Year: 2019

Peloton Defeats Flywheel’s Attempt to Stay Litigation

In its Order, Judge Roy Payne found that Flywheel had “not sufficiently shown that a stay would simplify the issues within the case,” and “that a stay would result in significant prejudice for Peloton.” Order at 1. The Court agreed with Peloton that a stay would be particularly inappropriate here given that Flywheel’s At Home Bike, which allegedly incorporates the infringing technology, is a “direct competitor” to Peloton.

Importantly, the Court also rejected Flywheel’s argument that a stay would help simplify the issues, agreeing with Peloton that given the Supreme Court’s recent decision in SAS Inst., Inc. v. Iancu, 138 S. Ct. 1348 (2018) – which precluded the PTAB from instituting IPRs for only a portion of the patent claims – “any institution decision occurring after SAS provides a weaker inference that the PTAB will determine that all challenged claims are unpatentable. Thus, institution decisions for the ’085, ’276, and ’855 [Peloton] Patents are less helpful in indicating that IPRs will result in a simplification of issues than they would have been before SAS.” The Court’s agreement with Peloton’s argument here is significant and highly relevant to not just the instant litigation, but other patent litigations pending throughout the U.S.

Counsel for Peloton, said, “We are pleased that the Court rejected Flywheel’s attempt to stay this important litigation, and look forward to proceeding expeditiously to trial.”

Jury selection is set to begin on June 15, 2020.

The patents-in-suit are U.S. Patent Numbers 9,174,085, 9,233,276, 9,861,855 and 10,322,315.

The case is Peloton Interactive Inc. v. Flywheel Sports Inc., case number 2:18-cv-00390, in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Texas, Marshall Division.

Peloton is represented by Douglas J. Dixon, Christina Rayburn, Karen Younkins and Neil Anderson of Hueston Hennigan LLP.

Libeu Named to Daily Journal’s Top 40 Under 40 List

The Daily Journal cited Ms. Libeu’s work litigating high-stakes business disputes including business torts, contracts, class actions, securities fraud and trade disputes. She advises in the “corporate divorce” arena, which typically involves clashes between founders and owners of businesses. The article also cited her upcoming trial representing CEO and co-founder of Gavrieli Brands in an ownership dispute with his sister, and Tesla in its nationally covered lawsuit against a disgruntled employee who stole confidential and proprietary data from a manufacturing plant in Nevada.

Click Daily Journal Top 40 Under 40 to read the full article.

Kaba Honored with the Inaugural Reach the Summitt Award

Co-hosted with the LA Sparks, the evening honored five leaders in the community at a reception for area high school and college athletic directors, women’s basketball coaches, and friends of Pat.

Praised as “a trial force” and “a forceful counselor and litigator,” Mr. Kaba was recognized for his stellar work in the business and legal community. From working to advance laws on equality and challenging those laws that discriminate based on race and gender to successfully defending initiatives that seek to prevent bullying of Muslim students, Mr. Kaba remains committed to causes promoting LGBTQ and Immigrant equality.

Preliminary Injunction Obtained in High-Stakes Patent Litigation

ClearOne is a global provider of audio and visual communication products and services that creates innovative solutions in the installed audio conferencing market. One such solution—ClearOne’s revolutionary U.S. Patent No. 9,813,806—allows ClearOne to offer consumers exclusive access to a beamforming microphone array integrated into a ceiling tile as a single unit. ClearOne sought an injunction to prevent Shure from selling a competing microphone array in an infringing manner.

The Honorable Edmond E. Chang in the Northern District of Illinois granted ClearOne’s preliminary injunction motion, enjoining Shure from further infringement of ClearOne’s ‘806 patent. The order also precludes Shure from encouraging others to use its product in an infringing manner and applies to anyone who is in active concert or participation with Shure or its officers, agents, servants, employees, and attorneys.

“This is a very significant win for our client ClearOne,” explained partner Douglas J. Dixon. “ClearOne is a small company that believes in fair and vigorous – but legal — competition. The judge’s thorough and detailed order validates ClearOne’s innovative solutions and ensures that it can compete on a level playing field with companies large and small.”

The Hueston Hennigan team is led by partner Douglas J. Dixon and of counsel Christina V. Rayburn, and a team of associates including Sourabh Mishra, Neil G. Anderson, Karen Younkins, and Michael K. Acquah.

To read the Law360 article, click here.

Legal 500 2019 Recognizes Hueston Hennigan

As noted in their analysis, “Los Angeles-based boutique Hueston Hennigan LLP receives praise from the market for its ‘highly-specialized team’, which ‘provides the same or better expertise in this area as you would find at the top Big Law firms’, but ‘with the flexibility and close working relationship of a small firm’.”

The following are the details related to the rankings:

  • Corporate investigations and white collar criminal defense – ranked: tier 4
  • Corporate investigations and white collar criminal defense: advice to individuals – ranked: tier 3
  • Brian Hennigan – Leading Lawyer and Hall of Fame
  • John Hueston – Leading Lawyer

The Legal 500 series provides independent commentary on leading law firms and lawyers in more than 90 countries. Rankings are based on feedback from 300,000 clients worldwide, submissions from law firms and interviews with leading private practice lawyers, and a team of researchers who have unrivaled experience in the legal market.

Hueston Hennigan Prevails in Caltech’s Whistleblower Trial

Dr. Roumi, who sought tens of millions of dollars in damages, was hired to work on a project funded by the Department of Energy, but ultimately failed.

As partner Moez Kaba noted in an interview with the American Lawyer “the defense’s overarching message to the jury was that Roumi was unable or unwilling to put in the work to make the project successful, and the technology was difficult. Not every idea becomes an invention, not every start-up becomes a success.”

“This was a really important case to Caltech,” said partner John Hueston to the Daily Journal. “They were not going to settle the case. They felt on principle that they truly were right.”

The Hueston Hennigan team was co-led by partners John C. Hueston and Moez M. Kaba and a team of associates including Varun Behl, Joseph Reiter, and Michael Todisco.

The story was covered in the Daily Journal, The American Lawyer, Pasadena Star-News, and Patch.com.