RESULTS: We vindicate wrongs against our clients, as plaintiff or defendant.



Plaintiff Trial Win Over Samsung
A trial win and an award of treble damages and attorneys fees.

 

Sherman, Texas jury unanimously found that Samsung willfully infringed two of our client Imperium IP Holdings’s patents related to digital camera technology, awarding $7 million. Trial lasted 7 days for the jury of three women and five men. The Court subsequently awarded Imperium $21 million via treble damages (the Eastern District of Texas’ first application of the Supreme Court’s Halo decision). The Court also establish a running royalty going forward. For many on our team, this victory over the world’s largest electronics company was their fifth Eastern District of Texas trial victory.
 
Read the treble damages order


Defense Trial Win for Gap Inc.
A Marshall, Texas jury returned our verdict after 75 minutes of deliberations (which included lunch).

 

The jury found no infringement of 49 million Gap gift card transactions, and rejected the plaintiff’s request of $34.5 million in damages. Prior to deliberating, the jury of two women and five men heard testimony from six expert witnesses and six live fact witnesses over six days. For many on our team, this victory for one of the world’s largest clothing retailers was their fourth defense jury verdict in Marshall, Texas.
 
Read the jury verdict


Defense Trial Win for Barnes & Noble
Texas jury returns a verdict of no infringement of a patent that the plaintiff had licensed to 38 other companies.

 

The plaintiff sought $72 million at trial. The jury of six women and one man heard five days of testimony before rendering a unanimous verdict in our favor. For many on our team, this was their third defense jury verdict in Marshall, Texas.
 
Read the jury verdict

Federal Circuit Win for Amazon in Appistry I
Protecting our Rule 12 lower court win.

 

In a 3-0 decision, the Federal Circuit affirmed our lower court victory for client Amazon.com invalidating the asserted claims of two patents under 35 U.S.C. §101. The Federal Circuit’s per curiam decision came less than 48 hours after oral argument. This case, known as Appistry I, was the first of two separate cases brought by Appistry Inc. In the lower court decision, Chief Judge Marsha Pechman of the Western District of Washington concluded that the claims "do no more than simply instruct the practitioner to implement the abstract idea of distributed processing akin to command and control on generic computers, connected through generic networks."
 
Read the opinion


Federal Circuit Win for Amazon in Appistry II
Protecting our Rule 12 lower court win.

 

The Federal Circuit also affirmed our lower court victory for client Amazon.com invalidating two additional patents asserted by Appistry Inc. under 35 U.S.C. §101. In a separate 3-0 per curiam decision, the Federal Circuit affirmed the win we achieved before Judge Richard Jones of the Western District of Washington in the case known as Appistry II. Judge Jones had found that the patents "state the abstract idea – distributed processing through a hierarchical, military-like command structure" and apply it to a computer. This affirmance brings the total number of Appistry patents we have invalidated to four.
 
Read the opinion


Federal Circuit Win for Papst Licensing
Reversing a summary judgment loss by different team.

 

In the first Federal Circuit opinion to address the Supreme Court’s Teva v. Sandoz decision, the Federal Circuit issued a 3-0 decision in our favor overturning all five of the district court’s claim constructions. Our team entered the case after the district court granted summary judgment for defendants Fujifilm, Hewlett-Packard, JVC, Nikon, Olympus, Panasonic, and Samsung Techwin. The Federal Circuit decision vacated the lower court’s summary judgment findings, remanded the case to the district court, and awarded costs. According to Westlaw, this decision has been cited over 350 times.
 
Read the opinion


Federal Circuit Win for Gap Inc.
Protecting our trial win.

 

At the district court we obtained a jury verdict of no infringement for our client Gap Inc. in a case brought by Alexsam. But, a jury finding of validity remained, and we appealed that finding. In a 3-0 decision, the Federal Circuit reversed the jury finding, resulting in a clean-sweep victory in which all asserted claims of both asserted patents were found invalid. The Federal Circuit’s 22-page opinion adopted our position that evidence we presented at trial showed an invalidating prior art system.
 
Read the opinion


Federal Circuit Win for Blackhawk Network
Reversing a jury verdict.

 

The Federal Circuit returned a 3-0 decision in our favor overturning the district court’s claim construction. As a result of the completeness of our briefing and oral advocacy, the panel stated that it did not need to hear our rebuttal argument to render its opinion. As a result of the Federal Circuit decision, Blackhawk Network achieved a complete victory.
 
Read the opinion


Federal Circuit Win for Pier 1 Imports
Protecting our trial win.

 

Less than 48 hours after oral argument, the Federal Circuit issued a 3-0 decision in our favor. The panel uncharacteristically extended oral argument by over fifteen minutes to explore fully all of the substantive contours. The victory preserved our team’s earlier defense win of no infringement rendered by a jury in Marshall, Texas.
 
Read the opinion

Zero-Dollar Dismissal for Juniper Networks
What did our client pay the plaintiff for the cessation of hostilities? Nothing.

 

Curiously named Longhorn HD has been a high volume patent case filer in the Marshall Division of the Eastern District of Texas for years, corralling many licenses and settlements as a result. But when they sued our client Juniper Networks, the results were different. This wasn’t Juniper’s or our first rodeo, and together we developed and executed our own bulldogger approach. As a result, Longhorn dismissed the case just 79 days after it first fired out of the chute with its complaint, and just days before we filed our planned response to the complaint.
 
Learn more


Another Zero-Dollar Dismissal for Juniper Networks
What did our client pay the plaintiff for the cessation of hostilities? Nothing.

 

It takes 50 days for a pumpkin to grow from flowering to full maturity. That’s also how long it took for us to carve out a zero dollar dismissal for Juniper Networks in a patent infringement case brought by Wireless Transport. This smashing success resulted from our unique and aggressive approach. Wireless Transport voluntary dismissed the case, which was pending in the Eastern District of Texas, Tyler Division.
 
Learn more


And Another Zero-Dollar Dismissal for Juniper Networks
What did our client pay the plaintiff for the cessation of hostilities? Nothing.

 

Beck Branch was an active NPE well before initiating litigation against our client Juniper Networks, Indeed, Beck Branch had previously sued AT&T, Cisco, Microsoft, Samsung, and nearly a dozen others — resulting in licenses and settlements. Juniper wanted none of that, and we began on our own approach to resolution. This approach resulted in the dismissal of the case by Beck Branch only 48 days after serving the complaint.
 
Learn more


Zero-Dollar Dismissal for Amazon.com
What did our client pay the plaintiff for the cessation of hostilities? Nothing.

 

All five other cloud-computing provider defendants in our consolidated case settled early in the proceedings. But our client chose a different path. And Kaavo Inc. dismissed its case against Amazon.com after our steadfast approach garnered a stay pending a Patent Office reexamination of all 10 asserted claims, and we leveraged a motion for costs in a related case brought by Kaavo against Amazon on another patent.
 
Learn more


Yes, any yet another Zero-Dollar Dismissal for Juniper Networks
What did our client pay the plaintiff for the cessation of hostilities? Nothing.

 

After a year of litigation, patent assertion entity Marshall Feature Recognition terminated its fight with our client, Juniper Networks. Marshall Feature Recognition had asserted two patents relating to quick response codes, or QR-Codes, against Juniper in the Eastern District of Texas, Marshall Division. Marshall Feature Recognition sued 40 other defendants, including Alcoa, General Electric, Northrup Grumman and Proctor & Gamble, with many of those cases ending in license agreements.
 
Learn more


And once more, another Zero-Dollar Dismissal for Juniper Networks
What did our client pay the plaintiff for the cessation of hostilities? Nothing.

 

Just 40 days after service, Consolidated Work Station Computing dismissed its case against our client Juniper Networks. The dismissal followed our early motion to dismiss and transfer. The plaintiff had licensed its fault-tolerant power supply patent to Dell, IBM, NEC, and over a dozen other prior defendants.
 
Learn more


Zero-Dollar Dismissal for J.C. Penney, The Home Depot, Toys R Us
What did our clients pay the plaintiff for the cessation of hostilities? Nothing.

 

Our clients were sued by a plaintiff that had amassed $50+ million in trial verdicts and settlements. The plaintiff now sought $250+ million. After our vigorous defense, the plaintiff accepted the futility of trying the case against us, and voluntarily dismissed the case six days before trial.
 
Learn more


Another Zero-Dollar Dismissal for Amazon.com
What did our client pay the plaintiff for the cessation of hostilities? Nothing.

 

After 28 executed licenses and 11 settlements with co-defendants, Beneficial Innovations dismissed its case against our client Amazon.com less than 300 hours before trial. Our preparation of Amazon’s defense case to be tried before a jury in Marshall, Texas made all the difference.
 
Learn more


Zero-Dollar Dismissal for Marriott-Branded Hotels
What did our clients pay the plaintiff for the cessation of hostilities? Nothing.

 

Despite 80 other hotels and restaurants having taken a license from Innovatio to settle cases pending in federal court in Chicago, our clients, four Marriott-affiliated hotels, stood resolute. Their patience and hardihood resulted in the plaintiff unilaterally dismissing their filed case.
 
Learn more
Summary Judgment Victory Under §101 for Amazon.com Against Kaavo, Inc. in the District of Delaware
An early exit.

 

The consensus was clear after the Federal Circuit’s Berkheimer and Aatrix decisions: it would now be well-nigh impossible to win a pre-trial judgment of unpatentability, especially in the face of expert witness testimony. We’re always happy to prove the pundits wrong. Chief Judge Leonard Stark granted our motion for summary judgment that all 15 of the dependent claims asserted by Kaavo are unpatentable. He also denied Kaavo’s motion for reconsideration of the Court’s prior order granting our motion for judgment that the five independent claims asserted are unpatentable. And we achieved these results despite Kaavo submitting 171 pages of expert opinion in opposition.
 
Read the opinion


Rule 12 dismissal of Samsung’s 79-paragraph complaint against Imperium in the District of Delaware
Expert declaration submitted in opposition were no match for us.

 

As a result of a jury trial win in the Eastern District of Texas, Imperium holds a judgment against Samsung of $20.9 million. In an effort to avoid this obligation, Samsung sued Imperium in the District of Delaware. Imperium moved to dismiss Samsung’s case at the pleadings stage. In granting Imperium’s motion to dismiss, Judge Mark A. Kearney, sitting by designation, wrote: "Samsung’s Delaware suit is simply an attempt at an end run" around the $20.9 million judgment, and that Samsung’s Delaware case amounted to "a waste of judicial resources."
 
Read the opinion

Rule 12 victory under §101 for Amazon.com against Appistry in the Western District of Washington
Victory in a case of first impression for the jurisdiction.

 

In a case of first impression for the Western District of Washington, Chief Judge Marsha Pechman granted our Rule 12 motion challenging plaintiff Appistry’s two patents-in-suit as directed toward unpatentable subject matter. The court’s order, invalidating all asserted claims of both asserted patents in light of the Supreme Court’s Alice decision, came exactly two weeks after oral argument before Judge Pechman.
 
Read the opinion


A Second Rule 12 victory under §101 for Amazon.com against Appistry in the Western District of Washington
Expert declarations submitted in opposition were no match for us.

 

Appistry’s second suit against Amazon.com ended much the way that Appistry’s first case against Amazon ended — with a finding of invalidity under 35 U.S.C. §101. This time it was Judge Richard A. Jones of the Western District of Washington who granted our Rule 12 motion. Judge Jones invalidated both asserted patents in light of the Supreme Court’s Alice decision.
 
Read the opinion


A Second Rule 12 victory under §101 for Amazon.com against Appistry in the Western District of Washington
A 1% victory for our client.

 

Since 2000, summary judgment of non-infringement has been granted in approximately 1% of all patent cases in the Eastern District of Texas. Our win for J.C. Penney is part of that 1%. As a result of the granting of summary judgment of non-infringement, J.C. Penney ended the challenge of EMG Technology, a plaintiff that previously licensed its patent to over 60 companies.
 
Read more