Background - Practices (Details)

Patent Litigation

Representative Engagements

  • Advanced Media Networks v. Vizada et al., No. 1:10-CV-194 (S.D.N.Y.): Represented defendant Vizada in a suit involving satellite communication systems, securing a favorable settlement providing the client with freedom to operate in the market for the accused technology.
  • Arlington Industries, Inc. v. Bridgeport Fittings, Inc. (M.D. Pa.) (Fed. Cir): Represented plaintiff in a jury trial concerning electrical fittings in September 2009. The jury found in favor of Arlington on infringement, willful infringement, and breach of contract. The jury also awarded Arlington its lost profits. The judgment was affirmed on appeal.
  • Arlington Industries, Inc. v. Bridgeport Fittings, Inc. (M.D. Pa.) (Fed. Cir.): Represented plaintiff in a four day contempt hearing in which the court found the defendant in contempt of an injunction by manufacturing products that were "colorable imitations" of the previously enjoined products. The court enjoined the competitor's new products and awarded Arlington lost profits and attorney fees. Arlington also recently won a motion to dismiss a premature appeal of the contempt order filed before the sanctions were awarded.
  • Automotive Technologies Int'l v. OnStar, No. 4:11-CV-15604 (E.D. Mich.): Represented defendant OnStar in a suit involving vehicle-based Internet communications. We forced a voluntary dismissal of the complaint with prejudice after securing a transfer to OnStar's home forum.
  • Bendix Commercial Vehicle Systems, et al. v. Haldex Brake Products, No. 1:09-CV-176 (N.D. Ohio): Represented manufacturer of air disk brakes systems for tractor-trailers in week-long jury trial on patent infringement claim against prime competitor, winning jury verdict of willful infringement and subsequent award of permanent injunction, enhanced damages and attorney's fees.
  • Curtiss-Wright v. Velan, No. 04-CV-1157 (W.D. Tex.): Represented plaintiff Curtiss-Wright Flow Control in a suit against a competitor involving industrial valves used to dehead coke drums during oil refining operations. Following the grant of a preliminary injunction, we secured a settlement that kept the competitor's accused valve out of market.
  • Colorquick v. Kodak, Nos. 6:08-CV-165, 6:06-CV-390 (E.D. Tex.): Represented defendant Kodak in two related actions involving a process for virtual proofing of digital print jobs. We secured a favorable settlement after claim construction.
  • Fernandez Innovative Technologies v. BMW and Mercedes et al., No. 07-CV-1397 (N.D. Ill.): Represented defendants BMW and Mercedes in a suit involving the transmission of advertisements to vehicles using GPS and Internet technologies. We forced a favorable settlement immediately after a Markman hearing.
  • Greenville Communications, LLC v. Verizon Wireless (D.N.J. 2012) (Fed. Cir.): Won judgment of non-infringement for Sprint Nextel. Non-infringement judgment was recently affirmed on appeal.
  • Medien Patent Verwaltung AG v. Deluxe Entertainment (S.D.N.Y.): Represented inventor of anti-piracy technology in patent infringement suit against world's largest supplier of motion picture film prints, winning summary judgment of infringement and non-obviousness followed by favorable settlement shortly before trial.
  • Rembrandt Data Technologies, LP v. Canon U.S.A., Inc., et al., No. 1:08-CV-1009 (E.D. Va.): No. 2010-1002 (Fed. Cir.). Represented Canon entities in an action involving fax modem technology. We won on summary judgment in district court; decision affirmed on appeal by the Federal Circuit.