Monster Energy Company v. Integrated Supply Network, LLC: Represented plaintiff, Monster Energy Company, in a trademark and trade dress infringement action in the Central District of California. After a full trial, the jury awarded our client $5 million in punitive damages.
Karl Heinz Priewasser v. Lintec Corp. and Lintec of America, Inc.: Represented defendants Lintec in a trade secret misappropriation, omission of inventor, fraud, and unjust enrichment action in the District of Arizona. Obtained dismissal of trade secret, fraud, and unjust enrichment claims. Plaintiff’s remaining cause of action was voluntarily dismissed.
Interpols Network Inc. v. Aura Interactive Inc.: Represented defendant Aura in a patent infringement action in C.D. California involving Aura’s MovieConnect product. Obtained ruling on summary judgment that MovieConnect did not infringe the two asserted patents.
Kruse Technology Partnership v. Daimler AG et al.: Represented plaintiff in patent infringement action in C.D. California involving internal combustion engine technology.
Meteora, LLC v. Marshal8E6, Inc. et al.: Represented Canadian software company, Nemx Software Corp., in patent litigation in C.D. California relating to e-mail language content control.
FlashPoint Technology Inc. v. Aiptek Inc. et al.: Representing Mustek in patent litigation in the District of Delaware involving numerous patents relating to digital cameras.
Kruse Technology Partnership v. General Motors, DMAX, and Isuzu: Represented plaintiff in patent infringement action in C.D. California involving internal combustion engine technology—each case settled before trial.
Heuft Systemtechnik GmbH v. Industrial Dynamics Co., 2008 U.S. App. LEXIS 13486, 2008 WL 2518562 (Fed. Cir. 2008). In jury trial and appeal, represented manufacturer of bottle-inspection equipment accused of patent infringement. After jury trial and verdict of infringement, successfully defeated claims for damages and injunction, and after appeal, defeated all claims of infringement as well.
Kruse Technology Partnership v. Caterpillar: Represented plaintiff in patent infringement action involving internal combustion engine technology. Successfully opposed motion for summary judgment of non-infringement and invalidity. Case settled shortly before trial.
Samuel Gart v. Microsoft Corp.; Samuel Gart v. Micro Innovations Corp. and IBM Corp.; Samuel Gart v. A4Tech Corp. and V-Com Tech. Inc.: Represented Gart in patent infringement actions involving a patent on a computer mouse—the defendants in each case settled.