*Ironburg Inventions Ltd. v. Valve Corporation—Filed patent infringement action to address large scale infringement by Valve. The defendant sells the popular Steam controller for use on gaming platforms. The patents cover revolutionary reprogrammable controls on the back of the controller that are now used by all professional gamers. Six IPR requests have been filed by the defendant for the patents in the suit since the infringement actions were filed and we have been successful in protecting claims at issue in the suits.
*Capella Photonics, Inc. v. Cisco Systems, Inc.—Filed four patent infringement actions to address large scale infringement by Cisco, Tellabs, Fujitsu, and Ciena. The defendants provide the fiber-optic switching systems that power the Internet as we know it in America. The patents cover reconfigurable optical add-drop multiplexers (ROADMs), which are used to route (or to switch), on the wavelength level, optical signal traffic in fiber optic networks across the United States. Eight IPR requests have been filed by the defendants and their partners for the patents in suit since the infringement actions were filed.
Zenith Electronics LLC et al. v. *ViewSonic Corporation—Complex patent infringement and antitrust case involving patents that are alleged to be essential to digital television transmission standards. In addition to the traditional non-infringement and invalidity issues, the case involves the Plaintiffs’ failures to license patents on FRAND terms and related antitrust injuries attendant to Plaintiffs’ breaches of their FRAND obligations.
*Clairmail Inc. v. Maxim Integrated Products, Inc.—Filed a declaratory judgment complaint against Maxim Integrated Products on behalf of Clairmail Inc., a company that provides mobile banking applications, and whose banking customers had been sued or had received demand letters from Maxim for alleged infringement of patents for secure mobile banking transactions. The Clairmail action was consolidated in a multidistrict litigation along with other cases involving Maxim’s claims of infringement.
Crossroads Systems, Inc. v. *DataDirect Networks, Inc. et al. (W.D. Tex.)—Recently settled patent infringement action against DataDirect Networks in the Western District of Texas. Crossroads Systems asserted patent claims involving a storage router for providing virtual local storage on remote storage devices to devices.
*Visto Corp. v. Microsoft (E.D. Tex.)—Recently settled patent infringement action against Microsoft in the Eastern District of Texas (Marshall/Texarkana). Visto holds a portfolio of patents directed to wireless messaging and e-mail, calendar and contact synchronization, including U.S. Patent No. 6,085,192, which recently emerged from reexamination. Microsoft recently announced Messaging and Security Feature Pack (MSFP) for Windows Mobile 5.0 and Service Pack 2 (SP2) for Microsoft Exchange Server 2003. Direct Push technology in MSFP and Exchange Server 2003 SP2 is designed to allow Exchange Server to send messages and other PIM information directly to Windows Mobile 5.0 devices over the air (OTA) through wireless accounts. The case settled for a confidential amount just before trial.
*Visto Corp. v. Research In Motion (E.D. Tex.)—One of several patent infringement actions on the Visto patent portfolio against RIM in the Eastern District of Texas (Marshall/Texarkana). The cases settled for $267.5 million.
Philips v. *Concord Records, Inc., *Concord Music Group, Inc. et al. (S.D. N.Y.)—Patent infringement action pending in the Southern District of New York. Philips asserts claims for infringement of U.S. Patent 5,068,846 (“’846 patent”), entitled “Reflective, Optical Record Carrier”. Philips asserts in its Complaint against the Concord entities and other content publishers and CD manufacturers that use of the ‘846 patent is essential to manufacturing CDs that conform to standard specifications. We recently obtained a dismissal for our clients on the basis of exhaustion.
*Visto Corp. v. Good Technology, Inc. (E.D. Tex.)—Recently settled patent infringement action in the Eastern District of Texas (Marshall) involving the Visto patent portfolio. Visto acquired Good and is now the provider of GoodLink wireless messaging software.
*Visto Corp. v. Seven Networks, Inc. (E.D. Tex.)—Recently settled patent infringement action pending in the Eastern District of Texas (Marshall) involving the Visto patent portfolio. Seven is the provider of Sprint Business Connection software and Cingular Xpress Mail software. After a jury verdict of willful infringement in favor of Visto in April 2006 (19.75% royalty rate), the court doubled damages, awarded attorneys’ fees and entered a stayed injunction. The case subsequently settled. As part of the settlement agreement, Seven acknowledged the validity and enforceability of Visto’s patent portfolio and agreed to licensing terms.
*Visto Corp. v. Smartner Information Systems Ltd. (E.D. Tex.)—Patent infringement action involving the Visto patent portfolio. The action was pending in the Eastern District of Texas (Marshall), and recently settled as part of a global settlement with Seven Networks, Inc.
*Visto Corp. v. Infowave Software, Inc. (E.D. Tex.)—Recently settled patent infringement action against Infowave in the Eastern District of Texas (Marshall) involving the Visto patent portfolio. As part of the settlement, Infowave acknowledged the validity of Visto's and agreed to licensing terms.
*Visto Corp. v. Sproqit (N.D. Cal.)—Patent infringement action involving the Visto patent portfolio. Sproqit ceased operations and the action was dismissed.
Gracenote, Inc. v. *Musicmatch, Inc. (N.D. Cal.)—Recently concluded patent infringement action in the Northern District of California. Gracenote asserted several patents directed to Internet-based music recognition software and services. Musicmatch asserted counterclaims of invalidity and unenforceability due to material information about Gracenote’s prior systems that was fraudulently withheld from the USPTO during prosecution of the Gracenote “CDDB” patents, as well as antitrust violations based on the same conduct. The parties agreed to settle the case after Musicmatch obtained summary judgment on all patent claims.
*Macrovision Corp. v. 321 Studios (S.D.N.Y.)—Recently concluded patent infringement and Digital Millennium Copyright Act action against 321 Studios. Macrovision received both preliminary and permanent injunctions enjoining the sale of 321’s popular DVD X Copy products. Paramount and other motion picture studios received a similar injunction first, but 321 avoided those injunctions by removing the CSS breaking ripper. Macrovision’s injunction goes one step further, and blocks the new DVD X “RF” (Ripper Free) products, which were being sold online with a link to a third-party ripper.
E-Data v. *Ticketmaster, *Fandango, et. al. (S.D.N.Y.)—Recently dismissed patent infringement action regarding the Freeny patent brought by E-Data (formerly Interactive Gift Express Inc).
*Macrovision Corp. v. Sima Corp. (S.D.N.Y.)—Now concluded patent infringement and Digital Millennium Copyright Act action pending against Sima and Interburn in the southern District of New York. Interburn has settled. As a part of the settlement, Interburn acknowledged the validity of the Macrovision patents and was permanently enjoined. A motion for preliminary injunction against Sima is currently pending.
The Braun Corp. v. *Maxon Lift Corp. (N.D. Ind.)—Patent infringement action brought by The Braun Corp. After obtaining summary judgment on all of Braun’s claims, we secured an affirmance from the Federal Circuit. The decision was based on a controversial “Scimed” type subject matter disclaimer.
*Maxon Lift Corp. v. Ricon, Corp. and The Braun Corp. (C.D. Cal.)—Antitrust action filed in the Central District of California to block the proposed merger between Ricon, Corp. and The Braun Corp. The case was dismissed after the defendants abandoned the proposed combination.
Atmel v. Information Storage Devices, Inc. (N.D. Cal.)—Patent infringement action concerning nonvolatile memory chips in the Northern District of California. Represented third party Xicor, Inc.
*Flying J v. Central California Kenworth (E.D. Cal.)—Copyright infringement action that resulted in a multimillion dollar jury verdict in favor of Flying J.
Abbott Labs and Mitsubishi Tokyo Pharmaceuticals, Inc. v. *Dey, Inc. (N.D. Ill.)—Patent infringement action regarding two patents assigned to Tokyo Tanabe (now Mitsubishi Tokyo Pharmaceuticals). The patents are directed to pulmonary surfactants and methods for use in alleviating infant respiratory distress syndrome (IRDS).
Adrain v. *Hypertech
(D. Utah)—Patent infringement action in the District of Utah. Adrain asserted two patents directed to apparatus and software for modifying the control provided by automotive engine control modules.
*ICMI, Inc. v. Ricoh (W.D. Pa.)—Patent infringement action concerning toner cartridges for laser printers. Summary judgment in favor of ICMI upheld by the Federal Circuit on appeal.
Hewlett-Packard v. *Nu-kote
(N.D. Cal.)—Patent infringement action concerning numerous patents on ink formulations and ink cartridges for ink jet printers. Settled after trial and numerous summary judgments in favor of Nu-kote.
Canon v. *Nu-kote (C.D. Cal.)—Patent infringement action concerning numerous patents on ink and ink cartridges for ink jet printers. Settled after summary judgment on invalidity of critical ink patent.
Seiko-Epson v. *Nu-kote
(C.D. Cal.)—Patent infringement action concerning numerous patents on ink cartridges for ink jet printers. Settled after partial summary judgment in favor of Nu-kote.
Rainin Instrument Co. v. *Sherwood Medical (N.D. Cal.)—Patent infringement action concerning medical pipettes. Summary judgment of noninfringement granted in favor of Sherwood Medical.
Comora v. *Thoratec Laboratories (N.D. Cal.)—Patent infringement action concerning left ventricular assist devices. Summary judgment of noninfringement granted in favor of Thoratec.
In re Left Ventricular Assist Device Patent Litigation (D. Nev)—Consolidated patent infringement actions concerning left ventricular assist devices. See description, above.
(* indicates party representation)