James M. Heintz

Representative Cases

• Barkan Wireless IP Holdings, L.P. v. Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd., Samsung Electronics America, Inc., Verizon Communications, Inc. and Cellco Partnership d/b/a Verizon Wireless – Represented Samsung in this patent infringement matter in the Eastern District of Texas regarding three patents relate to cellular networks. The case settled favorably before trial
  
• Representing a US-based software company in managing its patent portfolio regarding cutting-edge human-computer interaction technologies
  
• Represented a security systems company in successfully developing a litigation strategy to enforce licensed patent technology, and prevailed upon a fully-favorable claim construction
  
• Certain Obstructive Sleep Apnea Treatment Mask Systems and Components Thereof (337-TA-1136) – Represented ResMed and its entities in the ITC as part of a multijurisdictional suit in the US, UK, Germany, Australia and New Zealand regarding sleep apnea devices. The matter concluded favorably
• Applied Signal Technology v. ViaSat et al: Represented plaintiff in Northern District of California patent litigation involving satellite signal processing technology. Case is ongoing
• Vellata v. Oracle: Represented defendant in Central District of California patent litigation involving Internet telephony technology. Case settled after plaintiff dedicated its patents to the public
• Hewlett-Packard v. Acer: Represented plaintiff in ITC trial involving patent for monitor resolution technology. Case settled after trial but before decision
• Northrop Grumman v. ITT: Arbitration involving electronic countermeasures technology. Arbitration settled
• New Medium Technologies, LLC v. Miranda Technologies, Inc.: Represented defendant in Northern District of Illinois in patent litigation involving video technology. Case settled on favorable terms prior to trial
• Thomas v. EchoStar Satellite: Represented defendant in Western District of N.C. in patent litigation involving conditional access technology. The patent focused on smart card technologies for set top boxes. Case settled on favorable terms after grant of motion for summary judgment on laches and favorable Markman decision for defendant
• Irdeto v. EchoStar Communications: Represented defendant in District of Colorado in patent litigation involving encryption technology. The patents focused on encryption key management and generation techniques. Case settled on favorable terms after summary judgment of non-infringement on main patent was upheld by Federal Circuit
• Ryobi v. Porter-Cable: Represented defendant in Northern District of Illinois in patent litigation involving laser guide technology for power tools. Case settled on favorable terms prior to trial
• Lewis v. Boss Media: Represented defendant in District of Nevada in patent litigation involving video technology. Case settled on favorable terms prior to trial
• IPPV v. EchoStar: Represented defendant in District of Delaware. The patents focused on pseudorandom bit stream generation and conditional access system credit management techniques. Case settled on favorable terms after trial during pendency of appeal

James is recognized by Docket Navigator as a top five PTAB lawyer in the US representing petitioners (2019 Year In Review report), and repeatedly highlighted in the IAM Patent 1000 where they highlight he is "among the most technically savvy patent litigators around thanks to years of prosecution experience" and is "wonderful at translating complicated ideas – be they technical or legal – into straightforward, on-point explanations".

• Chambers USA
  2016 - Band 3, Northern Virginia Intellectual Property
  Chambers comments, "James Heintz of DLA Piper LLP (US) is experienced in handling patent prosecution and litigation matters, and is often sought out by clients from the computer and electronic areas. Clients report that they 'have been really impressed with him."
  2014-15 - Band 3, Northern Virginia Intellectual Property
  2012-13 - Up and Coming, Northern Virginia Intellectual Property
• The Legal 500 United States
  2021 - Recommended, Patents Litigation: Full Coverage

• Wasica v. Schrader: IPR estoppel can include system prior art – key takeaways, 11 February 2020
• PTAB Judges appointment unconstitutional, 6 November 2019
• USPTO issues final rule on claim construction standard, 15 Oct 2018
• Supreme Court Corner Q2 2018, 28 Jun 2018
• US Supreme Court rules on two key patent cases: Oil States and SAS Services – key takeaways, 27 Apr 2018
• "High Court Seems Poised To Confirm Constitutionality Of IPR," Law360, 29 NOV 2017
• Current developments in the trilateral patent offices, 22 Mar 2011
• Bilski's impact on finance industry patents, 6 Oct 2010