District Court Litigation

Our
Engagements

District Court Litigation

• Interval Licensing v. Apple Inc. (Western District of Washington) – Currently representing Defendant Apple in a patent infringement action against Interval Licensing.
• Intellectual Ventures I LLC and Intellectual Ventures II LLC v. Motorola Mobility LLC (District of Delaware) – Currently representing Plaintiff IV in a six patent infringement action against Motorola.
• Pragmatus AV LLC v. Yahoo! Inc. (District of Delaware) – Currently representing Plaintiff Pragmatus in a five patent infringement action against Yahoo!.
• Pragmatus AV LLC v. Citrix Systems, Inc. (Southern District of Florida) – Represented Plaintiff Pragmatus in a four patent infringement action against Citrix.
• Cyberfone v. Cellco et al (District of Delaware) – Currently representing HP in a three patent infringement action against Cyberfone.
• Cyberfone v. Federal Express et al (District of Delaware) – Currently representing Equinox Payments in a three patent infringement action against Cyberfone.
• HTC Corp. v. Apple Inc. (District of Delaware) – Currently representing Defendant Apple Inc. against HTC in two separate matters.
• Profectus v. Hewlett-Packard Company (Eastern District of Texas) – Currently representing Defendant HP in a patent infringement action against Profectus.
• Geotag v. Where2Getit (Eastern District of Texas) – Currently representing Defendant Monster Cable in a patent infringement action against Geotag.
• Cardsoft v. VeriFone et al (Eastern District of Texas) – Represented Defendant Hypercom in a patent infringement action against Cardsoft.
• IntraVisual v. Trident Microsystems et al (Eastern District of Texas) –  Represented Defendant Trident Microsystems in a patent infringement action against IntraVisual.
• KGR v. Honda (Northern District of California) – Represented Plaintiff KGR in a patent infringement action against three Honda entities.
• KGR v. Ford Motor Company (Northern District of California) –  Represented Plaintiff KGR in a patent infringement action against Ford.
• TriStrata v. Adobe Systems Incorporated (Northern District of California) – Currently representing Defendant Adobe in a two patent infringement action against TriStrata.
• Mobilopsis v. Apple Inc. (Northern District of California) –  Represented Defendant Apple in a patent infringement action against Mobilopisis.
• SmartData v. Apple Inc. (Northern District of California) – Represented Defendant Apple in a patent infringement action against SmartData.
• MicroUnity v. Palm (Eastern District of Texas) – Represented Defendant Palm in a twelve patent infringement action against MicroUnity.
• Xpoint v. Palm (District of Delaware) – Represented Defendant Palm in a patent infringement action against Xpoint.
• U.S. Philips v. Palm (Northern District of California) – Represented Defendant Palm in a patent infringement action against Philips.
• EON v. Palm (District of Delaware, Eastern District of Texas) –  Represented Defendant Palm in two patent infringement actions against EON.
• T5 Labs v. Gaikai (District of Delaware) – Currently representing T5 in a patent infringement action against Gaikai.
• Technology Patents v. Vodafone et al (District of Maryland) – Represented Defendant Vodafone in a patent infringement action against Technology Patents.