Certain Inkjet Ink Cartridges With Printheads And Components Thereof (Fed. Cir. May 30, 2013) (337-TA-723)
Represented complainant Hewlett-Packard in this five-patent ITC investigation (and subsequent Federal Circuit appeal) relating to HP’s inkjet printing technologies. The judge found a violation and issued a General Exclusion Order, which would prevent any party from importing into the U.S. goods that infringe the asserted patents. The ITC more commonly issues a Limited Exclusion Order, which excludes only the goods of the parties that were respondents in the ITC litigation. A General Exclusion Order is a much broader remedy because it applies to anyone seeking to import goods that infringe the patents, whether or not they were involved in the ITC litigation, which included named seven proposed respondents. The Federal Circuit dismissed respondent APM’s appeal and affirmed the ITC’s imposition of a General Exclusion Order.
Prometheus Laboratories Inc. v. Mayo Collaborative Services, et al.
Fish defended Mayo in an action for patent infringement over metabolite assays for 6-mercaptopurine drugs. We argued and obtained summary judgment of invalidity for the client. Appealed to the Supreme Court, which ruled unanimously in favor of Mayo, finding the Prometheus patents described a law of nature, not patentable under Section 101 of U.S. patent law.
Richard Garriott v. NCsoft Corp
Obtained $28 million jury verdict for legendary computer game developer in lawsuit against Korean computer game manufacturer over breach of stock option agreement.
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.
Kyocera Wireless Corp. et al. v. ITC (Nos. 2008-1355, -1377, -1383, -1423, -1424)
Fish represented LG Electronics MobileComm U.S.A., Inc. in both the underlying case at the ITC (as intervenor) and on appeal. Although the ITC ruled that certain Qualcomm baseband processor chips infringed, Fish was able to get an order that would exclude LG’s phones containing those chips from the US, and succeeded in convincing the Federal Circuit that the ITC exceeded its statutory authority, reversing a longstanding Commission practice to use limited exclusion orders to exclude non-parties’ downstream products that contain infringing components.
Predicate Logic v. Distributive Software (No. 2007-1539)
Fish successfully represented Predicate Logic in obtaining a reversal of the district court’s summary judgment of invalidity. The patent at issue involved a method for data measurement and analysis that could be used in software development.
Lucent Technologies Inc., et al. v. Gateway Inc., et al.
Fish successfully obtained affirmance of the district court’s ruling of noninfringement and lack of standing that set aside a $1.52 billion damage award (the largest patent infringement verdict in history) against client Microsoft. The patents at issue related to encoding and decoding of audio into the digital MP3 format. (Fed. Cir. docket nos: 2007-1546, -1580, 2008-1022. Cite: 2008 WL4349236.)
Commonwealth Scientific and Indus. Research Organisation v. Buffalo Tech (USA), Inc. (2008 WL4274482)
Fish submitted an amicus brief on behalf of Microsoft Corporation.
Voda v. Cordis Corp. (536 F.3d 1311)
Fish submitted an amicus brief on behalf of Boston Scientific Scimed.
Mars Inc. v. Coin Acceptors Inc.
Successfully obtained affirmance of district court’s award of a 7% reasonable royalty, when the defendant had argued that the royalty was capped at a much lower amount. The patents at issue involved the authentication of coins inserted into vending machines. Fish originally filed this case in January of 1990 on behalf of Mars. The court awarded Mars over $14 million in damages, and then added an additional $12.4 million in prejudgment interest due to the fact that the case was then 17 years old. (Fed Cir. docket nos: 2007-1409, -1436)
Lucent Technologies, Inc. v. Microsoft Corp. (525 F.3d 1200)
Fish successfully obtained affirmance of district court’s grant of summary judgment of non-infringement on one patent in favor of client Microsoft on this case involving speech coding.
Dominant Semiconductors v. OSRAM GmbH (2007-1456)
Fish successfully obtained affirmance of the district court’s summary judgment of no unfair competition (and other similar claims) in favor of client OSRAM. The technology involved light emitting diodes (LEDs). In a precedential opinion, the Federal Circuit made a number of important clarifications of its law regarding what patent owners can legally do to alert others about their patents.
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.
System General Corp. v. International Trade Commission (254 F. App’x 824)
Fish represented Power Integrations as an intervenor on the side of the ITC and successfully obtained summary affirmance of an ITC finding of infringement. The decision was significant because it excluded System General from importing the infringing chips at issue and also the downstream products that incorporated the chips, such as LCD monitors and printer adapters.
U.S. Philips Corp. v. Iwasaki Electric Co. (505 F.3d 1371)
Fish successfully obtained affirmance of district court’s partial summary judgment of no literal infringement in favor of client Iwasaki. The Federal Circuit vacated partial summary judgment of non-infringement under the doctrine of equivalents and remanded the issue to the district court. The technology related to high pressure, mercury-vapor lamps.
OSRAM GmbH v. International Trade Commission (505F.3d 1351)
Fish successfully obtained reversal of ITC improper claim construction and resulting finding of non-infringement on behalf of client OSRAM. The patents at issue involved light-emitting diodes.
Paice LLC v. Toyota Motor Corp. (504 F.3e 1293)
Fish successfully obtained affirmance of jury finding of infringement in favor of client Paice, and also obtained a ruling vacating the district court’s ongoing royalty rate that was significantly lower than Paice had requested. The technology at issue related to drive trains for hybrid vehicles.
Morrow v. Microsoft Corp. (499 F.3d 1332)
Fish successfully obtained reversal of district court’s decision that creditors of bankrupt Internet service provider had standing to sue Fish client Microsoft for patent infringement. The patents at issue involved hypertext technology.
Data Encryption Corp. v. Microsoft Corp. (248 F. App’x 166)
Fish represented Microsoft against Data Encryption, a subsidiary of infamous patent assertion company Acacia Technologies Group, who had accused the encrypting file system of Microsoft Windows of infringing its patent. Fish successfully obtained affirmance of district court’s summary judgment on non-infringement. The patents at issue related to file encryption and decryption.
Toshiba Corp. v. Juniper Networks, Inc. (248 F. App’x 170)
Fish successfully obtained affirmance of district court’s claim construction, which had resulted in summary judgment of non-infringement favorable to client Juniper Networks. The patents at issue involved a routing scheme for sending data between computers and disparate types of networks.
Colida v. Nokia America Corp. (231 F. App’x 961)
Fish successfully obtained dismissal of appeal of a pro se litigant who alleged infringement of his mobile telephone design patents by Fish client Nokia
All Computers Inc. v. Intel Corp.
Fish successfully obtained summary affirmance of district court’s favorable claim construction that resulted in summary judgment of non-infringement in favor of Fish client Intel. The patent at issue involved processors on consumer laptop computers.
Bright Ideas Co. Inc. v. Target Corp.
Fish successfully obtained affirmance of district court’s summary judgment of invalidity as to all claims asserted against client Target. The patent at issue involved child car seats.
KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc. (127 S.Ct. 1727)
Fish submitted an amicus brief on behalf of 3M, General Electric, Proctor & Gamble, DuPont, and Johnson & Johnson.
Citizens Electronics Co. v. OSRAM GmBH (225 F. App’x 890)
Fish successfully obtained affirmance of the district court’s decision to dismiss the complaint against client OSRAM for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. The technology related to light emitting diodes.
Andersen Corp. v. Fiber Composites LLC (474 F.3d 1361)
Fish successfully obtained reversal of district court’s summary judgment of infringement against client Fiber Composites with respect to two patents and affirmance of summary judgment of non-infringement in favor of Fiber Composites on four other patents. The patents at issue related to composite materials and structures made from them.
MBO Laboratories, Inc. v. Becton, Dickinson & Co. (474 F.3d 1323)
Fish successfully obtained reversal of much of district court’s claim construction, and obtained a judgment vacating the resulting stipulated summary judgment of non-infringement against client MBO Laboratories. The patent at issue involved hypodermic safety syringes.
MedImmune, Inc. v. Genentech, Inc. (127 S.Ct. 764)
Fish submitted an amicus brief on behalf of 3M, General Electric, Proctor & Gamble, and DuPont.
Cordis Corp. v. Boston Scientific Corp.( ___F.3d___, 2011 WL 4470563 (C.A. Fed. (Del.)) (Fed. Cir.)
Secured affirmance by the Federal Circuit of a Judgment as a Matter of Law of noninfringement of stent patent, which had overturned jury verdict of infringement. Asserted against client’s popular drug-coated stents, patent’s potential damages averted in this case and follow-on case involving related patent amounted to over one billion dollars.