Representative District Court Cases
CH2O, Inc. v. Meras Engineering, Inc. (2016) – Co-lead counsel for plaintiff/patentee CH2O in patent infringement action water treatment chemistry for greenhouses; won jury verdict of willful infringement and award of $12.5 million.
Lightspeed Aviation, Inc. v. Bose Corp. (2013) – Lead counsel for Bose in three patent infringement action aviation headsets; won favorable arbitration award.
Graphics Properties Holdings, Inc. v. Hewlett-Packard Co. (D.Del. 2012) – Lead counsel defending HP in patent infringement action regarding liquid crystal displays, graphics processing, and pipelined computer processor architectures; settled favorably.
Bose Corp. v. Able Planet, Inc. (D.Co. 2011) – Represented Bose in patent infringement action regarding acoustic architecture of noise canceling headphones; settled favorably.
SDI Technologies, Inc. v. Bose Corp. (D.Del. 2011) – Lead counsel defending Bose in patent infringement action regarding docking station audio products.
Reporting Technologies, Inc. v. Emma, Inc., (E.D.Va. 2011) – Lead counsel for MicroStrategy subsidiary RTI asserting multiple patents related to business intelligence technology; settled favorably following Markman and summary judgment hearings; settled favorably.
Spansion LLC v. Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. (E.D.Va. 2010) – Represented Samsung in multi-patent infringement action enforcing and defending against multiple patents related to flash memory devices; settled favorably following Markman and summary judgment hearings.
Bose Corp. v. Lightspeed Aviation Inc.. (D.Mass. 2009) – Lead counsel for Bose in patent infringement action enforcing patent related to active noise cancelling headphone technology; settled favorably during trial.
Nacre AS v. Silynx Communications, Inc. (D.Md. 2007) – Lead counsel for Nacre in patent infringement action enforcing multiple patents related to in-ear communications devices; settled favorably.
Multimedia Patent Trust v. Microsoft Corp. (S.D.Cal. 2006) – Defended Microsoft in 11-patent infringement action regarding variety of computer and internet-related technologies against Lucent and Alcatel-Lucent; won jury verdict of no infringement.
Orion IP, LLC v. Black & Decker. (E.D.Tex. 2006) – Lead counsel for Black & Decker in patent infringement action regarding internet technology; settled favorably.
Garmin Corp. v. TomTom, Inc. (W.D.Wis. 2006) – Represented TomTom in patent infringement action regarding GPS navigation devices; won summary judgment of no infringement and invalidity against five Garmin patents.
All Computers, Inc. v. Intel Corp. (E.D.Va. 2004) – Defended Intel in patent infringement action regarding microprocessor design; won summary judgment of no infringement; affirmed on appeal.
The Bright Ideas Company, Inc. v. Target Corp. (D.Md. 2004) – Represented Target in patent infringement action; won summary judgment of invalidity; affirmed on appeal.
Honeywell Int’l Inc. v. Nokia Corp., et al. (D.Del. 2004) – Represented Nokia in large-scale, multi-defendant litigation involving liquid crystal display technology; won summary judgment of invalidity.
Buffets, Inc. v. Sargam LLC (D.Md. 2004) – Represented Buffets, Inc. in trademark infringement action; obtained permanent injunction and attorneys fees.
American Video Graphics LLC. v. Intel Corp., et al. (E.D.Tex. 2004) – Represented Intel in case involving computer graphics technology; settled favorably.
Intergraph Corp. v. Intel Corp. (E.D.Tex. 2001) – Defended Intel against patent infringement claims regarding parallel processing microprocessor architectures; case won on appeal following adverse decision in trial court.
Level One, Inc.. v. Altima Communications (E.D.Cal. 1999) – Represented Level One in patent infringement action against Altima Communications involving integrated repeaters; settled favorably following trial win in parallel ITC matter.
Shaw v. Broadcast.com, Inc., et al. (N.D.Tex. 1998) – Represented Yahoo! in patent infringement action involving technology for internet streaming of audio and video content; won summary judgment of no infringement, affirmed on appeal.
Representative 337 Proceedings Before the International Trade Commission
Certain Network Devices, Related Software and Components Thereof, 337-TA-944/945 (2014) – Counsel for respondent Arista Networks in six-patent case involving network switches and components.
Certain Earpiece Devices Having Positioning and Retaining Structure and Components Thereof, 337-TA-912 (2014) – Lead counsel for Bose Corporation asserting patent related to in-ear headphone technology; settled favorably.
Certain Microelectromechanical Systems (“MEMS Devices”) and Products Containing Same, 337-TA-876 (2013) – Defended InvenSense, Inc. and Stanley Black & Decker in five-patent case involving MEMS sensors and accelerometers; settled favorably during trial.
Certain Sintered Rare Earth Magnets, Methods of Making Same and Products Containing Same, 337-TA-855 (2012) – Lead counsel defending Bose Corporation and DeWALT Industrial Tool Co. in four-patent case involving the manufacturing of sintered rare earth magnets.
Certain Consumer Electronics and Display Devices, 337-TA-836 (2011) – Lead counsel defending Research In Motion (Blackberry) in four-patent case involving graphics processing technology, microprocessor instruction sets, and liquid crystal display technology; settled favorably.
Certain Semiconductor Chips, 337-TA-753 (2010) – Lead counsel defending HP and ASUSTek against numerous Rambus patents concerning DRAM and signal transmission technology; won finding of no violation following full evidentiary hearing.
Certain Semiconductor Chips Having Synchronous Dynamic Random Access Memory Controllers, 337-TA-661 (2008) – Represented NVIDIA and customers against nine Rambus SDRAM controller patents; settled after full evidentiary hearing while on appeal.
Certain Noise Cancelling Headphones, 337-TA-626 (2007) – Lead counsel for complainant Bose enforcing active noise-cancelling headphone patents against seven respondents; settled favorably just prior to trial.
Certain Foam Footwear, 337-TA-567 (2006) – Defended respondent footwear manufacturer in patent-based unfair importation action brought by Crocs, Inc.; won dismissal prior to trial.
Certain Signature Capture Transaction Devices, 337-TA-504 (2004) – Represented Ingenico S.A. in patent-based unfair importation action brought by NCR Corporation; settled favorably.
Certain Recordable Compact Discs and Rewritable Compact Discs, 337-TA-474 (2002) – Successfully defended multiple respondents against U.S. Philips Corp.; following full evidentiary hearing, six asserted Philips patents held unenforceable for patent misuse following full evidentiary hearing.
Certain CMOS Active Pixel Image Sensors, 337-TA-451 (2001) – Represented Photobit Corporation and the California Institute of Technology against OmniVision Technologies in patent-based unfair importation claims for camera-on-a-chip technology; settled favorably.
Certain Abrasive Products Made Using A Process For Making Powder Preforms, 337-TA-449 (2001) – Represented 3M in patent-based unfair importation claims for methods of manufacturing high-precision abrasives; won exclusion and cease and desist orders following full evidentiary hearing.
Certain Integrated Repeaters, Switches, Transceivers and Products Containing Same, 337-TA-430/435 (1999) – Represented Intel in patent-based unfair importation claims for semiconductor packaging and Ethernet repeaters against Broadcom subsidiary, Altima Communications; won exclusion and cease and desist orders following full evidentiary hearing.
Representative Appellate Cases
The Bright Ideas Company, Inc. v. Target Corp. – Represented Target; won affirmance.
All Computers, Inc. v. Intel Corp. – Represented Intel; won affirmance.
Shaw v. Broadcast.com, Inc., et al. – Represented Yahoo!; won dismissal of appeal.
Intergraph Corp. v. Intel Corp. – Represented Intel; won vacatur and remand of adverse trial court decision.
The ITC Punts on Whether the Presumption of Validity Applies to § 101 Challenges, Fish Litigation Blog, April 7, 2016.
Judge Pender Allows Supplementation of Prior Art Record For Good Cause, Fish Litigation Blog, April 29, 2015.
ITC Says it Has the Power to Stop Infringing Transmissions of Digital Materials, Fish Litigation Blog, March 13, 2015.
Judge Essex Recommends General Exclusion Order for Counterfeit Loom Kits, Fish Litigation Blog, March 4, 2015.
Federal Circuit Judges Seem Divided During En Banc Argument in Suprema v. ITC, Fish Litigation Blog, February 10, 2015.
Judge Bullock Strikes Portions of Complainant’s Case For Inadequate Contentions and Failure to Produce Expert Test Results During Discovery, Fish Litigation Blog, February 5, 2015.
Second Thoughts on Spoliation Sanction: ITC to Review Final Initial Determination Imposing $1.9M Sanction, Fish Litigation Blog, January 28, 2015.
Is the ITC Taking a Closer Look at Standing?, Fish Litigation Blog, January 16, 2015.