Representative Experience

  • Neodron v. Microsoft Corp. and HP Inc. (representing Microsoft and HP in patent litigation involving touchscreen mobile devices in the Western District of Texas and in ITC Investigation No. 337-TA-1162)
  • Princeton Digital Image Corp. v. Hewlett-Packard (won summary judgment in HP’s favor in patent litigation involving JPEG and camera exposure technology in the Southern District of New York)
  • Isola USA v. Taiwan Union Technology Corp. (helped win a complete jury verdict for Isola, including willful infringement and lost profits damages, in the District of Arizona)
  • Cornell v. Hewlett-Packard (represented HP in patent litigation involving computer microprocessor technology in the Northern District of New York, which led to the seminal district court decision instigating patent damages reform)
  • Lodsys v. Hewlett-Packard (represented HP in patent litigation involving HP Support Assistant and SureSupply software in the Eastern District of Texas, Marshall Division)
  • Hitachi v. Milwaukee Electric Tool Co. & Techtronic Industries (represented Milwaukee and Techtronic in patent litigation involving sintered neodymium magnets in power tool motors, in ITC Investigation No. 337-TA-855)
  • Motorola Mobility v. TiVo (represented Motorola in patent litigation involving DVR technology in the Eastern District of Texas, Texarkana Division)
  • Isola USA v. Taiwan Union Technology Corp. (represented Isola in an ITC enforcement proceeding involving printed circuit board technology, in ITC Investigation No. 337-TA-659 (Enforcement))
  • Smart Modular v. Netlist, Inc. (represented Netlist in patent litigation involving DDR3 HCDIMM memory technology in the Eastern District of California)
  • Linksmart v. InterContinental Hotels Group Resources (represented InterContinental in patent litigation involving Web authentication and redirection technology in the Central District of California)
  • InNova v. Trend Micro (represented Trend Micro in patent litigation involving email authentication technology in the Eastern District of Texas, Marshall Division)
  • InNova v. Hewlett-Packard, HP Enterprise Services & Dr Pepper Snapple (represented HP, HPES, and Dr Pepper Snapple in patent litigation involving email authentication technology in the Eastern District of Texas, Marshall Division)
  • SkinMedica v. Histogen (represented Histogen in patent litigation involving cell culture in the Southern District of California)
  • Ricoh v. Oki Data (represented Ricoh in patent litigation involving printing technology in ITC Investigation No. 337-TA-619 and the District of Delaware)
  • Motorola v. RIM (represented Motorola in patent litigation involving smartphone technology in the Northern District of Texas)
  • Cornell v. Hewlett-Packard (represented HP in patent litigation involving computer microprocessor technology in the Northern District of New York)
  •  Hewlett-Packard v. Acer (represented HP in patent litigation involving computer architecture technologies in the Eastern District of Texas, Marshall Division)
  • Hewlett-Packard v. Gateway & eMachines (represented HP in patent litigation involving DVD drive technology, processor speed technology, and computer display technology in ITC Investigation No. 337-TA-547)
  • Hewlett-Packard v. Gateway (represented HP in patent litigation involving computer hardware technology in ITC Investigation No. 337-TA-509)
  • Hewlett-Packard v. Gateway (represented HP in patent litigation involving 19 patents covering numerous computer hardware technologies including processor speed technology, computer display technology, and software upgrade technology in the Southern District of California)
  • Amiga Development v. Hewlett-Packard (represented HP in patent litigation involving computer graphics hardware and computer monitoring software technologies in the Eastern District of Texas, Marshall Division)
  • Broadcom v. Qualcomm (represented Qualcomm in patent litigation involving wireless communication technology in the Central District of California)
  • Zenon Environmental v. United States Filter (represented Zenon in patent litigation relating to water and wastewater treatment systems in the Southern District of California)