Electrical, Semiconductor & Computer Technology Litigation
Whether you are looking to enforce your intellectual property or defend against a lawsuit, Knobbe Martens focuses on delivering winning results.
More than 50 of our firm’s litigators have degrees in computer science or electrical engineering. As a result, our dedicated attorneys provide a comprehensive understanding of the technology unique to electrical, computer, semiconductor and consumer electronics cases. We are known for quickly identifying the salient points and developing winning legal strategies for our clients. Whether representing plaintiffs or defendants, our litigators know what it takes to deliver successful results.
By combining superior technical knowledge with proven litigation skill, the firm has successfully litigated electrical, computer, semiconductor and consumer electronics cases across a wide spectrum of technology, including computer hardware and software, software algorithms, semiconductor manufacturing, wireless technology, smartphones, GPS navigation systems, wearables, audio systems and video games. More than technical and legal advisors, our intimate knowledge of the electronics, computer and semiconductor landscape gives us insight into the forces that shape the industry. Using that unique knowledge, we are able to craft solutions tailored to our clients’ specific challenges and opportunities.
In addition to appearing in U.S. district courts and before the Federal Circuit, our team delivers a deep bench of expertise in litigating electrical, computer, semiconductor and consumer electronics cases before the PTAB and USITC.
StrikeForce Technologies, Inc. v. SecureAuth Corporation
Knobbe Martens successfully defended SecureAuth in a patent infringement case where StrikeForce asserted three patents. StrikeForce previously asserted its patents against numerous defendants in Delaware, Massachusetts, New Jersey and Virginia. SecureAuth was the last defendant to be sued on the patents, but the first to prevail—in a complete victory that the Federal Circuit affirmed in February 2019. Knobbe Martens first prevailed on an early motion to dismiss StrikeForce’s complaint on the grounds that the three asserted patents were invalid under 35 U.S.C. § 101. The district court granted SecureAuth’s motion and invalidated all 43 asserted claims, ending the litigation and allowing SecureAuth to stay focused on delivering value to its customers. StrikeForce appealed the district court’s decision to the Federal Circuit. On appeal, the Federal Circuit affirmed SecureAuth’s judgment of invalidity on all of the asserted claims.
Masimo Corp. v. Philips Elec. N. A. Corp. and Philips Medizin Systeme Boblingen GmbH
Represented Masimo in a three-week jury trial involving multiple patents directed to complex digital signal processing algorithms used in medical devices. The patents covered electrical hardware and computer software features. Obtained a jury verdict of over $466 million for lost-profits damages against Philips for infringing two Masimo patents. The jury verdict was one the largest verdicts of the year. The jury also rejected Philips’ infringement claims in their entirety. Philips sought $169 million in damages and was awarded $0.
Mallinckrodt, Inc. (Tyco Healthcare/Covidien) v. Masimo Corp
Represented Masimo in a five-and-a-half-week jury trial involving multiple patents directed to complex digital signal processing algorithms used in medical devices. The patents covered electrical hardware and computer software features. Obtained a jury verdict of over $134 million for damages. After trial and appeal, Masimo settled the case and received $330 million and additional future royalties, the largest recorded settlement in an IP case filed in Orange County, California.
Advanced Thermal Sciences Corp. v. Applied Materials, Inc.
Achieved a sweeping bench trial victory for Advanced Thermal, a BE Aerospace subsidiary. The court found that Applied Materials breached a joint development agreement by filing 10 patent applications on temperature control systems for semiconductor fabrication equipment, and that Advanced Thermal was the sole inventor and owner of other patents. The court also awarded Advanced Thermal its entire attorneys’ fees request.
Toshiba Corp. v. Wistron Corp.
Represented Toshiba in an ITC investigation and a parallel district court action involving patents on computer hardware and software features. Litigated the ITC investigation through discovery, with depositions taking place in Japan, Taiwan, Korea and the U.S. Just before trial and after defeating each summary judgment motion brought by Wistron, the case settled with Wistron paying for a license under Toshiba’s patents. Wistron also brought counterclaims on power management patents. We successfully obtained a dismissal of these claims for lack of standing.
mophie Inc. v. Dharmesh Shah et al.
Obtained a jury verdict and a final judgment including a permanent injunction and damages of $4.5 million against Serve Global d/b/a SourceVista.com and Dharmesh Shah. At trial, mophie asserted copyright, trade dress and trademark infringement arising from the sale of counterfeit battery cases. The jury awarded damages for copyright infringement of mophie's packaging and user manual and infringement of mophie's juice pack plus® trademark. The jury also found mophie's juice pack® and juice pack pro® trademarks and trade dress in its packaging were infringed, while additionally finding for mophie on its claim of unfair competition. Moreover, the jury found that the defendants’ trademark infringement was willful.
Kreative Power, LLC v. Monoprice, Inc.
Defended Monoprice, an online retailer of consumer electronics and subsidiary of Blucora, against claims of infringing a utility patent, a design patent and a copyright relating to a pyramid-shaped power outlet/surge protector. Obtained summary judgments of invalidity and no infringement within six months of the claim being filed, with no need for depositions or claim construction.
Typhoon Touch Technologies, Inc. v. Toshiba Corp., Dell Inc., et al.
Typhoon filed suit against our client Toshiba and other leading laptop and cell phone manufacturers, alleging that their touchscreen devices infringed two patents. After we obtained a district court judgment of no infringement, the Federal Circuit affirmed. Because the patents-in-suit had been asserted against essentially any device with a touchscreen, the decision was significant because it removed a major obstacle in the market.