District Court Litigation

Our
Engagements

District Court Litigation

  • OpenTV, Inc. v. NFL Enterprises, LLC. Currently representing OpenTV in a seven patent case involving verifying PIN codes giving users access to password-restricted websites and applications, methods of inserting content into video streams using time-code indicators, methods of allowing users to interact with videos and a method of connecting multiple video metadata sets, methods of programming software to identify if a computer does not have the right applications to run certain media, methods of combining multiple media data streams into a single broadcast stream and methods of connecting streaming videos with other websites via a link.
  • Parthenon Unified Memory Architecture litigation (Eastern District of Texas) –Currently representing a large consumer electronics company in a patent case involving memory architecture and video coding technology.
  • Papst Licensing GMBH & Co. litigation (Eastern District of Texas) – Currently representing a large consumer electronics company in a patent case involving computer interface and data transfer technology.
  • Interval Licensing LLC. Litigation (Western District of Washington) – Currently representing a large consumer electronics company in a patent case involving computer display technology.
  • DSS Technology Management, Inc. (Northern District of California) –Currently representing a large consumer electronics company in a patent case involving Bluetooth technology.
  • Intellectual Ventures I and Intellecutal Ventures II v. Motorola Mobility (District of Delaware and Southern District of Florida) ­– Represented Intellectual Ventures in back to back patent infringement trials in Delaware and won both trials. The asserted patents relate to technology in smart phones including sending MMS messages, power allocation and conservation and docking stations.
  • Intellectual Ventures II v. JPMorgan et. al. (Southern District of New York) – Currently representing Intellectual Ventures II in a patent infringement matter against several JPMorgan Chase entities.  The asserted patent relates to a cryptographic co-processor for processing RSA or ECC algorithms.
  • Intellectual Ventures II v. Citibank et. al. (Southern District of New York) – Currently representing Intellectual Ventures II in a patent infringement matter against several Citibank entities.  The asserted patent relates to a cryptographic co-processor for processing RSA or ECC algorithms.
  • DeepRoot Green Infrastructure, LLC v City Green Systems Pty Limited (District of Indiana)­ – Currently representing DeepRoot Green Infrastructure in a patent litigation matter against City Green. The asserted patents relate to structural cell systems that enable tree root growth in urban areas.
  • Seoul Semiconductor Co., Ltd., et. al. v Kmart Corporation (Central District of California) – Currently representing Kmart in a six patent case against Seoul Semiconductor Corporation and The Regents of the University of Califormia. The asserted patents relate to light emitting diodes.
  • Ideative Product Ventures v. Monster, Inc.  (Eastern District of Texas) ­–Currently representing Monster in a patent infringement action against Ideative Product Ventures.  The case involves HDMI connectors.
  • PanTaurus, LLC v. Vocera Communication, Inc.  (Eastern District of Texas) – Currently representing Vocera Communications in a patent infringement action against PanTaurus relating to bus architecture technology.
  • Tibco Software Inc. v Kaazing Corporation (Northern District of California) – Currently representing Kaazing in a breach of contract action against Tibco.
  • Pico Byte Systems, LLC v. Monster, Inc. (Eastern District of Texas) ­– Currently representing Monster in a patent infringement against against Pico Byte Systems.  The case involves Bluetooth technology.
  • Magic Leap, Inc v. OpenCV.ai,(Northern District of California) – Represented OpenCV.ai in a trade secret and breach of contract matter against Magic Leap, Inc.
  • Enova Technology Corporation v. Seagate Technology (US) Holdings Inc. (District of Delaware) – Represented Enova in a patent infringement matter against Seagate.  The asserted patents related to semiconductor devices.
  • Profectus Technology LLC v. Hewlett-Packard Company et al. (Eastern District of Texas) ­– Represented Hewlett Packard in a patent infringement matter against Profectus.  The asserted patent related to electronic picture frames.
  • Cardpool v. Plastic Jungle (Northern District of California) ­– Represented Plastic Jungle in a patent infringement matter against Cardpool. The asserted patent related to electronic gift card exchanges.
  • Pragmatus AV LLC v. Yahoo! Inc. (District of Delaware) – Represented Pragmatus in a five patent infringement action against Yahoo!.  The case involved distributed video teleconferencing technology.
  • Pragmatus AV LLC v. Citrix Systems, Inc. (Southern District of Florida) – Represented Plaintiff Pragmatus in a four patent infringement action against Citrix.  The case involved distributed video teleconferencing technology.
  • Cyberfone v. Cellco et al (District of Delaware) – Represented HP in a three patent infringement action against Cyberfone.  The asserted patents related to telephone entry of transaction data into databases.
  • Cyberfone v. Federal Express et al (District of Delaware) – Represented Equinox Payments in a three patent infringement action against Cyberfone.
  • Geotag v. Where2Getit (Eastern District of Texas) – Represented Monster Cable in a patent infringement action against Geotag.
  • Cardsoft v. VeriFone et al (Eastern District of Texas) – Represented Hypercom in a patent infringement action against Cardsoft.  The case involved Point of Sale terminals.
  • IntraVisual v. Trident Microsystems et al (Eastern District of Texas) – Represented Trident Microsystems in a patent infringement action against IntraVisual.  The case involved MPEG video coding technology.
  • KGR v. Honda (Northern District of California) – Represented KGR in a patent infringement action against three Honda entities.  The case involved environmental user interface technology.
  • KGR v. Ford Motor Company (Northern District of California) – Represented KGR in a patent infringement action against Ford.  The case involved environmental user interface technology.
  • TriStrata v. Adobe Systems Incorporated (Northern District of California) – Represented Adobe in a two patent infringement action against TriStrata.  The case involved document security technology.
  • MicroUnity v. Palm (Eastern District of Texas) – Represented Palm in a twelve patent infringement action against MicroUnity.  The case involved microprocessor technology.
  • Xpoint v. Palm (District of Delaware) – Represented Palm in a patent infringement action against Xpoint.  The case involved microprocessor technology.
  • U.S. Philips v. Palm (Northern District of California) – Represented Palm in a patent infringement action against Philips.  The case involved wireless consumer devices.
  • EON v. Palm (District of Delaware, Eastern District of Texas) – Represented Palm in two patent infringement actions against EON.  The case involved wireless consumer devices.
  • T5 Labs v. Gaikai (District of Delaware) – Represented T5 in a patent infringement action against Gaikai.  The case involved distributed computing technology.
  • Technology Patents v. Vodafone et al (District of Maryland) – Represented Vodafone in a patent infringement action against Technology Patents.