Add a bookmark to get started

Robert Buergi

Robert Buergi

Partner
About

Robert Buergi concentrates his practice on patent litigation, including both business-to-business patent suits and defending businesses from non-practicing entities.

He counsels and represents clients ranging from solo inventors to international corporations.

Robert's recent matters have involved a variety of technologies including networks, security and encryption, user interfaces, file systems and operating systems, storage systems, financial software, web advertising, tape libraries, global positioning systems, fingerprint sensors, smart phone interfaces, touch sensitive displays and consumer products.

EXPERIENCE

Representative Cases
  • Daedalus Prime LLC v. NXP Semiconductor, et al.. – International Trade Commission. Representing respondent NXP Semiconductor in this ITC action dealing with processor power management.  Obtained dismissal without the need for trial or settlement.
  • SpaceTime3D, Inc. v. Samsung Elecs. Co. Ltd., – United States District Court, Eastern District of Texas. Represented Samsung in this patent case regarding graphical user interfaces. Obtained favorable settlement.
  • Neodron Ltd. v. Microsoft Corp. and Neodron Ltd. v. HP Inc. – United States District Court, Western District of Texas. Represented defendants Microsoft and HP in these patent cases regarding touch-sensitive displays. Obtained favorable settlement.
  • CUPP Cybersecurity, LLC v. Trend Micro Inc., et al. – United States District Court, Northern District of Texas. Representing defendant Trend Micro in these cases involving seventeen patents and computer security.
  • Representing smartphone manufacturer in patent case involving LTE and VoLTE.
  • TrueMail Techs., Inc. v. iContact, LLC – United States District Court, District of Delaware. Represented defendant iContact in this patent case regarding digital signatures. Obtained dismissal with prejudice without the need for settlement.
  • Represented smartphone manufacturer in ITC action involving haptics. Obtained favorable settlement.
  • Represented smartphone manufacturer in patent case involving LTE, 3GPP, IMS and text messaging. Obtained favorable settlement.
  • Softvault Systems, Inc. v. Samsung Electronics America, Inc. – United States District Court, Eastern District of Texas. Represented defendant Samsung in this patent case dealing with remotely disabling smartphones. Obtained a favorable settlement.
  • Represented smartphone manufacturer in patent case regarding wireless video streaming. Obtained summary judgment of non-infringement, affirmed on appeal.
  • Represented smartphone manufacturer in patent case regarding live video streaming. Obtained jury verdict of non-infringement, affirmed on appeal.
  • Represented smartphone manufacturer in an ITC action regarding instant messaging, JavaScript processing and audio hardware. Obtained a favorable settlement.
  • Represented smartphone manufacturer in patent case involving streaming media and shared media libraries. Obtained favorable settlement.
  • Represented smartphone manufacturer in patent case involving screen readers. Obtained favorable settlement.
  • Trend Micro Inc. v. RPost Holdings, Inc., et al., – United States District Court, Northern District of California. Representing plaintiff Trend Micro in this patent case dealing with email processing.
  • RPost Holdings, Inc., et al. v. Adobe Systems Inc., et al. – United States District Court, Eastern District of Texas. Represented defendants Adobe and EchoSign in this patent case dealing with email authentication. Resolved case without settlement or trial.
  • Nazomi Communications, Inc. v. Samsung Telecommunications America, LLC, et al. – United States District Court, Northern District of California. Represented defendant Samsung in this patent case dealing with Java hardware acceleration and the Android operating system. Obtained summary judgment of non-infringement, affirmed on appeal.
  • Prism Technologies, LLC v. Adobe Systems Inc., et al. – United States District Court, District of Nebraska. Representing defendant Trend Micro in this patent case dealing with software product activation.Obtained summary judgment of non-infringement, affirmed on appeal.
  • Overland Storage, Inc. v. BDT AG et al. – United States International Trade Commission. Represented the plaintiff, Overland Storage, in this ITC action dealing with tape storage libraries. Obtained a favorable settlement.
  • Eolas Technologies, Inc. v. Adobe Systems Inc., et al. – United States District Court, Eastern District of Texas. Represented defendant Oracle America in this patent case dealing with embedded interactive web content. Obtained a favorable settlement.
  • Network Appliance, Inc. v. Sun Microsystems, Inc. – United States District Court, Northern District of California. Represented Sun Microsystems in three related patent cases involving 39 asserted patents dealing with technologies including storage systems, network architecture, user interfaces and microprocessors. Obtained a favorable settlement.
  • PortfolioScope, Inc. v. Oracle Financial Services Software Ltd. – United States District Court, District of Massachusetts. Represented plaintiff PortfolioScope in this copyright infringement and trade secret misappropriation case dealing with portfolio management software. Obtained a favorable settlement during presentation of the client's case.
  • Rackable Systems, Inc. v. Super Micro Computer, Inc. – United States District Court, Northern District of California. Represented defendant Super Micro in this patent case dealing with network servers and storage servers. Obtained a favorable settlement.
  • Qualcomm, Inc. v. Broadcom, Corp. – United States District Court, Southern District of California. Represented plaintiff Qualcomm in this patent case involving Qualcomm's CDMA and cellular phone power control inventions. Obtained a favorable settlement.
  • Atmel, Corp. v. AuthenTec, Inc. – United States District Court, Northern District of California. Represented defendant AuthenTec in this patent case dealing with fingerprint sensors. The court granted summary judgment of non-infringement.
  • Hynix Semiconductor v. Toshiba, Corp. – United States International Trade Commission. Represented the respondent, Toshiba, in this ITC action where the patents involved NAND flash memory. In his initial determination, the administrative law judge found that Toshiba did not infringe either of the patents-in-suit, one of the patents was invalid, both patents were unenforceable due to inequitable conduct and Hynix had failed to prove that it had a domestic industry in either of the patents.
Education

    Civic and Charitable

    • National Veterans Legal Services Program
    • Cooperative Restraining Order Clinic
    • Silicon Valley Campaign for Legal Services
    • Lawyer's Committee for Civil Rights
    • Clemency Project 2014
    • United for Wildlife

    Connect