Recent examples of Patrick's patent litigation experience include:

  • Certain Infotainment Systems, Components Thereof, and Automobiles Containing the Same (337-TA-1119) and Broadcom Corporation v. Toyota Motor Corporation et al. (E.D.Tex.) – Represented Toyota Motor Corporation, Panasonic Corporation, DENSO CORPORATION and DENSO TEN Limited, and Japan Radio Co. Ltd. in a complex, multi-patent, multi-respondent ITC case and the corresponding District Court litigation associated with automotive integration units where we achieved a complete victory on the Initial and Final Determinations
  • 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 (E.D.Tex.) – Represented Samsung in this patent infringement matter in the Eastern District of Texas regarding three patents asserted against femtocells and similar radio network elements. The case settled favorably before trial
  • PureCircle USA Inc. et al v. SweeGen, Inc. et al. (C.D.Cal.) – Representing PureCircle USA in a patent enforcement action regarding the chemical composition of signature artificial sweeteners
  • Jon Kurtz v. Samsung Electronics America, Inc. et al. (C.D.Cal.) – Represented Samsung Electronics in an infringement matter regarding audio accessory design patents. The matter settled favorably prior to claim construction.
  • Blitzsafe LLC v. Hyundai Motor Company, Mazda Motor Corporation, Subaru Corporation, Volvo Car Corporation, Robert Bosch and Navistar (E.D.Tex.) Represented, as lead counsel, to Hyundai, Mazda, Subaru, Volvo, Bosch, and Navistar in this series of related patent cases relating to audio integration with a third-party device. The matters settled favorably.
  • Intellectual Ventures I LLC et al v. Toshiba Corporation et al. (D.Del.) – Represented Toshiba in a district court action brought by Intellectual Ventures asserting 10 patents involving semiconductor memory chips and consumer electronic products.  After an 8-day trial, the jury found in favor of Toshiba, finding that it did not infringe two patents, and finding the third invalid
  • CY Technology Group LLC v. Groupon, Inc. (C.D. Cal.) – Successfully defended Groupon in a competitor-to-competitor patent infringement suit by obtaining summary judgment of invalidity, which was affirmed by the Federal Circuit on appeal
  • EON Corp. IP Holdings LLC v. FLO TV Inc., et al. (District of Delaware) – Represent mobile handset manufacturers Kyocera and Palm, Inc. in patent litigation and co-pending reexamination proceedings involving wireless interactive television technology
  • Veveo, Inc. v. Verizon Services (S.D.N.Y ) – Led technical team and technical analysis of invalidity and non-infringement relating to accused cable TV set-top boxes, principally drafted the claim construction briefing and served as the primarily liaison to the technical experts and technical witnesses
  • Alfred B. Levine v. Samsung Telecommunications America, LLC (E.D. Tex.) – Led technical team and technical analysis of invalidity and non-infringement relating to accused smartphone devices, drafted significant portions of the claim construction briefing and invalidity contentions and served as the primarily liaison to the client's technical personnel
  • St. Clair Intellectual Property Consultants Inc. v. LG Electronics Inc. et al. (D. Del.) – Represented digital camera and mobile handset manufacturers in infringement action involving four patents for digital cameras with multiple selectable output formats
  • Fontem Ventures B.V. et al. v. NJOY, Inc. (C.D. Cal.) – Represented NJOY in two patent infringement actions regarding electronic cigarettes and vaping technologies.
  • Signal IP, Inc. v. Subaru of America, Inc. and Signal IP, Inc. v. Mazda Motor of America, Inc. (C.D. Cal.) – Represented Subaru and Mazda in these parallel infringement actions where Plaintiff Signal IP originally asserted five patents against Mazda and four patents against Subaru. Our team took the lead on successful argument at the Markman hearing for the entire joint defense group, the court found several key asserted claims indefinite and construed many others in our clients’ favor. As a result, Signal IP dropped several patents from the case and several additional claims. Soon after the court entered favorable judgement for our clients and both cases settled shortly before trial.
  • Yamaha Corporation v. Toshiba Samsung Storage Technology Corporation (TSST), et al. (C.D. Cal.) – Represented two TSST entities in a patent infringement action involving 11 patents related to optical disk drives.
  • AIM IP LLC v. Patton Electronics Co. (C.D. Cal.) – Represented Patton Electronics in a patent infringement matter regarding signal compression systems used for scaling and creating lossless audio and video communications.
  • AIM IP LLC v. AudioCodes, Inc. (C.D. Cal.) – Represented AudioCodes in a patent infringement matter regarding signal compression systems used for scaling and creating lossless audio and video communications.
  • International Growers Supply Inc v. Atlantis Hydroponics Inc. (The Home Depot) et al. (C.D. Cal.) – Represented The Home Depot in this matter regarding indoor greenhouse designs. The matter settled quickly and favorably.
  • Network Signatures Inc v. The Gap Inc. (C.D. Cal.) – Represented The Gap in a patent infringement action regarding network authentication methods. The matter settled favorably.
  • SMDK Corp. v. Creative Labs, Inc. (E.D. Tex. & N.D. Cal.) – Successfully obtained a dismissal of a patent infringement suit for Epson and Seiko targeting digital photo album products, primarily based upon the strength of a draft request for reexamination