Timothy J. Franks

STC.UNM v. Intel Corporation

U.S. District Court for the District of New Mexico
U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit
Successfully defended Intel in patent suit relating to lithographic patterning techniques for use in the manufacture of semiconductor devices. The district court granted summary judgment that the patent was unenforceable for most of its existence for failure to comply with a terminal disclaimer, and it dismissed the remainder of the case for lack of standing because STC failed to join the patent’s current co-owner. The Federal Circuit affirmed the dismissal, rejecting STC’s argument that it was entitled to join its co-owner against the co-owner’s will.

EMI Group N. Am. Inc. v. Cypress Semiconductor Corporation

U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware
U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit
Defended Cypress in lawsuit brought by EMI asserting infringement of two patents relating to the use of laser-fuse technology in integrated circuits. Won a unanimous jury verdict that Cypress had not infringed any of the asserted claims and that all the asserted claims were invalid for impossibility, anticipation and obviousness. The Federal Circuit affirmed that the patents were invalid, which rendered infringement moot. 68 F. Supp. 2d 421 (D. Del. 1999); 104 F. Supp. 2d 370 (D. Del. 2000), aff'd, 268 F.3d 1342 (Fed. Cir. 2001)

Gellyfish Technology of Texas, LLC v. Asus Computer International, et al.

Defended Intel in a patent infringement case related to hand pads for laptop computers and other electronic devices.

Iomega Corporation v. SyQuest Technology, Inc.

U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware
Defended SyQuest in suit alleging that SyQuest’s SyJet and SparQ removable storage products infringed Iomega utility and design patents and claimed "Jet" trademark.

NorthPeak Wireless, LLC v. 3Com Corporation, et al.

Defended Intel and its customers in patent matter accusing 802.11b-compliant (WiFi) products.

St. Clair Intellectual Property Consultants Inc. v. Acer Inc., et al.

U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware
Represented Intel Corporation as intervenor-defendant in patent infringement action filed against Intel customers alleging infringement of patents relating to chipset technology.

Texas Instruments Inc. v. Dell Computer Corporation

U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Texas
Defended Dell against patent infringement claims brought by Texas Instruments regarding microprocessor circuits and computer architecture and prosecuted antitrust counterclaims.

Impulse Technology Limited v. Nintendo of America Inc., et al.

U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Ohio
Defended Nintendo in patent lawsuit relating to exercise videogames. Plaintiff voluntarily dismissed case following claim construction.

Barbara’s Sales Inc., et al. v. Intel Corporation

Circuit Court of Illinois, Madison County
Illinois Supreme Court
Defended Intel against allegations that it misrepresented performance capabilities of early Pentium® 4 processors. The plaintiffs sought to pursue a nationwide class action in Madison County, Illinois, but under California's deceptive trade practices statutes. On appeal, the Illinois Supreme Court held that Illinois law rather than California law applied, that the alleged misrepresentations were mere "puffing" and therefore not actionable under Illinois law, and that the case should not proceed as a class action. 879 N.E.2d 910 (Ill. 2007)

CLRB Hanson Industries, LLC, et al., v. Google Inc.

U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California
Represented Google in a putative nation-wide class action alleging the use of the term "Daily Budget" in Google's AdWords program violated, inter alia, California's Unfair Competition Law and False Advertising Act. Negotiated favorable settlement.

Durant v. Intel Corporation

Defended putative consumer protection class action involving computer peripherals.

Fitzpatrick, et al. v. Intel Corporation

Defended client in putative class action involving transfers of unclaimed or abandoned stock to California Controller. Dismissal of all claims.

In re Intel Laptop Battery Litigation

U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California
Successfully defended Intel in a putative class action alleging that Intel wrote battery life and other benchmarks for its own benefit and then passed them off to an industry consortium. District court granted summary judgment dismissing the claims of several plaintiffs and then dismissed the rest of the case for lack of jurisdiction.

Skold, et al. v. Intel Corporation, et al.

Superior Court of California, County of Santa Clara
Defended Intel in putative nationwide class action alleging violations of California's Unfair Competition Law (§17200) and Consumer Legal Remedies Act. The plaintiffs claimed that Intel misrepresented and concealed information about the performance of early Pentium® 4 processors and artificially boosted benchmark scores for those processors.

In re Qimonda AG

U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the Eastern District of Virginia
Represent Objector, Intel Corporation, in a challenge to the German Insolvency Administrator’s election to “non-perform” patent cross-license agreements with Intel and several other semiconductor companies. Following one-week evidentiary hearing, the Court sustained the Objectors’ challenges and required that §365(n) be applied to Qimonda’s U.S. patents, thereby protecting their license rights. Post-trial proceedings are pending.

Cypress Semiconductor Corporation v. Altera Corporation

State Court of California
Prosecuted claims for tortious interference with contract, trade secret misappropriation and unfair competition involving programmable logic devices.

Hospitality Solutions International Pte, Ltd. v. Lodging Touch International Inc. and Enterprise Hospitality Solutions Inc.

Prosecuted action for misappropriation of software trade secrets and breach of contract claims involving hospitality software. Court entered temporary restraining order and preliminary injunction.

Intel Corporation and Level One Communications Inc. v. Broadcom Corporation

Prosecuted action for misappropriation of trade secrets. Case settled after entry of preliminary injunction in favor of Intel.

SPARC International v. SyQuest Technology Inc.

U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California
Defended against claim that "SparQ" removable disk drives infringed "SPARC" trademark.

Hifn Inc. v. Intel Corporation

Court of Chancery of Delaware
Counsel for Intel in contract claim brought by Hifn involving IPSec technology. Delaware Court of Chancery granted Intel's motion for summary judgment. (2006 - 2007)