We bring top-tier trial practice to patent litigation. We simplify the complex, think strategically at every stage of the matter, and focus on our clients’ ultimate business goals—whether victory at trial, pre-trial resolution, or a reputation for aggressively safeguarding their intellectual property.
Our teams unite deep patent litigation experience with a trial practice that is unmatched. We have represented clients in trials and appeals in multiple venues, including federal district courts throughout the United States, the Patent Trial and Appeals Board, the International Trade Commission, and the Federal Circuit.
Our attorneys understand sophisticated technology, and we know how to distill technical issues into clear, concise, and relatable arguments that sway judges and juries. We are best known for our outstanding results in complex, high-stakes disputes in the high-tech sector. Our approach is creative and often disruptive—we excel at crafting innovative strategies to solve our clients’ most vexing legal problems.
At every state of the litigation process, we find opportunities to improve our clients’ position. Our trial-ready focus has yielded an exceptional record of success, including summary judgments, jury verdicts, and hundreds of millions of dollars in damages for our clients. Our lawyers are also effective at negotiating highly favorable settlements, driven to achieve the best outcomes for clients both in and out of the courtroom.
Won a $25 million jury verdict against Samsung in a patent infringement trial in the Eastern District of Texas for Acorn Technologies, an incubator company, relating to its semiconductor technology. (See “Samsung Hit With $25M Semiconductor IP Verdict In EDTX,” Law360; “Samsung Loses Texas Trial Over Patents for Chip-Making Process,” Bloomberg Law; “Samsung loses $25 million jury verdict over semiconductor patents,” Reuters). (Acorn v. Samsung)
Successfully defended Ericsson in a first-of-its-kind FRAND jury trial in the Eastern District of Texas, affirmed on appeal to the Fifth Circuit. Represented Ericsson in a dispute over fair, reasonable, and non-discriminatory (FRAND) terms for a license to Ericsson’s cellular standard-essential patents. (HTC v. Ericsson)
Secured a complete defense verdict of no infringement and invalidity representing ClearOne Inc. in the District of Delaware in a case involving design patent for beamforming microphone arrays against Shure Incorporated. (See “Jury Says Microphone Co. Shure’s Patent Invalid After Trial,” Law360; “ClearOne Beats Rival Microphone Maker’s Design Patent Claims,” Bloomberg). (Shure v. ClearOne)
Obtained summary judgment of non-infringement in favor of Amazon.com, Inc. against claims for patent infringement brought by serial patent litigant MasterObjects, Inc. (See “Amazon Beats Patent Claims After Alsup ‘Misstated’ Its Motion,” Law360). (MasterObjects v. Amazon)
Won a complete plaintiff verdict for Optis Wireless Technology against Huawei in the Eastern District of Texas related to LTE technologies. After a five-day trial, the jury found infringement, willfulness, no invalidity, and awarded the full ask of damages for each of the five patents-in-suit. Post-trial, successfully argued for enhancement of the damages award. (Optis Wireless Technology et al. v. Huawei)
Obtained a highly favorable settlement for Peloton – including admissions of patent validity, intentional copying and an agreement to immediately cease using Peloton’s patented leaderboard technology – after prevailing on an Alice challenge and virtually every other motion. (See “Peloton, Flywheel Settle Legal Disputes Over Fitness Bike Tech,” Wall Street Journal; “Peloton, Flywheel Agree To End Patent Fight Over Bike Tech,” Law360). (Peloton Interactive Inc. v. Flywheel Sports, Inc.)
Secured a double summary judgment ruling for Juniper Networks that asserted patent claims against Juniper were both invalid and not infringed; the lawsuit brought in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California by Implicit Networks alleged infringement of patents relating to a method for processing data in a computer network. (Implicit Networks v. Juniper Networks)
Secured a preliminary injunction, and then a finding of contempt relating to one patent for ClearOne Inc. as plaintiff in two matters in the District of Illinois. Prevailed on appeal at the Federal Circuit as to the finding of contempt. (See “Fed. Cir. Dismisses Mic Maker’s Fight Over Injunction,” Law360). (ClearOne v. Shure)
Won a seven-figure jury verdict against LG in a patent infringement suit for Corewireless regarding smartphone user interface inventions that accused LG devices infringed and that asserted claims were not invalid. (Core Wireless v. LG)
Secured a victory for BlackBerry Corp. and BlackBerry Ltd. against a lawsuit claiming “patent extortion” and infringement, forcing plaintiff MobileIron to pay Blackberry’s legal fees and drop its lawsuit. (See “MobileIron Drops Patent Extortion Claims In BlackBerry Fight,” Law360). (MobileIron, Inc. v. BlackBerry Corp. et. al.)
Obtained a customer-in-suit stay and ultimately resolved over a dozen patent infringement lawsuits for T-Mobile filed in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Texas asserting patents relating to various cellular communication standards on very favorable terms. (Cellular Communications Equipment LLC v. T-Mobile)
Won a summary judgment on behalf of Oracle in a patent infringement case related to pharmacovigilance software. (DrugLogic v. Oracle)
Obtained a favorable settlement for Foxconn, after an evidentiary hearing, in a dispute with Lotes regarding the scope and meaning of a patent license agreement between the parties, including defending against Lotes’ request for declaratory judgement of non-infringement and invalidity of Foxconn patents. (Lotes v. Foxconn)
Achieved a favorable settlement for Oracle in its highly publicized litigation against the state of Oregon over development of the state’s online health insurance marketplace. (Oracle v. Oregon)
Favorably settled, shortly before trial, a lawsuit accusing Hitachi Global Storage Technologies and Western Digital of infringing patents relating to a method for developing diamond-like carbon films on hard disk drives. (Collins v. Western Digital Technologies)
Obtained a temporary restraining order and “anti-anti-suit injunction” preventing Samsung from enforcing foreign anti-suit injunctions to delay or avoid Ericsson’s U.S. litigation. Represented Ericsson in cross-patent infringement and breach-of-FRAND actions in the Ericsson District of Texas. (Ericsson v. Samsung)
Represented Sanofi and Regeneron in a patent infringement suit in the Central District of California regarding their breakthrough and billion-dollar drug Dupixent®, and in the U.S. Patent Trademark Office in a related inter partes review on the only patent-in-suit. The case was dismissed after the patent was invalidated; a win affirmed on appeal. (Immunex v. Sanofi and Regeneron)
Successfully argued that Ericsson was denied a jury trial in the initial proceedings, resulting in a full reversal and remand to the trial court. Represented Ericsson involving a dispute over fair, reasonable, and non-discriminatory (FRAND) terms for a license to Ericsson’s 2G, 3G, and 4G standard-essential patents in the Central District of California and on appeal to the Federal Circuit. (TCL v. Ericsson)
Successfully precluded Palo Alto Networks from arguing Juniper Network’s patents were invalid at trial in the District of Delaware. After the first trial on Juniper’s patents, Palo Alto Networks agreed to pay $175 million to resolve the patent litigation between the two companies. (Juniper v. Palo Alto Networks)
Defended Bosch, Foxconn, and Hon Hai before the U.S. International Trade Commission in a patent infringement matter relating to automotive body control modules. (In re Certain Electrical Connectors, Components Thereof, and Products Containing the Same)
Won a complete victory in an ITC Section 337 Investigation regarding certain high density fiber optic equipment and components thereof, resulting in a general exclusion order against the importation of infringing high-density fiber-optic modules and chassis.
Represented Agilent Technologies, Inc. in successful patent interference proceedings against a major competitor in the field of high-performance liquid chromatography, resulting in findings of invalidity and lack of priority for competitor’s claims.
Secured a victory for a semiconductor equipment manufacturer in inter partes reviews upholding the validity of key patents concerning automated material handling systems.
Achieved a favorable settlement for a semiconductor manufacturer in U.S. and international patent litigation and arbitration regarding FinFET technology.
Secured a victory for an MEMs manufacturer in district court litigation and inter partes review proceeding regarding gyroscope technology.