![Profile photo for Kevin J. Patariu](/sites/default/files/styles/portrait_4x5_360x450_1x/public/media/profile94.jpg?itok=XbWJNj6t)
![Profile photo for Kevin J. Patariu](/sites/default/files/styles/portrait_4x5_360x450_1x/public/media/profile94.jpg?itok=XbWJNj6t)
Kevin J. Patariu
- Firmwide Co-Chair, ITC Litigation Practice
- San Diego
- Chicago
潘凯文 (Kevin Patariu) 协助客户处理知识产权,数据隐私,以及网络安全问题。Kevin 就复杂疑难的知识产权事务在美国各州以及国际贸易委员会 (ITC) 进行诉讼,并成功打赢多个 337 诉讼。
在 Patexia 公司进行的 2020 年度 ITC 情报报告中,Kevin 从 2014 至 2019 年中参与过 ITC 案件审理的 7500 多名律师中脱颖而出,在最佳 ITC 律师综合排名中斩获第二(代表申诉方或应诉方)。在 Patexia 进行的 2021 专利诉讼情报报告中,Kevin 从 2017 至 2020 年参与过美国地区法院专利诉讼审理的 12,300 多名律师中胜出,跻身最佳诉讼律师综合排名排名百强(代表申诉方或应诉方)
Kevin 在处理美国专利局 (USPTO) 专利审理和上诉委员会 (PTAB) 的专利授权后程序方面也有着丰富的经验。授权后程序包括授权后审查 (PGR)、包含商业方法 (CBM) 专利审查、多方复审 (IPR)、专利复审、补充审查和专利再颁程序。Kevin 在 70 宗 IPR 程序中任申诉方和专利权人的律师,并成功在 PTAB 口审中为客户据理力争。Kevin 为客户提供策略性使用 PTAB 程序的建议以实现客户的诉讼目标。在 Patexia 公司进行的 2019 ITC 情报报告的评选中,根据 2014 至 2020 年的数据,Kevin 获评代表申诉方处理 USPTO PTAB 案件的 100 佳执业律师,在所有 IPR 律师中位列前 2%。
Kevin 还就众多多方复审和单方复审请求进行准备并起诉,并就多方复审程序在 USPTO 的专利上诉与争议委员会 (BPAI, PTAB 的前身) 进行抗辩。
除专利诉讼和专利有效性案件外,Kevin 亦代表客户处理商标、商业秘密、包装装潢、版权纠纷。Kevin 的执业领域还包括:尽职调查,自由操作分析,专利和商标申请和咨询,准备侵权和有效性意见,以及为大型和小型企业提供技术法律咨询。Kevin 与客户共同为客户量身定制法律策略,在节约成本的前提下竭诚为客户达成商业目标。
Kevin 还协助高科技领域客户解决数据隐私问题,在动态的监管环境下提供有关《加州消费者隐私法》(CCPA),《2020 年加州隐私权法》(CPRA),《通用数据保护条例》(GDPR),以及其他数据使用与合规问题的指导。作为具有多年实践经验的美国认证工程师,Kevin 对网络架构和计算系统的深刻理解使他在设计数据使用合同条款,进行产品评论以及制定可实际反映公司如何收集、存储和使用个人数据的隐私政策方面具有独特优势。Kevin 是通过国际隐私专家协会(IAPP)认证的美国和欧洲信息隐私专家 (CIPP/US, CIPP/E) 以及注册信息隐私管理师(CIPM)。2024 年 2 月,Kevin 入选 Lawdragon 首份《全球领先网络律师500强》指南。该指南重点介绍在数据和安全、创新和灵感以及诉讼方面提供法律咨询的领先律师。
Kevin 在以下广泛的技术领域拥有为客户进行诉讼、专利申请、技术交易,产品咨询和从事工程工作的经验:
- 半导体器件设计
- 半导体制造,表征与检测
- 软件设计与测试
- 计算机架构以及嵌入式系统和固件
- 计算机图形系统
- 人机界面 (用户界面) 设计
- 数字版权管理(DRM)和密码系统
- 数据安全架构
- 电子商务和支付处理架构
- 测试与测量设备
- 医疗设备
- 触屏和触屏控制器
- 数码相机和图像处理
- 自动化机械传动系统
- 有线和无线通信设备和系统
- 车辆导航,地图和路线引导系统
- 蜂窝网定位系统
- 活性炭加工
在进入法学院之前,Kevin 曾经担任电气工程师长达八年,负责为各种应用设计集成电路,包括复印机、打印机、扫描设备,卫星和数字电缆机顶盒、可移动媒体卡接口、前视红外阵列(FLIR)传感器。Kevin 是数据加密/解密以及信息安全领域8项美国专利和4项外国专利的共同发明人。
- 美国专利号 7,194,627,名称为“数据加密和解密的方法和系统”
- 美国专利号 7,313,239,名称为“数据加密/解密密钥生成和分发的方法和系统”
- 美国专利号 7,533,273,名称为“使用描述符控制加密/解密引擎的方法和系统”
- 美国专利号 7,912,220 名称为“使用高级多流 POD 接口的系统中非 MPEG 流数据的封包”
- 美国专利号 7,925,024 名称为“数据加密/解密密钥生成和分发的方法和系统”
- 美国专利号 8,234,504,名称为“数据加密和解密的方法和系统”
- 美国专利号 8,467,534,名称为“安全访问和处理加密/解密密钥的方法和系统”
- 美国专利号 9,094,699,名称为“用于以强配对将安全密钥传送到目标用户的系统和方法”
- 欧洲专利号 EP1460797,名称为“安全访问和处理加密/解密密钥”
- 欧洲专利号 EP1457859,名称为“数据加密/解密设备”
- 中国专利号 CN1655495,名称为“用于以强配对将安全密钥传送到目标用户的系统和方法”
- 台湾专利号 TW I271079,名称为“用于以强配对将安全密钥传送到目标用户的系统和方法”
Kevin 是加利福尼亚州注册工程师 (P.E.) 。Kevin 在电气工程和软件开发领域的经验使得他对知识产权问题的事实情况以及客户面临的商业目标和挑战具有更深刻的理解。凭借该经验,他可以与客户合作制定符合客户情况的法律策略,从而以经济高效的方式实现客户的业务目标。
Kevin 积极投身于公益法律援助,并且担任博钦圣地亚哥办公室公益法律援助委员会主席。他获得 2017 年博钦公益法律援助领袖合伙人奖,该奖项每年授予一位博钦的合伙人。Kevin 还曾获得美国专利商标局(USPTO)颁发的 2017 年公益法律援助成就证书。2017 年全美共有 85 人获此殊荣,该证书是给予为资金困难的发明家和小型企业提供 USPTO 专利援助计划并协助其准备和申请专利的专业人士的认可。他还是加州律师艺术协会圣地亚哥指导委员会的成员,加州发明家援助计划(CIAP)的行政官,该项目是美国专利商标局在加州设立的为资金困难的独立发明人和小企业提供专利申请服务的法律援助项目。他还是 CIAP 咨询委员会成员,以及加州律师艺术协会办公室联络人。Kevin 是圣地亚哥志愿者律师计划(SDVLP)的董事会成员,该计划为圣地亚哥贫困和弱势群体提供免费的民事法律服务。Kevin 为 SDVLP 推荐客户有关拒绝提供社会保障与残疾福利的多个案件进行成功申诉。行政法官最终在每宗案件的听证会后均认定客户属于残障人士并有权获得福利。
Externships 法院实习
美国伊利诺伊州北区联邦地区法院,Amy St. Eve大法官,2006 年 9 月至 2007 年 4 月
重点领域
行业领域
服务
教育与证书
教育
- 美国西北大学普利兹克法学院, J.D., 优等生, 《国际法与商业杂志》,执行编辑, 2007
- 康奈尔大学, M.Eng., 电子工程, 1996
- 康奈尔大学, B.S., 电子工程, 1995
律师和法庭招生
-
美国加利福尼亚州
-
美国伊利诺伊州
-
美国华盛顿哥伦比亚特区
-
美国明尼苏达州
-
美国新泽西州
-
美国纽约州
-
美国专利商标局
-
美国联邦巡回上诉法院
- 美国联邦第九巡回上诉法院
- 美国加利福尼亚州东区联邦地区法院
- 美国加利福尼亚州中区联邦地区法院
- 美国加利福尼亚州北区联邦地区法院
- 美国加利福尼亚州南区联邦地区法院
- 美国伊利诺伊州北区联邦地区法院
- 美国新泽西州联邦地区法院
- 美国纽约州南区联邦地区法院
- 美国德克萨斯州东区联邦地区法院
- 美国德克萨斯州北区联邦地区法院
相关就业
- 法律工作经验
- Brinks Hofer Gilson & Lione, P.C., 伊利诺伊州芝加哥,律师, 2007 - 2010
- Brinks Hofer Gilson & Lione, P.C., 伊利诺伊州芝加哥,法律职员,2006
- Applied Micro Circuits Corporation, 加州圣地亚哥,法律职员,2006
- McAndrews, Held & Malloy, Ltd., 伊利诺伊州芝加哥,法律职员,2005
- 非法律工作经验
- 博通公司,加州圣地亚哥,高级设计工程师, 2001 - 2004
- Netgear Incorporated, 加州圣地亚哥,系统架构 / 印刷电路板设计师,2000 - 2001
- Hewlett-Packard Corporation,加州圣地亚哥,ASIC 设计工程师,1997 - 2000
- 德州仪器,德克萨斯州达拉斯,设计工程师,1996 - 1997
专业认可
在 Patexia 发布的 《专利诉讼情报报告》(Patent Litigation Intelligence Report)中被评为领军人物,2021
在 2020 年度 Patexia 观察 ITC 情报报告中,位列 2014 - 2019 最佳 ITC 律师综合排名第二(代表申诉方或应诉方)
在 2020 年度 Patexia 观察 ITC 情报报告中,位列 2014 - 2019 代表申诉方于 PTAB 应诉百强律师(所有IPR律师前 2%)
通过国际隐私专家协会(IAPP)认证的美国信息隐私专家(CIPP / US)
国际隐私专业人员协会(IAPP)注册信息隐私管理师(CIPM)
荣获 Wiley W. Manuel 法律援助服务奖
获得 2017 年度专利法律援助成就证书
入选圣地亚哥超级律师榜单,Rising Stars,2015
入选伊利诺伊超级律师榜单,Rising Stars,2009
影响
专业领导力
- 美国律师协会,会员
- 美国知识产权法协会,会员
- 知识产权所有者协会,会员
- ITC 出庭律师协会,会员
- 电气与电子工程师学会,会员
- PTAB 律师协会,会员
- 圣地亚哥知识产权法协会,会员
- 国际隐私权专业协会,会员
公司发展
News
代理经验
ITC Section 337 Actions
Certain Portable Battery Jump Starters and Components Thereof (III), U.S. International Trade Commission Investigation No. 337-TA-1360
Lead trial counsel for respondents Shenzhen Carku Technology Co., Ltd., Aukey Technology Co., Ltd., Metasee LLC, Ace Farmer LLC, Hulkman LLC, and two others, in an investigation before Administrative Law Judge Bryan F. Moore concerning portable vehicle jump-start devices and allegations of trade dress infringement, false designation of origin, false advertising, and unfair competition; initial determination of no violation of Section 337 after evidentiary hearing; pending.
Certain Portable Battery Jump Starters and Components Thereof (II), U.S. International Trade Commission Investigation No. 337-TA-1359
Lead trial counsel for respondents Shenzhen Carku Technology Co., Ltd., Aukey Technology Co., Ltd., Shenzhen Gooloo E-Commerce Co., Ltd., Hulkman LLC, Metasee LLC, Ace Farmer LLC, and five others in a six-patent case before Administrative Law Judge Monica Bhattacharyya concerning portable vehicle jump-start devices; complainant dropped two patents after expert discovery; initial determination of no violation of Section 337 after evidentiary hearing based on noninfringement and invalidity of all claims; pending.
Certain Capacitive Touch Sensing Systems, Capacitive Touch Sensing Controllers, Microcontrollers with Capacitive Touch Sensing Functionality, and Components Thereof, U.S. International Trade Commission Investigation No. 337-TA-1268
Counsel for respondents STMicroelectronics, Inc., STMicroelectronics (North America) Holdings, Inc., and STMicroelectronics NV, in a four-patent case before Administrative Law Judge Clark S. Cheney concerning capacitive touch sensing devices; settled favorably prior to the hearing.
Certain Portable Battery Jump Starters and Components Thereof, U.S. International Trade Commission Investigation No. 337-TA-1256
Lead trial counsel for respondents Shenzhen Carku Technology Co., Ltd., 70mai Co., Ltd., Antigravity Batteries LLC, Gooloo Technologies LLC, Great Neck Saw Manufacturers, Inc., Horizon Tool, Inc., Matco Tools Corporation, Nekteck, Inc., Paris Corporation, PowerMax Battery (U.S.A.), Inc., and Shenzhen Gooloo E-Commerce Co., Ltd., in a two-patent case before Administrative Law Judge David P. Shaw concerning portable vehicle jump-start devices; complainant dropped one patent after an IPR final written decision invalidating nearly all claims; initial determination of no violation of Section 337 after evidentiary hearing due to noninfringement and no technical domestic industry; the commission affirmed the initial determination of no violation, terminating the investigation in favor of respondents.
Certain Polycrystalline Diamond Compacts and Articles Containing Same, U.S. International Trade Commission Investigation No. 337-TA-1236
Counsel for respondents Element Six Abrasives Holdings, Ltd., Element Six Global Innovation Centre, Element Six GmbH, Element Six Hard Materials (Wuxi) Co., Ltd., Element Six Limited, Element Six Production (Pty) Limited, Element Six Technologies U.S. Corporation, Element Six Trading (Shanghai) Co. Limited, and Element Six U.S. Corporation in a five-patent case before Administrative Law Judge Elliot concerning polycrystalline diamond compacts (PDCs) for drilling applications; settled favorably prior to the hearing.
Certain Digital Video-Capable Devices and Components Thereof, U.S. International Trade Commission Investigation No. 337-TA-1224
Counsel for respondents TCL Electronics Holdings Ltd. f/k/a TCL Multimedia Technology Holdings Ltd., TCL Industries Holdings Co., Ltd., TCL King Electrical Appliances (Huizhou) Company Ltd., TCL MOKA International Ltd., TCL Moka Manufacturing, SA de CV, TCL Smart Device (Vietnam) Company, Ltd., and TTE Technology, Inc. in a four-patent case before Administrative Law Judge Cameron Elliot concerning alleged secure authenticated distance measurement in television devices; initial determination of no violation of Section 337 after evidentiary hearing; the commission affirmed the initial determination of no violation, terminating the investigation in favor of TCL.
Certain Portable Gaming Console Systems with Attachable Handheld Controllers and Components Thereof II, U.S. International Trade Commission Investigation No. 337-TA-1197
Counsel for respondents Nintendo Co., Ltd. and Nintendo of America Inc. in a one-patent case before Administrative Law Judge Shaw concerning game console systems; initial determination of no violation of Section 337 after evidentiary hearing; the commission affirmed the initial determination of no violation, terminating the investigation in favor of Nintendo; appeal to the Federal Circuit voluntarily dismissed by Gamevice, terminating the appeal.
In the Matter of Certain Movable Barrier Operator Systems and Components Thereof, U.S. International Trade Commission Investigation No. 337-TA-1118
Counsel for respondents Nortek Security & Control LLC f/k/a Linear, LLC, Nortek, Inc., and GTO Access Systems, LLC in a three-patent case before Administrative Law Judge MaryJoan McNamara concerning garage door and gate openers; pending.
In the Matter of Certain Portable Gaming Console Systems with Attachable Handheld Controllers and Components Thereof, U.S. International Trade Commission Investigation No. 337-TA-1111
Counsel for respondents Nintendo Co., Ltd. and Nintendo of America Inc. in a two-patent case before Administrative Law Judge Cheney (later reassigned Administrative Law Judge David Shaw) concerning game console systems; after a favorable claim construction order, an unopposed motion of summary determination of non-infringement was granted, resulting in an initial determination of no violation of Section 337; the commission affirmed the initial determination of no violation, terminating the investigation in favor of Nintendo; summary affirmance at the Federal Circuit.
In the Matter of Certain Multi-Domain Test and Measurement Instruments, U.S. International Trade Commission Investigation No. 337-TA-1104
Counsel for complainant Tektronix, Inc. in a two-patent case before Administrative Law Judge Cheney concerning multi-domain test and measurement instruments; terminated after consent order stipulation by respondents agreeing not to import products at issue.
In the Matter of Certain Touchscreen Controllers and Products Containing Same, U.S. International Trade Commission Investigation No. 337-TA-957
Counsel for respondents Shenzhen Goodix Technology Co., Ltd. (f.k.a. Shenzhen Huiding Technology Co., Ltd., d.b.a. Goodix) and Goodix Technology Inc. in a four-patent investigation before Administrative Law Judge Essex (later transferred to Administrative Law Judge McNamara) concerning touchscreen controllers used in smartphones; settled after the hearing. At the time of the hearing the Office of Unfair Import Investigations recommended a finding of no violation. Participated in filing of nine IPR petitions during the pendency of the investigation challenging the asserted patents, five of which were instituted and four pending at the time of settlement.
In the Matter of Certain Audio Processing Hardware and Software and Products Containing Same, U.S. International Trade Commission Investigation No. 337-TA-949
Counsel for non-parties Fortress Investment Group LLC and AND34 Funding LLC in a five-patent investigation before Administrative Law Judge Pender concerning processing audio signals to avoid interference in tablets, desktops, and laptops; the commission selected the investigation for the second ever 100-Day pilot program to determine within 100 days whether complainant has standing to sue or if the investigation should be immediately terminated for failure to include Fortress Investment Group LLC or AND34 Funding LLC as additional complainants; the administrative law judge found that complainant has standing to sue, and the commission denied respondents’ motion for oral argument and determined not to review the administrative law judge’s initial determination; settled by the parties before the hearing.
In the Matter of Certain Point-To-Point Network Communication Devices and Products Containing Same, U.S. International Trade Commission Investigation No. 337-TA-892
Counsel for respondents AmTRAN Technology Co., Ltd. and AmTRAN Logistics, Inc. in a three-patent investigation before Administrative Law Judge Shaw concerning smart televisions, blu-ray players and other devices and software involved in point-to-point communications and content delivery networks; complainant Straight Path IP Group, Inc. sought to terminate the investigation days before the hearing and the parties subsequently settled.
In the Matter of Certain Electronic Imaging Devices, U.S. International Trade Commission Investigation No. 337-TA-850
Counsel for respondents HTC Corporation and HTC America Inc. in a four-patent investigation before Administrative Law Judge Essex concerning camera functionality, messaging, and image processing systems in smartphones; prior to the hearing one-patent was dismissed; obtained final determination finding non-infringement, and none of the domestic industry licensees practiced two of the remaining three asserted patent. Complainant FlashPoint Technology, Inc. did not appeal the final determination.
In the Matter of Certain Consumer Electronics and Display Devices and Products Containing Same, U.S. International Trade Commission Investigation No. 337-TA-836
U.S. International Trade Commission
Counsel for respondents HTC Corporation and HTC America Inc. in a four-patent investigation before Administrative Law Judge Essex concerning CPU architecture, floating point rasterization and framebuffering, and large area wide aspect ratio flat panel technologies; settled favorably prior to the hearing.
In the Matter of Certain Portable Electronic Devices and Related Software, U.S. International Trade Commission Investigation No. 337-TA-797
Counsel for Respondents HTC Corporation and HTC America Inc. in an investigation before before Administrative Law Judge James Gildea concerning smartphones; settled favorably after the hearing.
In the Matter of Certain Electronic Imaging Devices, U.S. International Trade Commission Investigation No. 337-TA-726
U.S. International Trade Commission
Counsel for respondents HTC Corporation and HTC America Inc. in a three-patent case investigation before Chief Administrative Law Judge Paul Luckern concerning camera functionality in smartphones; win at trial and initial ID finding non-infringement, invalidity based on-sale bar, and none of the domestic industry licensees practiced the asserted patents; commission reviewed the ID, affirmed the findings on petition and also found HTC had an implied license to practice the asserted patents for its Windows-based products; Other respondents Nokia and RIM settled shortly before trial and LG settled after trial and before the initial determination; summary affirmance at the Federal Circuit.
In the Matter of Certain Automotive Multimedia Display and Navigation Systems, Components Thereof, and Products Containing Same, U.S. International Trade Commission Investigation No. 337-TA-657*
Counsel for respondents Alpine Electronics Inc. and Alpine Electronics of America, Inc. in a six-patent investigation concerning global positioning systems and vehicle navigation systems; settled favorably prior to the hearing.
U.S. District Court Litigation
ValveTech, Inc. v. Aerojet Rocketdyne, Inc.
U.S. District Court for the Western District of New York
Counsel for ValveTech, Inc. in a lawsuit before Chief Judge Frank P. Geraci, Jr. alleging breach of contract, trade secret misappropriation, and unfair competition; following a ten-day trial, a federal jury found that Aerojet Rocketdyne breached two nondisclosure agreements with ValveTech, and improperly retained, used, and disclosed proprietary information for spacecraft thruster valve designs provided by ValveTech, for the Starliner spacecraft, in direct contravention of the explicit terms of both agreements..
Neodron Ltd. v. STMicroelectronics, Inc. et al
U.S. District Court for the Western District of Texas
Counsel for respondents STMicroelectronics, Inc., STMicroelectronics (North America) Holdings, Inc., and STMicroelectronics NV, in a four-patent case before Judge Alan D. Albright concerning capacitive touch sensing devices; settled favorably.
Koninklijke Philips NV et al v. TTE Technology, Inc. d/b/a TCL USA et al
U.S. District Court for the Central District of California
Counsel for TTE Technology, Inc., TCL King Electrical Appliances Huizhou Co. Ltd., TCL Moka Intl Ltd., TCL Industries Holdings Co., Ltd., Shenzhen TCL New Technology Co., Ltd, TCL Smart Device (Vietnam) Co LTD, TCL Electronics Holdings Ltd., TCL Moka Manufacturing, S.A. de C.V. in a three-patent case before Judge Cormac J. Carney concerning alleged secure authenticated distance measurement in television devices and LCD backlights; pending.
Carnegie Institution of Washington et al v. Pure Grown Diamonds, Inc. et al
U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York
Counsel for Carnegie Institution of Washington and M7D Corporation in a two-patent case before Judge Jed S. Rakoff concerning diamond manufacturing; settled favorably.
Wi-LAN Inc. et al v. Huizhou TCL Mobile Communication Co. Ltd. et al
U.S. District Court for the Central District of California
Counsel for Huizhou TCL Mobile Communication Co. Ltd., TCL Mobile Communication (HK) Co., Ltd., TCT Mobile (US) Inc., and TCT Mobile, Inc. in a three-patent case before Judge James V. Selna concerning alleged wireless communication device technologies; pending.
Tektronix, Inc. v. Rohde & Schwarz USA, Inc., Rohde & Schwarz GmbH & Co. KG, and Rohde & Schwarz Vertriebs GmbH
U.S. District Court for the District of Oregon
Counsel for Tektronix in a two-patent case before Judge Marco A. Hernandez concerning multi-domain test and measurement instruments; terminated after termination of parallel ITC investigation.
The Chamberlain Group, Inc. v. Nortek Security & Control LLC
U.S. District Court for the Southern District of California
Counsel for Nortek Security & Control LLC f/k/a Linear, LLC in a three-patent case before Judge Janis L. Sammartino and Magistrate Judge Andrew G. Schopler concerning garage door and gate openers; pending.
Lund Motion Products, Inc. v. T-Max (Hangzhou) Technology Co., Ltd., T-Max (Qingdao) Industrial Co., Ltd., T-Max (Qingdao) International Trading Co., Ltd., and T-Max Industrial (Hk) Co., Ltd.
U.S. District Court for the Central District of California
Counsel for T-Max in a three-patent and one-copyright case before Judge Cormac J. Carney and Magistrate Judge Jean P. Rosenbluth concerning retractable vehicle step automotive accessories; dismissed as a result of settlement.
Central Garden & Pet Company v. Shenzhen Liown Electronics Co., Ltd.
U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois
Counsel for Shenzhen Liown Electronics in a contract dispute before Judge Gary Feinerman and Magistrate Judge Susan E. Cox; dismissed as a result of settlement.
Oy Ajat Ltd. v. Genoray Co. Ltd. and Genoray America, Inc.
U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Florida
Counsel for Genoray in a three-patent case before Judge Roy B. Dalton, Jr. and Magistrate Judge David A. Baker concerning power supply and image processing for dental x-ray imaging applications; dismissed as a result of settlement.
TracBeam, LLC v. T-Mobile US, Inc.
U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Texas
Counsel for T-Mobile US, Inc., T-Mobile USA, Inc. and intervenor defendant TeleCommunication Systems, Inc. in a four-patent case before Judge Schroeder concerning locating devices in a communications network; settled favorably a few weeks before trial.
Vehicle IP LLC v. AT&T Mobility LLC
U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware
Counsel for Cellco Partnership (doing business as Verizon Wireless Inc.), TeleCommunication Systems, Inc. and Networks In Motion, Inc. in a one-patent case before Judge Stark concerning systems for determining estimated times of arrival of vehicles; stipulated entry of final judgment of noninfringement after favorable claim construction order shortly before trial; the Federal Circuit affirmed the district court’s construction; the parties filed a stipulated entry of final judgment based on noninfringement, ending the case.
CallWave Communication LLC v. Verizon Services Corp. et al.
U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware
Counsel for Verizon in a five-patent case before Judge Richard G. Andrews concerning location determination services; Judge Andrews granted a motion invalidating the asserted patent under Section 101; claims relating to asserted patent dismissed as a result of settlement.
IP Cube Partners Co., Ltd. v. Telecommunication Systems, Inc.
U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York
Counsel for TeleCommunication Systems Inc. in an IP asset sale contractual dispute before Judge Laura Taylor Swain and Magistrate Judge Ronald L. Ellis; case dismissed due to settlement after motion to dismiss fraud and negligent misrepresentation counts was granted.
Koninklijke Philips N.V. and U.S. Philips Corporation v. HTC Corporation and HTC America, Inc.
U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware
U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California
Counsel for HTC in a 11-patent case before Judge Sleet involving user interfaces, audio processing and streaming, data compression, and device data entry; case transferred to the Northern District of California; pending.
Chrimar Systems, Inc. D/B/A CMS Technologies and Chrimar Holding Company, LLC v. Alpha Networks Inc.
U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Texas
Counsel for Alpha Networks Inc. in a four-patent case before Judge James Rodney Gilstrap concerning networking equipment; dismissed as a result of settlement.
Nonend Inventions, N.V. v. Amazon, Inc. and Amazon.Com LLC
U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Texas
Counsel for Amazon, Inc. and Amazon.com LLC in a one-patent case before Judge Gilstrap concerning streaming media content and media playback; dismissed as a result of settlement.
Nonend Inventions, N.V. v. Fujitsu America, Inc., and Fujitsu Limited
U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Texas
Counsel for Fujitsu America, Inc. and Fujitsu Limited in a three-patent case before Judge Gilstrap concerning streaming media content and media playback; dismissed as a result of settlement.
Nonend Inventions, N.V. v. Hewlett-Packard Company
U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Texas
Counsel for Hewlett-Packard Company in a three-patent case before Judge Gilstrap concerning streaming media content and media playback; dismissed as a result of settlement.
Nonend Inventions, N.V. v. HTC America, Inc.
U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Texas
Counsel for HTC America, Inc. in a one-patent case before Judge Gilstrap concerning streaming media content and media playback; dismissed as a result of settlement.
Nonend Inventions, N.V. v. Microsoft Corporation
U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Texas
Counsel for Microsoft Corporation in a three-patent case before Judge Gilstrap concerning streaming media content and media playback; dismissed as a result of settlement.
Nonend Inventions, N.V. v. Panasonic Corp. and Panasonic Corp. of North America
U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Texas
Counsel for Panasonic Corporation and Panasonic Corporation of North America in a three-patent case before Judge Gilstrap concerning streaming media content and media playback; dismissed as a result of settlement.
Largan Precision Co., LTD. v. Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd, et al.
U.S. District Court for the Southern District of California
Counsel for Largan Precision in a six-patent case before Judge Sabraw concerning optical lenses in smartphones, tablets, and other products; case terminated via settlement eight days before trial.
Rothschild Storage Retrieval Innovations, LLC v. HTC Corporation and HTC America, Inc.
U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida
U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California
Counsel for HTC in a one-patent case before Magistrate Judge Laporte concerning camera, image filtering, and image transmission functionality in smartphones; case transferred to the Northern District of California; stayed during the pendency of an inter partes review trial involving the asserted patent; the parties jointly moved for entry of a stipulated order of dismissal of all claims with prejudice; the order was granted, terminating the litigation.
Qurio Holdings, Inc. V. DirecTV, LLC
U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois
U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California
Counsel for DirecTV in a three-patent case before Judge Lee concerning gateways and control of media players over a wireless network; case transferred to the Northern District of California and before Judge Gilliam; filed three inter partes review petitions against the asserted patents; stayed during the pendency of the inter partes review proceedings; Qurio cancelled all claims for which an inter partes review trial was instituted; a joint stipulation of dismissal resulted in termination of the case.
TransVideo Electronics, Ltd. v. Hulu, LLC
U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware
Counsel for Hulu in a two-patent litigation before Judge Stark relating to video distribution systems; initiated an early claim construction proceeding on a case dispositive term; after obtaining a favorable claim construction ruling for Hulu, the parties jointly moved for entry of a stipulated order of dismissal of all claims with prejudice; the order was granted, terminating the litigation.
TransVideo Electronics, Ltd. v. Netflix, Inc.
U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware
Counsel for Netflix in a two-patent litigation before Judge Stark relating to video distribution systems; initiated an early claim construction proceeding on a case dispositive term; after obtaining a favorable claim construction ruling for Netflix, the parties jointly moved for entry of a stipulated order of dismissal of all claims with prejudice; the order was granted, terminating the litigation.
e-Watch, Inc. and e-Watch Corporation v. HTC Corporation and HTC America, Inc.
U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Texas
Counsel for HTC in a two-patent case before Judge Gilstrap concerning capture and transmission of digital images; filed two inter partes review petitions against the asserted patents, and two inter partes review trials were instituted; stayed during the pendency of the inter partes review trials; the parties jointly moved for entry of a stipulated order of dismissal of all claims with prejudice; the order was granted, terminating the litigation.
E.Digital, Inc. v. Transcend Information Inc.
Counsel for Transcend in a one-patent case before Judge Huff concerning flash memory devices; dismissed as a result of settlement.
Monolithic Power Systems, Inc. v. Silergy Corporation, Compal Electronics, et al.
U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California
Counsel for Monolithic Power Systems in three-patent infringement and breach of contract litigation concerning power integrated circuits; settled favorably.
FlashPoint Technology, Inc. v. HTC Corporation and HTC America, Inc.
U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina
U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware
Counsel for HTC in a six-patent case before Judge Sleet concerning camera, file system, and graphics processing functionality in smartphones; case transferred to the District of Delaware; filed five inter partes review petitions against the asserted patents, and five inter partes review trials were instituted; dismissed as a result of settlement.
Wireless Mobile Devices LLC v. HTC Corporation and HTC America, Inc.
U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Texas
Counsel for HTC in a six-patent case before Judge David C. Godbey concerning navigation devices, and synchronization of data over a network; filed six inter partes review petitions against the asserted patents; dismissed as a result of settlement before institution of inter partes review petitions.
Graphics Properties Holdings Inc. v. ASUSTeK Computer Inc. and ASUS Computer International, et al.
U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware
Counsel for ASUS in two cases before Judge Leonard Stark concerning five-patents involving floating point rasterization and framebuffering, removable backlighting in flat panel displays and large area wide aspect ratio flat panel technologies; dismissed as a result of settlement.
Graphics Properties Holdings Inc. v. HTC Corporation, HTC America, Inc., et al.
U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware
Counsel for HTC in two cases before Judge Richard G. Andrews concerning four-patents involving CPU architecture, floating point rasterization and framebuffering, and large area wide aspect ratio flat panel technologies; stayed pending collateral U.S. ITC proceeding (Inv. No. 337-TA-836); dismissed as a result of settlement.
StylePath, Inc. v. Just Fabulous, Inc.
U.S. District Court for the Central District of California
Counsel for Just Fabulous in patent litigation before Judge Philip S. Gutierrez related to e-commerce websites, online marketing and product selection; dismissed as a result of settlement.
MyPort IP Inc. v. HTC Corporation and HTC America, Inc., et al.
U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Texas
Counsel for HTC in a two-patent case before Judge Leonard Davis concerning techniques for embedding searchable information in a file for transmission, storage, and retrieval; prepared and filed inter partes reexamination requests that were subsequently granted and as a result obtained a stay of the case just weeks before claim construction hearing; stayed during pendency of proceedings before the USPTO; the PTAB affirmed the examiner’s rejection of all claims of both asserted patents.
FlashPoint Technology Inc. v. Aiptek Inc., et al.
U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware
Counsel for HTC in a 10-patent case before Judge Gregory Sleet concerning camera user interface functionality in smartphones; obtained a stay of the entire case after Judge Sleet lifted previous stay due to completion of reexaminations, in light of FlashPoint’s filing of a complaint asserting four of the 10 patents before the U.S. International Trade Commission (Inv. No. 337-TA-850); dismissed as a result of settlement.
Datascape, Inc. v. Kyocera Wireless Corp.
U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Georgia
Counsel for Kyocera in a six-patent case before Judge Clarence Cooper relating to data transaction systems which communicate over a network with a plurality of non-standard I/O remote terminals. Datascape accused Kyocera cellular handsets and smartphones of infringement; settled favorably before trial.
Pro Bono Litigation
Social Security Administration Disability Appeal
Social Security Administration Office of Disability Adjudication and Review
Lead counsel for a pro bono client in a disability insurance benefits claim and appeal of a denial of benefits. The client was referred through the San Diego Volunteer Lawyer Program HIV/AIDS Legal Services Project. Represented the client at hearing in San Diego, California before Administrative Law Judge William K. Mueller. The client was granted disability benefits based on a finding of disability by the administrative law judge.
Social Security Administration Disability Appeal
Social Security Administration Office of Disability Adjudication and Review
Lead counsel for a pro bono client in an appeal of a cessation of disability insurance benefits. The client, a Navy veteran, was referred through the San Diego Volunteer Lawyer Program. Represented the client at hearing in San Diego, California before Administrative Law Judge Peter J. Valentino. The client’s disability benefits were reinstated based on a finding of disability by the administrative law judge.