Edwards Lifesciences LLC v. Boston Scientific Corp., (D. Del.). Represented Edwards Lifesciences in action to enjoin infringement of patents related left atrial appendage closure devices. This case was part of a global litigation dispute between the parties and helped achieve a successful worldwide settlement of all disputes.
Rolex Watch U.S.A., Inc. v. Watch Empire LLC, et al., (C.D. Cal.). Represented Rolex in action to protect the famous Rolex® trademarks against counterfeiting and infringement by Watch Empire, an online retailer of counterfeit Rolex watches. When the Defendants failed to provide sufficient discovery and engaged in other discovery misconduct, the litigation team pursued a series of motions to compel seeking monetary and evidentiary sanctions. The discovery motions culminated in the court striking the defendants’ answer as a sanction. Rolex was then able to secure a default judgment that included a broad permanent injunction, a $5,000,000 statutory damages award, and an award of attorneys’ fees.
Winn Incorporated v. Halo Fishing LLC, (C.D. Cal.). Represented Winn in action to protect the famous Winn® and Dri∙Tac® brands in connection with grips for fishing reels.
Dominion Dealer Solutions LLP v. AutoAlert, Inc. (PTAB and Fed. Cir.). Represented AutoAlert, Inc. in defeating five petitions for inter partes review filed by a competitor challenging the validity of AutoAlert's patents related to lead generation and data mining for automotive dealerships. The five denials represent a rare feat, considering that only about 12% of the 203 IPR petitions decided by the PTAB during 2013 were denied.
Rolex Watch U.S.A., Inc. v. Melrose Jewelers, (C.D. Cal.). Represented Rolex in action to enjoin trademark counterfeiting, trademark infringement, unfair competition and cybersquatting by Melrose, an online retailer of counterfeit Rolex watches. After conducting discovery and filing a motion for summary judgment of infringement, the case settled with Melrose entering into a consent judgment, which included a permanent injunction and award of $8.5 million to Rolex.
Rohr, Inc. dba Goodrich Aerostructures v. Sheets Manufacturing, Inc. (Cal. Superior Court). Represented Goodrich in case for breach of contract and specific performance to obtain an audit of an aircraft parts vendor suspected of misappropriating Goodrich’s trade secrets related to aircraft nacelle manufacturing designs. The case settled favorably for Goodrich before trial.
Toshiba Corporation v. Wistron Corporation, Investigation No. (U.S. ITC). Represented Toshiba in ITC investigation (and a parallel district court action) involving patents on computer hardware and software features. Just before trial, the case settled with Wistron paying for a license under Toshiba’s patents.
Golden Hour Data Systems, Inc. v. emsCharts, Inc., et al., (E.D. Tex.). Obtained $3.5 million jury verdict (later enhanced to $10 million) on behalf of San Diego-based Golden Hour Data Systems in patent case involving computerized integrated data management services for the emergency medical services industry. The jury found all claims valid and willfully infringed.
Duke University and Orexigen Therapeutics, Inc. v. Elan Corp., Eisai Co., Ltd., et al., (M.D.N.C.). Represented plaintiffs Duke and Orexigen in lawsuit to establish rights in patent applications involving pharmaceutical compositions for the treatment of obesity. The case settled, with Duke and Orexigen securing rights that enabled Orexigen to launch a successful IPO to continue development of the technology, and to eventually launch the highly successful obesity treatment drug, Contrave®.
Alfa Leisure, Inc. v. Chief Industries, Inc., (C.D. Cal.). Represented owner of patent covering chassis designs for fifth wheel trailers. After obtaining summary judgment dismissing defendant’s inequitable conduct counterclaim and all but a few of its invalidity defenses, the case settled with defendant paying license royalties to our client.
Yamaha Motor Co., Ltd. v. Bombardier Inc., (U.S. ITC). Represented patent owner Yamaha in ITC investigation involving personal watercraft. Case settled after a four-week trial, just days before the ITC was to issue its initial determination.
Vitalcom, Inc. v. Telemetry For Medicine, Inc., (Cal. Superior Ct.). Represented plaintiff Vitalcom in trade secret misappropriation case. Obtained final judgment and injunctive relief.
Yamaha Corporation of America v. Ryan, (C.D. Cal.). Obtained preliminary injunction for plaintiff Yamaha in trademark case involving digital music technology.
Bausch & Lomb, Inc. v. Barnes-Hind/Hydrocurve, Inc., (N.D. Cal. and Fed. Cir.). Represented patent owner Bausch & Lomb and obtained reversal of invalidity ruling on patent for contact lenses.
Boston Scientific v. Edwards Lifesciences, (C.D. Cal.). Defended Edwards Lifesciences in patent case involving eight patents asserted against delivery systems and crimpers used for implanting Edwards’ transcatheter heart valves. After filing IPR petitions against the patents, the Court stayed the case pending the final disposition of all IPRs, and the parties ultimately reached a settlement of their global dispute.
Reel Grip, Ltd. V. Winn Incorporated, (N.D. Ohio). Defended Winn, a famous manufacture of sports grips, in action alleging trademark infringement and unfair competition based on the use of the term “Reel Grip” to describe Winn’s grips for fishing reels. After filing an answer and counterclaim detailing the generic and descriptive nature of the plaintiff’s alleged trademark, the case was promptly settled.
Koninklijke KPN N.V. v. TCL Corp., et al., (D. Del.). Defended TCL and several of its related entities against allegations that TCL infringed patents based on sales of mobile telecommunication products. After TCL filed motions to dismiss based on Section 101 patent ineligible subject matter, the case quickly settled.
Aptails Pharmatech, Inc. v. Apotex, Inc., (D. Del. and Fed. Cir.). Defended Apotex in Hatch-Waxman litigation involving cyclobenzaprine hydrochloride for treating musculoskeletal pain. To streamline and seek early resolution of the case, Apotex limited its defense to the issue of whether its product had a certain claim limitation. At trial, the District Court found infringement based on a claim construction that closely mirrored Aptails’ proposed construction. On appeal, the Federal Circuit adopted Apotex’s construction, vacated the infringement finding, and remanded the case for further proceedings.
IPA Technologies, Inc. v. TCL Communication Technology Holdings, Ltd. and TCT Mobile, (D. Del.). Represented TCL Communication and TCT Mobile in patent case involving speech based navigation of electronic data sources. After filing, motions to dismiss based on lack of patent eligible subject matter and other motion practice, IPA dismissed the case.
Smart Irrigation Solutions, Inc. v. Hunter Industries, Incorporated, (C.D. Cal.). Represented Hunter Industries in patent case involving irrigation controllers. After explaining Hunter’s noninfringement and invalidity defenses, the patent holder voluntarily dismissed the complaint with prejudice. While one of Hunter’s competitors settled by taking a license under the patent in suit, Hunter never had to answer the complaint.
MOSAID Technologies Inc. v. HTC America, Inc., (D. Del.). Represented HTC in patent case involving personal alarm systems that use GPS to determine the location of a mobile phone during an emergency or other hazardous situation. After HTC filed several motions for summary judgment, the case settled on terms very favorable to HTC.
Walker Digital LLC v. Nordstrom, Inc. and Gap, Inc., (D. Del.). Represented Nordstrom and Gap in patent case involving e-commerce sales of retail products over the internet. Early in the case, we engaged the plaintiff and explained why there was no infringement of the asserted patent. Shortly thereafter, and with minimal expense to our clients, the case was dismissed by stipulation.
Affinity Labs of Texas LLC v. Alpine Electronics of America, Inc., (E.D. Tex.). Represented Alpine Electronics in patent case involving technology for connecting portable audio players, such as iPhones, to automobile sound systems. We were able to achieve a favorable settlement for Alpine and its customers early in the case with minimal expense. Other defendants that did not settle eventually lost at trial and were ordered to pay millions in damages.
Dahl v. Swift Distribution, Inc., dba Ultimate Support Systems, (C.D. Cal.). Represented Ultimate Support Systems accused of patent, trademark and copyright infringement relating to collapsible carts for transporting music, sound and video equipment. After successfully defeating Dahl’s request for a temporary restraining order and preliminary injunction, Ultimate moved for summary judgment of noninfringement of the patents in suit. The court granted the motion and the case settled immediately thereafter with Dahl dropping all of his claims against Ultimate.
Guardian Media Technologies, Ltd. v. Toshiba America Consumer Products, L.L.C., (C.D. Cal.). Represented defendant Toshiba charged with infringement of a patent covering methods for censoring video programs. Prior to this lawsuit, a significant segment of the industry had taken a license under the plaintiff’s patent. But, after adopting Toshiba’s proposed claim construction, and prior to any substantial discovery, the court granted summary judgment of noninfringement, which prevented Toshiba from paying tens of millions of dollars in royalties sought by the plaintiff.
Bryan Callan v. Christian Audigier, Inc. et al., (C.D. Cal.). Represented famous designer Christian Audigier in copyright infringement and breach of contract case involving tattoo artwork and designs for street wear. Obtained settlement of the case on a confidential basis just before trial.
Beekley Corp. v. Jessop Precision Products, Inc., (D. Conn.). Represented defendant Jessop Precision Products in patent and trademark case involving radiographic marker technology. After serving a detailed expert report on invalidity of the asserted patents and trademarks, the case settled (on a confidential basis), with our client remaining in the market without disruption.
Ranbaxy Labs. Ltd. v. Abbott Labs, (N.D. Ill.). Represented declaratory judgment plaintiff Ranbaxy in patent infringement action involving patents relating to extended release clarithromycin (active ingredient in Abbott's BIAXIN XL® product). In opposing Abbott's motion for a preliminary injunction, succeeded in showing a likelihood that two patents were unenforceable due to inequitable conduct.
Talbert Fuel Systems Patents Co. v. Unocal Corp., Union Oil Company of California, and Tosco Corp., (C.D. Cal. and Fed. Cir.). Represented defendant Tosco Corp. (later acquired by Conoco-Phillips) charged with infringement of patent on reformulated gasoline. Obtained summary judgment of noninfringement, affirmed on appeal, which prevented Tosco from paying millions of dollars in royalties sought by the plaintiff.
General Mills, Inc. v. Hunt-Wesson, Inc., (D. Minn. and Fed. Cir.). Obtained summary judgment of noninfringement, affirmed on appeal, for defendant Hunt-Wesson in patent case on microwave food packaging.
Brown v. adidas International, (S.D. Cal.). Represented defendant adidas and obtained dismissal of action alleging patent infringement, copyright infringement and trade secret misappropriation related to athletic shoe technology.
Aeroquip Corp. v. Deutsch Co., (S.D. Ga.). Represented defendant Deutsch in patent case involving aerospace tooling and fittings. After successfully moving to transfer case from unfavorable forum, case settled.
Rollerblade, Inc. v. Canstar Sports, Inc., (U.S. ITC). Successfully represented Canstar, which makes the well-known line of Bauer ice hockey equipment, in ITC investigation involving patent on in-line skates. After locating invalidating prior art, Rollerblade dropped the case.
Refac Int’l. , Ltd. v. Hitachi, Ltd., et al., (C.D. Cal. and Fed. Cir.). Represented defendants Analog Devices, Inc. and NEC Electronics, Inc. in patent case involving LCD technology. Successfully obtained dismissal of case and award of sanctions against plaintiff for discovery violations and filing a frivolous action.