intel in patent infringement case relating to semiconductor manufacturing and machine vision and bar-coding technology. Case settled after favorable Markman ruling. Published at 2002 WL 31323299, 64 U.S.P.Q.2d 1172 (D. Ariz. July 30, 2002); 2002 WL 453212, 61 U.S.P.Q.2d 1905 (D. Ariz. Feb. 26, 2002); 1999 WL 813940, 52 U.S.P.Q.2d 1122 (D. Ariz. Aug. 18, 1999).
Maxim Integrated Products adv. Sipex Corp. -- 99 CF 10096 RCL (D. Mass.). Represented Maxim as plaintiff in infringement case asserting patent relating to automatic shutdown circuitry for RS-232 interface devices. Case settled after favorable Markman ruling. Published at 2002 WL 1046699 (D. Mass. May 24, 2002).
Cypress Semiconductor Corp. adv. EMI Group North America, Inc. -- No. Civ.A. 98-350 (D. Del.). Defended Cypress in infringement case relating to two patents on semiconductor manufacturing technology. Tried to jury verdict in 1999. Jury verdict of non-infringement of all claims and invalidity based on non-enablement, lack of utility, anticipation and obviousness; judgment affirmed by Federal Circuit. Published at 268 F.2d 1342 (Fed. Cir. 2001); 104 F. Supp. 2d 370 (D. Del. 2000); 68 F. Supp. 2d 421 (D. Del. 1999).