Patent Litigation

Overview

Our Patent Litigation team litigates patent disputes – in federal district and appellate courts across the country, as well as before the ITC and the PTAB — leveraging their courtroom skills and technical knowledge to craft innovative solutions and win cases. We take a practical and pragmatic approach to problem solving, and consistently deliver favorable results for our clients.  Our team has practiced at some of the most prestigious multinational firms.  Whether it’s defending or prosecuting a patent action or proceeding, we are your winning choice.

Patent Enforcement, Monetization and Defense

By partnering with you and understanding your business, our patent litigators can effectively formulate creative strategies to advance your business objectives.  We begin with frank conversations, listen carefully to your goals and objectives, and analyze the potential risks and rewards.

With hands-on leadership, attention-to-detail and transparency, we evaluate the strengths and weaknesses of your case and develop a strategy that is calibrated to your specific business goals, risks and budget.  From pre-suit considerations through discovery, claim construction, motion practice, trial and appeal, we are constantly adjusting to the needs of the case and providing you with the information you need to make an informed business decision.

Whether you are seeking patent enforcement, monetization or defense, our team can deliver results in the most cost-effective manner.  We leverage technology to improve efficiency and reduce costs. Moreover, our rates are highly competitive as compared to our peers, and we offer alternative billing structures, such as contingency, blended-rate fees and result-based fees.

Technical Depth and Knowledge

With a technical background in engineering or science, our team has the depth and knowledge to understand complex technologies and craft winning legal strategies.  Our technical expertise involves a wide range of industries, including medical devices, electronics, computer architecture, computer networks, fiber optics, wireless and satellite communications, gaming, semiconductor devices, mechanical devices, among others.

Counseling and Risk Assessment

We frequently help our clients in evaluating the strength of their patent portfolio for monetization.  In such instances, we provide our counseling and risk assessment services as a prelude to litigation.  We also help clients avoid the courtroom in the first place with effective design arounds.  In collaboration with our Patent Procurement and Counseling team, we propose creative solutions to avoid competitor litigation.

Select Patent Litigation Matters

Mobility Workx v. Cellco Partnership D/B/A Verizon Wireless. Represent plaintiff Mobility Workx in patent infringement action against a national telecommunications carrier relating to technology spun out of the University of Florida concerning handover procedures and testing equipment. Case No. 4:17-cv-00872-ALM (E.D. Tex. 2020).

Neutrik AG v. ADJ Products LLC et al.  Represent defendants in a patent and trademark infringement action involving data connectors.  Case No.: 2:19-cv-09937 JAK-AGR (C.D.Cal. 2020).

Core Optical Technologies, LLC v. Fujitsu Network Communications, Inc. Represented plaintiff Core Optical in a patent infringement action involving optical communications, which led to favorable settlement terms. Case No. 8:16-CV-00437-AG-JPR (C.D. Cal. 2015).

Zenith et al. v. Sceptre, Inc. Represented Sceptre involving patents directed to television tuners and decoders, and countersuing for antitrust violations for monopolizing allegedly ATSC standard essential patents and colluding to license them at unreasonable royalty rates in breach of their fair, reasonable and nondiscriminatory obligations. Case No. LA CV14-05150 JAK (AJWx) (C.D. Cal. 2015).

Lending Tree LLC v. Zillow, Adchemy and NexTag. Represented Lending Tree in a widely-publicized patent infringement trial against Zillow, Adchemy and NexTag over a method for generating on-line mortgage leads.  Case No.  3:10-CV-00439 (W.D.N.C. 2015).

AngioScore, Inc. v. TriReme Medical, Inc. Represented AngioScore in a two-patent litigation involving angioplasty balloon catheters and methods for performing angioplasty in a blood vessel. Case No. 4:2012cv03393 (N.D. Cal. 2014).

Avocent Redmond Corp. v. Belkin International, Inc., et al. Represented Belkin in a four-patent litigation relating to computer interconnection systems. Case No. 2:12-cv-01342-RSM (W.D. Wash. 2012).

In the matter of Certain Electronic Devices Having a Retractable USB Connector. Represented Olympus Corp. and Olympus Corp. of the Americas, accused of infringing a patent directed to retractable USB connectors, at the U.S. International Trade Commission. Inv. No. 337-TA-843 (USITC 2012).

Diagnostic Systems Corporation v. Symantec Corp. et al. Represented SAS Institute Inc. in a patent infringement action relating to a business analytic software system including a relational database. Case No. 8:06-CV-01211 (C.D. Cal. 2012).

Aerielle Technologies, Inc. v. Belkin International, Inc., et al.  Represented Belkin, Best Buy, and RadioShack in a two-patent case relating to portable FM transmitters. The case was favorably settled after the Court issued a claim construction order adopting several of the Defendants’ key positions advanced during the Markman hearing and after a number of significant admissions were obtained during the depositions of the inventors. Case No. No. 10–CV–01301–LHK. (N.D. Cal. 2011).

Synthes (USA) et al. v. Spinal Kinetics, Inc. Represented Spinal Kinetics in seven cases, involving patents directed to intervertebral spinal implants, and obtained a jury verdict in the United States of invalidity and noninfringement, which was affirmed by the Federal Circuit. Case No. 5:09-CV-01201 RMW (N.D. Cal. 2011-13) and Case No. 2013-1047, -1059 (Fed. Cir. 2013), among others.