Copyright

Representative Engagements

Index:

Patent Litigation Representative Matters

The patent litigation cases described below are examples of the experience that Crowell & Moring LLP attorneys have gained during and/or prior to their tenure with the firm.

District Court

  • Agere v. Macronix (S.D.N.Y): Represented defendant, obtaining a stay of litigation pending arbitration (favorable settlement was reached after arbitration).
  • Apcon v. Curtiss-Wright and Systran, et al. (C.D. Cal.): Represented defendants in infringement action involving high-speed fiber optic switching technology (after filing infringement counterclaims, obtained favorable settlement).
  • Aptar v. Summit (N.D. Ill.): Won willful infringement verdict, and defeated infringement counterclaims, regarding various patents concerning mounting caps and other features of aerosol spray valves.
  • 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 International, Inc. v. General Motors Corp, et al. (E.D. Tex.): Represent defendant Mercedes-Benz in patent infringement action involving vehicle sensor and airbag technology.
  • Bendix Commercial Vehicle Systems v. ArvinMeritor (N.D. Ohio): Represent plaintiff Bendix in patent infringement action involving brake systems.
  • Bendix Commercial Vehicle Systems v. Haldex Brake (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.
  • Black & Decker v. Catalina Lighting (E.D. Va.): Represented defendant in a patent infringement lawsuit involving the "Snakelight" product. After obtaining partial summary judgment for defendant, a favorable settlement was achieved for this client.
  • Chameleon v. Brown Shoe (D.N.J.): Represented patentee in infringement action involving intermittent flashing lights on children's sneakers.
  • Clear with Computers v. Basset, et al. (E.D. Tex.): Represent various UTC defendants in patent infringement action involving web-based purchasing systems.
  • Curtiss-Wright v. Velan (W.D. Tex.; Fed. Cir.): Represented patentee in infringement action involving life-saving coke drum de-heading valve used in oil refining industry. Won appeal at the Federal Circuit.
  • Curtiss-Wright v. Zimmermann & Jansen, et al. (C.D. Cal.): Represented patentee in infringement action involving automated coke drum de-heading technology (obtained favorable settlement).
  • Entrust Inc. v. Addison Avenue (N.D. Cal.): Represented plaintiff in this 2006 patent infringement suit relating to two-factor authentication for remote connection to a computer network (settlement was reached during discovery).
  • EON Corp. IP Holdings, LLP v. SkyTel Corporation, et al. (E.D. Tex.): Represent defendant Carrier in patent infringement action involving a communication network with a base station and subscriber units.
  • Every Penny Counts v. First Data Corp., et al. (M.D. Fla.): Represented financial services company in patent infringement action involving prepaid gift cards (won on Markman decision; upheld on appeal).
  • F&G v. Giga-Byte, et al. (S.D. Fla.): Represented Chinese computer equipment manufacturer defendant against non-practicing entities in patent infringement case involving computer mouse scrolling technology.
  • FotoMedia Technologies v. Alltel Communications, Inc., et al. (E.D. Tex.): Representing defendant Sprint Nextel in patent infringement action involving online photo sharing applications (case is currently in discovery).
  • Freedom Wireless v. Sprint Nextel (D. Mass.; Fed. Cir.): Represented defendant in patent infringement action involving prepaid wireless technology (obtained favorable settlement after successfully disqualifying plaintiff's attorneys from case).
  • Fulhorst v. DaimlerChrysler AG, et al. (E.D. Tex.): Represented defendants DaimlerChrysler and BMW in patent infringement action relating to panic alarms for vehicles (obtained favorable settlement).
  • Gerber Scientific v. Satisloh (D. Conn.): Represent plaintiff Gerber Scientific in patent infringement action involving optical machinery.
  • Green Source Energy v. NEEI (D.D.C.): Represented intervenor-patent owner over ownership of devulcanization technology.
  • 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.
  • GTX Corporation v. Kofax, et al. (E.D. Tex.): Represent defendant Eastman Kodak in patent infringement action involving digital scanning technology.
  • Harris Industries v. Macronix International (E.D. Va.): Represented the defendant, a Taiwanese manufacturer of semiconductors, in a patent infringement suit (settlement was reached immediately after the Markman hearing).
  • Hayes v. Penny & Giles, et al. (D.N.J.): Represented four aerospace companies in patent infringement suit involving endothermic chemical heat sink used in flight data recorders (obtained favorable settlement).
  • Henrob v. BMW (E.D. Mich.): Represent defendant, a German automaker, in patent infringement action involving riveting process used in manufacturing vehicles imported into the United States.
  • Invacare Corp. v. Drive Medical (N.D. Ohio): Represented plaintiff Invacare in patent infringement action involving adjustable height beds and in parallel ITC action; obtained ITC Consent Order, where defendant agreed to stop importing accused products.
  • Knorr-Bremse v. Dana (E.D. Va.; Fed. Cir.): Won willful infringement decision and attorneys' fees following trial on patent relating to air disc brake technology used in commercial vehicle industry, leading to seminal Federal Circuit decision on willfulness.
  • LifeNet Health v. LifeCell Corp. (E.D. Va.): Obtained a jury verdict of over $34 million for LifeNet Health in a patent infringement action involving the preservation of soft-tissue grafts.
  • Linex v. Nortel, et al. (S.D. Fla.): Represented defendant Nortel in patent infringement action involving distributed telecommunications network using spread spectrum modulation.
  • MAN Roland v. Heidelberg Web Systems (D.N.H.): Represented plaintiff in patent litigation involving high-speed printing press technology (obtained favorable settlement during trial).
  • 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.
  • Minerva Industries, Inc. v. Motorola, Inc., et al. (E.D. Tex.): Represent defendant AT&T Mobility in patent infringement action involving cellular telephones.
  • MIT v. Abacus Software, et al. (E.D. Tex.): Represented software developer in multi-party patent infringement litigation involving color reproduction technology (obtained favorable settlement).
  • Morris Reese v. AT&T, Inc., et al. (E.D. Tex.): Represented defendant AT&T in patent infringement action involving telephony systems providing call waiting with caller ID; won on Markman decision (upheld on appeal).
  • Oakley v. BMW (S.D. Cal.): Represented defendant BMW in patent infringement action involving automotive accessories.
  • Orion IP v. Mercedes-Benz USA, et al. (E.D. Tex.): Represented defendants BMW and Porsche in patent infringement action involving electronic proposal generation (settled after invalidity contentions).
  • Orion IP v. Xerox Corporation, et al. (E.D. Tex.): Represented defendant Eastman Kodak in patent infringement action involving electronic proposal generation.
  • PGSI, et al. v. RSI, et al. (W.D. Tex): Represent defendant RSI in action involving oil well technology.
  • Pharmaceutical Solutions v. Vitamax RX, et al. (D. Mn.): Represented PSI in infringement action involving veterinary pharmaceuticals (settled after summary judgment motions).
  • PSN Illinois v. Den-Mat, et al. (N.D. Ill.): Represented dental supply company in multi-defendant patent infringement action involving method for manufacturing porcelain veneer tooth restorations (won on summary judgment).
  • Quickturn Technologies v. Mentorgraphics (D. Or.): Represented foreign and domestic defendants in infringement case involving computer chip technology; secured dismissal of foreign defendant and transfer of action against domestic defendant.
  • R.R. Donnelly & Sons v. Quark, et al. (D. Del.): Represent defendant, a digital imaging company, in patent infringement action involving patents directed to controlling an electronic printing press to print fixed and variable information (obtained favorable settlement after winning Markman decision).
  • Rembrandt Data v. AOL, et al. (E.D. Va.): Represent defendant Canon USA in patent infringement action involving V.34 modem patents (won summary judgment on license exhaustion, affirmed on appeal).
  • RIM v. Eastman Kodak (N.D. Tex.): Represent defendant Kodak in patent infringement suit concerning patents on digital camera technology and operating system technology.
  • Screentone Systems Corporation v. Canon U.S.A., Inc., et al. (E.D. Tex.): Represent defendant Eastman Kodak in patent infringement action involving methods for producing digital halftone screens.
  • Sorensen v. DaimlerChrysler AG (D.N.J.; USITC): Represented defendant, an automobile manufacturer, against claims involving patented method for manufacturing plastic taillight lenses.
  • Sorin Biomedical v. Cobe Laboratories (S.D. Cal.): Won dismissal of declaratory judgment of noninfringement action on behalf of patentee.
  • Surety Technologies v. Entrust Technologies (E.D. Va.): Represented defendant in patent infringement lawsuit involving encryption software. Won jury verdict in favor of client, invalidating the asserted patent.
  • Symbility v. Xactware (E.D. Mich.): Represented patentee in declaratory judgment action involving graphics-based construction estimation software (settled).
  • TA Instruments v. Perkin-Elmer (D. Del.): Won infringement verdict at trial on patent relating to differential scanning calorimeter technology.
  • Tampa Electric v. Nortel Networks (M.D. Fla.): Represented defendant, a telecommunications equipment supplier, on indemnification claims arising from alleged infringement of patents on interactive voice response systems.
  • Tanashin Denki Co. v. Emerson Radio (E.D. Va.): Represented defendant in patent infringement lawsuit involving components for recording devices (settlement was reached immediately prior to trial).
  • TiVo v. EchoStar Communications, et al. (E.D. Tex.): Special counsel for TiVo in jury trial resulting in $74 million award for infringement of patent on "multi-media time-warping system."
  • Thomas v. Sprint Nextel, et al. (M.D.N.C.): Represented defendant, a telecommunications company, in patent infringement action involving technology for controlling provision of utility services to consumers.
  • Value Behavioral Health, Inc. v. Health System Design Corp (E.D. Va.): Represented defendant in patent case (settled shortly after discovery commenced).
  • Wang Laboratories v. AOL (E.D. Va.): Represented plaintiff in patent infringement lawsuit involving certain Internet technology.

International Trade Commission

  • Certain Communication Equipment, Components Thereof, and Products Containing the Same (337-TA-817): Represented respondent Avaya in an investigation related to Power over Ethernet (PoE) features in telephones, switches, and wireless access points. Also represented Avaya in a parallel action before the United States District Court for the District of Delaware. Settled favorably.
  • Certain Automotive GPS Navigation Systems, Components Thereof, And Products Containing Same (337-TA-814): Represented respondent General Motors LLC in an investigation related to automobiles with in-dash GPS navigation systems. We successfully pressured the Complainant to terminate the investigation after six months of discovery.
  • Components for Installations of Marine Autopilots with GPS or IMU (337-TA-738): Represented respondents FLIR Systems, Raymarine UK Ltd., and Raymarine, Inc. in an investigation related to marine autopilots with a GPS or IMU. Favorable settlement without exclusion.
  • Adjustable-Height Beds and Components Thereof (337-TA-734): Represented complainant Invacare in an investigation related to adjustable hospital beds. Obtained Consent Order wherein respondents agreed to the exclusion of accused products from entry into the United States.
  • Mobile Telephones and Wireless Communication Devices Featuring Digital Cameras (337-TA-703): Represent complainant Kodak in parallel district court action and consult daily with ITC counsel related to infringement allegations against respondent RIM.
  • Machine Vision Software and Systems (337-TA-680): Represented respondents Fuji America Corp. and Fuji Machine Co. in investigation related to machine vision systems. Favorable settlement without exclusion.
  • Wireless Communication Devices and Components Thereof (337-TA-675): Represented respondents Kyocera, Sprint, MetroPCS, and VirginMobile in investigation brought by SPH America relating to wireless communication devices.
  • Semiconductor Integrated Circuits (337-TA-665): Represented respondent LSI Inc. in investigation brought by Qimonda. Successfully obtained Final Determination of non-infringement of five patents.
  • Wireless Communication Chips and Chipsets and Products Containing Same (337-TA-614): Represented respondent Qualcomm in investigation regarding cellular service and device industry. Successfully obtained early termination of investigation before trial.
  • Semiconductor Chips With Minimized Chip Packages Size and Products Containing Same (337-TA-605): Represented complainant Tessera against respondents STMicroelectronics, Inc. and ST NV. Successfully obtained Final Determination from ITC finding respondents infringed valid patents.
  • Hydraulic Excavators and Components Thereof (337-TA-582): Represented complainant Caterpillar in an investigation to bar gray market Caterpillar-branded excavators. Obtained general exclusion order and cease and desist orders.
  • Laminated Floor Panels (337-TA-545): Represented 6 respondent Chinese laminate flooring manufacturers. Key patent invalidated, another patent rendered wholly non-infringed, and on the remaining patent, mixed infringement and non-infringement found.
  • Baseband Processor Chips and Chipsets (337-TA-543): Represented Intervenor Sprint Nextel in the investigation brought by Broadcom against respondent Qualcomm, during the Remedy Phase, the Presidential Review Period, the appeal to the Federal Circuit, and at Customs. Won appeal to the Federal Circuit resulting in the seminal Kyocera Wireless Corp., et al., v. International Trade Commission decision.
  • Color Television Receivers and Color Display Monitors (337-TA-537): Represented complainants against multiple respondents for alleged infringement of five patents on components and processes within color televisions and display monitors. The case settled on confidential terms after close of the hearing.
  • Network Communications Systems for Optical Networks (337-TA-535): Represented respondent Nortel. Obtained summary determination in Nortel's favor.
  • Disc Drives, Components Thereof, and Products Containing Same (337-TA-516): Represented respondent in a 337 action concerning alleged infringement of seven patents on components and processes within disc drives. The case settled on confidential terms on the eve of the hearing.
  • Gun Barrels Used in Firearms Systems (337-TA-505): Represented respondents concerning alleged infringement of two patents on gun barrels used in firearms training systems. Settled without exclusion.
  • Automobile Tail Light Lenses (337-TA-502): Represented respondent Daimler and successfully obtained summary determination in Daimler's favor before the hearing.
  • Personal Watercraft (337-TA-452): Represented respondent Bombardier in an action brought by Yamaha Motor Company, Ltd., et al. concerning the alleged infringement of 11 patents on personal watercraft. Invalidated 8 of 11 patents and settled without exclusion after hearing.
  • Musical Instrument Products: Represented complainant Yamaha Musical Instruments against foreign importers of gray market goods. Successfully obtained settlement from all respondents before institution.

Patent Interference

  • Johnson v. Heine (ColorLink, Inc. v. Unaxis Balzers AG), Interference No. 105,310 (BPAI). Represented patent applicant in interference directed to color-separation technology for video displays.
  • Rossin v. Kanno (Guild Associates Inc. v. Hitachi Ltd.), Interference Nos. 105,402 and 105,512 (BPAI). Represented Hitachi Ltd. in interferences directed to abatement of perfluorinated compounds.
  • Rowells v. Vichinsky (International Truck and Engine Corp. v. Mann & Hummel GmbH), Interference No. 105,518 (BPAI). Represented patentee in interference directed to fuel rail for intake manifold of internal combustion engine.
  • SomaLogic, Inc. v. Santa Coloma, Interference No. 105,493 (BPAI). Represented patent applicant in interference directed to methods of obtaining aptamers.
  • ZymoGenetics v. Ludwig Institute for Cancer Research, Interference No. 105,433 (BPAI). Represented patent applicant in interference directed to fibroblast mitogenesis.

Trademark Representative Matters

The trademark litigation cases described below are examples of the experience that Crowell & Moring LLP attorneys have gained during and/or prior to their tenure with the firm.

District Court

  • American Airlines v. Google (N.D. Tex.): Represented the plaintiff in trademark infringement case involving sale of AA trademarks as keyword triggers for sponsored links.
  • Caterpillar v. CAT Ltd. (C.D. Ill.): Represented Caterpillar in obtaining preliminary injunction for infringement and dilution of Caterpillar's CAT trademark.
  • Columbia University v. Columbia HCA (S.D.N.Y.): Represented defendant in winning judgment dismissing all counts in trademark infringement action for infringement of COLUMBIA mark.
  • DuPont v. Helen of Troy (W.D. Tex.): Represented DuPont in trademark infringement action for infringement of TEFLON mark.
  • DuPont.v. Enzo Milano (C.D. Cal.): Represented DuPont in securing default judgment against defendant in trademark infringement action.
  • First Franklin v. Franklin First (C.D. Cal.): Represented Franklin First in trademark infringement action in which court denied preliminary injunction and plaintiff thereafter voluntarily withdrew action.
  • Lucasfilm v. American Media, et al. (N.D. Cal.): Represented Lucasfilm in winning preliminary injunction for infringement and dilution of Lucasfilm's trademarks.
  • NetZero v. At Home (C.D. Cal.): Represented trademark owner in securing defendant's agreement to abandon accused mark in infringement litigation.
  • Retail Services, Inc. v. Freebies Publishing (E.D. Va.): Represented defendant in trademark dispute regarding the mark "FREEBIES," convincing the Fourth Circuit that the term was generic.
  • Symbility v. Xactware (E.D. Mich.): Represent trademark owner in declaratory judgment action involving infringement of trademarks through improper use in connection with Internet search engines.
  • Weight Watchers International, Inc. v. Curves International, Inc. (S.D.N.Y.): Represent plaintiff in trademark infringement/dilution/false advertising case in connection with a commercial aired by the defendant (obtained preliminary injunction).

International Trade Commission

  • Hydraulic Excavators and Components Thereof (337-TA-582): Represented Caterpillar in an investigation to bar gray market Caterpillar-branded excavators. Obtained complete relief in the form of a general exclusion order and cease and desist orders.
  • Musical Instrument Products: Represented Yamaha Musical Instruments against foreign importers of gray market goods. Successfully obtained settlement from all respondents before institution by ITC.
  • Bearings and Packaging Thereof (337-TA-469): Represented respondents in an action concerning alleged trademark infringement and gray market goods. Confidential settlement before hearing.

Trademark Trial Appeal Board

  • DuPont v. duPont Registry (T.T.A.B.): Represented DuPont in opposition to applications to register variations of DUPONT PUBLISHING.
  • Leica Microsystems v. Krauter (T.T.A.B.): Represented trademark owner in cancellation proceeding involving optical goods and related products.
  • Nextel Communications v. Motorola (T.T.A.B.): Represented telecommunications service provider in trademark opposition relating to aural signal emitted by two-way radios.
  • Orange Personal Communications Services v. ING Direct (T.T.A.B.): Represented Opposer in complex multi-opposition proceeding.
  • Southwestern Management v. Ocinomled (T.T.A.B.): Represented restaurant in complex concurrent use proceeding involving the DELMONICO name.

Copyright Representative Matters

The copyright litigation cases described below are examples of the experience that Crowell & Moring LLP attorneys have gained during and/or prior to their tenure with the firm.

  • Business Software Association v. Engineering Design (D.D.C.): Represented plaintiff in copyright infringement case relating to pirated software. Obtained an ex parte seizure order, led a "raid" of defendant's premises to seize infringing software, and ultimately won a permanent injunction.
  • Carodel v. Zeeman (Commercial Court of Antwerp, Belgium; President of the Commercial Court of Antwerp, Belgium; Courts of The Hague in the Netherlands): Represent plaintiff in a copyright case involving counterfeited children's clothing.
  • CoStar Realty v. Alliance Valuation Group, et al. (D. Md.): Represented plaintiff real estate information company in litigation asserting copyright infringement and violation of the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act.
  • CoStar Realty Information, Inc. v. LoopNet, Inc. (D. Md.): Represented plaintiff in copyright and trademark infringement case involving unauthorized use of copyrighted photographs by competing commercial real estate website; achieved favorable settlement before trial.
  • DMLights v. Artemide (Commercial Court of Antwerp, Belgium): Represent defendant in copyright case involving counterfeited lighting.
  • Eddy Merckx Cycles v. Selle Italia (Commercial Court of Brussels, Belgium): Represent plaintiff in copyright and trademark infringement case involving unauthorized use of copyrighted photographs and trademarks for an advertising campaign.
  • Eglo v. Brico (Commercial Court of Brussels, Belgium): Represent plaintiff in copyright case involving counterfeited lighting.
  • Entrust Inc. v. Corel Corporation (E.D. Va.): Represented plaintiff software developer alleging that defendant had exceeded the scope of a "test license."
  • Experian Information Solutions, Inc. v. Logic Quest Solutions, Inc., et al. (C.D. Cal.): Represented plaintiff in action for copyright infringement, misappropriation of trade secrets, unfair competition and fraud, arising out of software piracy and kickbacks. Obtained a temporary restraining order, preliminary injunction, summary judgment and permanent injunction.
  • Filmtown Entertainment, Inc. v. Image Comics, Inc. (Cal. Sup. 2002): Represented defendant, obtained dismissal of action on grounds that Copyright Act preempted state law claims and Lanham Act "reverse passing off," "credit-deprivation" claim.
  • Florida Digital Network, Inc. v. Northern Telecom, Inc. (M.D. Fl.): Represented defendant in declaratory judgment action relating to plaintiff's copyright violations, breach of license agreement, and misappropriation of trade secrets claims involving the copying of client's telecommunications software without authorization; successfully litigated removal to federal court and achieved favorable settlement following successful mediation.
  • Goldman v. AK-FFA, Inc. (D.D.C.): Represented defendant in copyright case alleging infringement of exclusive U.S. distribution rights for "The Return of Martin Guerre"; resolved by settlement before trial.
  • Gudrun v. Inno.com (Commercial Court of Antwerp, Belgium and Commercial Court of Brussels, Belgium): Represent plaintiff in copyright case involving counterfeited software.
  • Gund, Inc. v. Aspen Pet Products Co., Inc. (S.D.N.Y.): Represented defendant in copyright infringement case alleging unauthorized copying of plush toy animal designs; achieved favorable settlement and licensing arrangement before trial.
  • Ikea v. Facebook, Immoweb and Others (Courts of Brussels, Belgium): Represent plaintiff in copyright and trademark infringement case involving unauthorized use of copyrighted photographs and trademarks for an advertising campaign.
  • Lannoo v. Several Others (Courts of Ghent, Belgium; Courts of Brussels, Belgium): Represent defendant in several alleged copyright infringement cases.
  • Lowry's Reports v. Legg Mason (D. Md.): Represented defendant in jury trial in which Legg Mason was accused of copyright infringement for posting a financial newsletter on an intra-company webpage.
  • Lucasfilm v. H&S Media, et al.(N.D. Cal.): Represented Lucasfilm for copyright issues related to Phantom Menace movie release and Internet infringements.
  • Magic Mall Education Foundation, Inc. v. Socci (E.D. Va.): Represented creator of educational curriculum and materials in copyright infringement case against unauthorized user; achieved complete relief by way of settlement before trial.
  • Marshall & Swift/Boeckh v. URS Corp, et al. (C.D. Cal.): Represent a defendant in ongoing copyright dispute; defendant is accused of using "proprietary" data in a software application prepared for FEMA, raising important issues for government contractors under the copyright provision of 28 U.S.C. § 1498.
  • Nortel Networks Inc., et al. v. AIT Wireless Inc., et al. (M.D. Fl.): Represented plaintiff in case involving copyright, breach of license agreement, and misappropriation of trade secrets claims against defendant that copied client's telecommunications software without authorization; achieved favorable settlement with respect to one defendant and entry of default judgment with respect to a second defendant.
  • Nortel Networks Inc., et al.. v. Arbinet-Thexchange (E.D. Va.): Represented plaintiff in case involving copyright, breach of license agreement, and misappropriation of trade secrets claims against defendant that copied client's telecommunications software without authorization; achieved favorable settlement.
  • Panamarenko v. Several Others (Courts of Antwerp, Belgium): Represent plaintiff in a copyright case involving unauthorized use of copyrighted artwork for a non-profit organization.
  • PCI Video Products, Inc. v. Video Conferencing Communications, Inc. (D. Or.): Represent plaintiff; obtained temporary restraining order without bond and subsequent permanent injunction for copyright infringement and misappropriation of trade secrets relating to video compression and decompression software.
  • Quantum Systems Integrators v. Sprint Nextel (E.D. Va.; 4th Cir.): Represented long-term licensee in copyright infringement action involving right to use upgrades to licensed software; achieved favorable jury result and affirmation on appeal.
  • Skywalker Sound v. Villegas (N.D. Cal.): Represented Lucasfilm on copyright issues related to Lost World movie release; obtained favorable result on sound infringement matter.
  • Sylvan Learning Systems, Inc. v. National Computer Systems, Inc. (D. Minn): Represented defendant computer software manufacturer in infringement case relating to testing software and written materials.
  • Toei Animation v. Melimedias (Commercial Court of Nivelles, Belgium): Represent plaintiff in copyright infringement case involving counterfeited Manga DVDs.
  • Tranzact Systems v. The Stanley Works (E.D. Ill.): Represented defendant Stanley regarding computer software infringement allegation.
  • U.S. South Communications, Inc. v. Northern Telecom, Inc. (W.D.N.C.): Represented defendant in declaratory judgment action relating to plaintiffs' copyright violations, breach of license agreement, and misappropriation of trade secrets claims involving the copying of client's telecommunications software without authorization; achieved favorable settlement.
  • 1-800-Contacts v. WhenU.com (S.D.N.Y.): Represented plaintiff in trademark/copyright case alleging that manner in which defendant's software copied code from plaintiff's website in order to display pop-up ads was unlawful; obtained preliminary injunction in the district court.

Trade Secrets Representative Matters

  • E.I. du Pont de Nemours and Company v. Kolon Industries, Inc., et al., No. 3:09-cv-58 (E.D. Va.): Represented plaintiff DuPont in case alleging misappropriation of over 100 trade secrets relating to KEVLAR® fiber technology in one of the largest trade secret misappropriation cases in United States history and obtained a $919.9 million verdict against Kolon for the theft of KEVLAR® technology -- the largest-ever contested verdict in a trade secrets case, as well as the largest verdict ever in the State of Virginia.
  • Florida Digital Network, Inc. v. Northern Telecom, Inc. (M.D. Fl.): Represented defendant in declaratory judgment action relating to plaintiff's copyright violations, breach of license agreement, and misappropriation of trade secrets claims involving the copying of client's telecommunications software without authorization. We successfully litigated removal to federal court and achieved favorable settlement.
  • Ajinomoto Co. Inc. v. Global Biochem Technology & Co. (Antwerp Court of Appeal): Represent Ajinomoto in the Belgian chapter of the global L-Lysine-battle. Dispute involved fierce patent litigation, a complex chapter on confidential know-how, including strategic interaction between know-how and patents, complicated international jurisdiction and infringement issues, etc.
  • Caterpillar v. Sturman Industries, et al. (C.D. Ill.): Represented client through two five-week jury trials and one bench trial. We obtained summary judgment against all counterclaims and favorable verdicts from both juries and ownership of all of the patents.
  • Van Turenhoudt & Partners v. HR Attitude (Brussels Court of First Instance): Represented defendant and achieved a favorable settlement in litigation initiated by plaintiff after client left plaintiff and set up its own headhunting company in the financial sector. Besides copyright and database protection, the litigation also related to allegedly protected know-how dealing with recruitment processes, selection techniques, and client development.
  • Nextel Communications, Inc. v. Motorola, Inc. (Cir. Ct. Fairfax County, Va.): Represented plaintiff in successful negotiation settlement of client telecommunications company's claims against supplier for theft of trade secrets and conversion of client's intellectual property.