Mr. Reger has argued patent and other intellectual property cases across the country. With this litigation experience and a computer science degree from Texas A&M University, Mr. Reger manages all aspects of the case from the complaint through trial, whether as a defendant or a plaintiff. For example, Mr. Reger obtained one of the first summary judgment orders of invalidity before Judge Ward in the Eastern District of Texas. As another example, Mr. Reger obtained summary judgment of invalidity of eight asserted claims before Judge Davis. And in California, Mr. Reger won summary judgment of no infringement under patent exhaustion on one patent, and then obtained a jury verdict of no infringement on a second. In Florida, a jury found the plaintiff’s three asserted patents invalid and not infringed; the Patent Office likewise invalidated two of the plaintiff’s patents after inter partes review (IPR). At the ITC, Mr. Reger successfully invalidated the asserted patent before the ALJ and the Commission. Beyond defense wins, Mr. Reger has also successfully represented plaintiffs. For example, he obtained a jury verdict of infringement, willfulness, and false marking before Judge Clark of the Eastern District of Texas.
Mr. Reger also participated in the Lawyer on Loan program through the Dallas County District Attorney’s office. During his tenure as an Assistant District Attorney, he picked the jury or led the prosecution in more than 15 jury trials.
In addition to his litigation experience, Mr. Reger has technical experience as a patent prosecutor and as a software engineer. His particular focus was in algorithm analysis, optimization, and other software design. He is well-versed in many computer languages (including Java, C, C++, SQL, HTML, COBOL, and Assembler), as well as operating systems, hardware platforms, and databases.
In the Matter of Certain Electronic Devices, including Wireless Communication Devices, Computers, Tablet Computers, Digital Media Players, and Cameras (337-952) and Ericsson Inc. et al v. Apple (Case Nos. 289, 291, and 293) (E.D. Tex. 2015) – Represented Apple in multi-jurisdictional dispute involving operating system, radio, touchscreen, and battery technologies with a focus on public interest factors and domestic industry at the ITC hearing.
In the Matter of Certain Mobile Telephones and Wireless Communication Devices Featuring Digital Cameras, and Components Thereof (337-862) and Ericsson Inc. et al v. Samsung Electronics Co. et al (Case Non. 894 and 895) (E.D. Tex. 2012) – Represented Samsung in multi-jurisdictional dispute involving cellular and wireless networking technology with a focus on fair, reasonable, and non-discriminatory (FRAND) obligations and public interest factors at the ITC hearing.
In the Matter of Certain Non-Volatile Memory Chips and Products Containing the Same (337-916) and In the Matter of Certain Devices Containing Non-Volatile Memory (337-922) – Represented Macronix as Respondent and Complainant, respectively, in investigations concerning non-volatile memory, such as Flash memory.
Touchcom Technologies Inc v. Dresser, Inc. (E.D. Tex. 2005) – Obtained summary judgment of patent invalidity for Dresser in software patent infringement suit with damages alleged to exceed $30 mil. Case subsequently resolved favorably in lieu of appeal.
DeepNines Inc. v. McAfee Inc. (E.D. Tex. 2006) – Represented plaintiff DeepNines on patent involving network security; obtained a jury verdict of $18 Million on willful infringement (both direct and indirect), as well as false marking.
Broadcom Corp. v. Emulex Corp. (C.D. Cal. 2009) – In multi-patent litigation involving different networking technologies, won summary judgment of patent exhaustion and won jury verdict of no infringement on behalf of Emulex; currently on appeal before Federal Circuit.
NXP v. BlackBerry et al. (M.D. Fla. 2012) – Represented defendant BlackBerry (formerly RIM) against six asserted patents involving various technologies, three of which were dropped before a jury trial; argued the Markman hearing that ultimately resulted in a jury verdict of no infringement and invalidity of the three remaining patents. The Patent Office subsequently invalidated two of the plaintiff’s patents after inter partes review (IPR).
In the Matter of Certain Mobile Telephones and Wireless Communication Devices Featuring Digital Cameras, and Components Thereof (337-703) and Research In Motion v. Eastman Kodak (N.D. Tex. 2008) – Represented RIM in multi-jurisdictional dispute, including i) respondent in ITC Investigation involving camera technology, and ii) as a declaratory judgment plaintiff in a multi-patent infringement action related to camera technology and data integration technology.
TronTech Licensing Incorporated v. Uniden America Corporation (E.D. Tex. 2006) – After invalidating 8 claims based on indefiniteness at Markman hearing, obtained favorable settlement for Uniden in patent infringement suit involving cordless telephone answering machine technology.
Cheetah Omni LLC v. Alcatel-Lucent USA Inc. et al. (E.D. Tex. 2011) – Obtained favorable settlement for Huawei in multi-patent litigation involving optical networking components.
Alcatel USA Sourcing, Inc v. Microsoft Corporation (E.D. Tex. 2006) – Represented Microsoft in multi-patent litigation involving image and video processing.
DataTern, Inc. v. Avis Budget Group, Inc. and Hertz Corporation (E.D. Tex. 2009), DataTern, Inc. v. The Allstate Corporation et al. (E.D. Tex. 2009), DataTern, Inc. v. Suntrust Banks, Inc. et al. (E.D. Tex. 2010) – Represented Halliburton, Avis Budget, Hertz, and ConocoPhillips in patent infringement suits concerning middleware software that facilitates communication between an object oriented program and a relational database.
Summit 6 LLC v. Research In Motion (N.D. Tex. 2011) – Represented RIM in a patent infringement action related to web-based media submission tools; obtained favorable settlement after Markman ruling.
SaniJet Corp. v. BeautyMall Ltd. et al. (N.D. Tex., Dallas Division 2006) – Argued claim construction hearing before Judge Furgeson and obtained favorable settlement for Beauty Mall in patent infringement litigation involving pipeless spa jet technology.
Landmark Graphics Corp. et al. v. Paradigm Geophysical Corp. et al. (S.D. Tex., Houston Division 2006) – Obtained favorable settlement for plaintiffs in patent infringement litigation involving 3D seismic imaging, while defending against breach of contract, trade secret, and other counterclaims.
Choicepoint Public Records v. Seisint et al. (Circuit Court of the Fifteenth Judicial Circuit, Palm Beach County, 2002) – Represented Seisint against breach of contract, trade secret, and other allegations involving data brokerage software and related data.
Blumenau v. Avid Technology, Inc. (N.D. Tex. 2007) – Obtained favorable settlement for Avid Technology in patent infringement litigation involving audiovisual data editing environment manipulating symbols or icons representing individual transformation processes.
Constellation IP, LLC v. Travelocity.com, LP and Sabre Holdings Corporation (E.D. Tex. 2006) and Constellation IP, LLC v. Avis Budget LLC (E.D. Tex. 2007) – Obtained dismissal for Sabre and favorable settlements for Travelocity and AvisBudget by defending patent infringement suits concerning an electronic, customized, presentation system that creates a visual impression characteristic that the customer associates with the seller.
June 15, 2016
Fish & Richardson Named to IAM Patent 1000 for National Patent Litigation and Prosecution Practices
July 1, 2015
Fish & Richardson Named to IAM Patent 1000 for National Patent Prosecution and Litigation Practices
September 17, 2014
Fish & Richardson Announces 38 Attorneys Included in The Best Lawyers in America® 2015
July 1, 2014
Fish & Richardson Named to IAM Patent 1000
June 13, 2013
Fish Named to IAM Patent 1000 for National Patent Prosecution and Litigation Practices
March 8, 2013
Fish Attorneys Earn Texas Rising Stars Distinction
June 14, 2012
Fish Named to IAM Patent 1000