51黑料

Representative litigation matters:

• Zenith Electronics LLC, Panasonic Corp., U.S. Philips Corp. and The Trustees of Columbia University in the City of New York v. ViewSonic Corp., Curtis International Ltd. and Craig Electronics (S.D. Fla.; C.D. Cal.). Represented Columbia University Zenith, Panasonic and U.S. Philips in a series of patent litigations relating to transmission and reception of digital television signals, and the ATSC digital television standard
• Mitsubishi Electric Corp., Koninklijke Philips N.V., Thomson Licensing, GE Technology Development Inc., Panasonic Corp. and Sony Corp. v. Motorola Mobility LLC, ViewSonic Corp., Curtis International Ltd. and Craig Electronics. (S.D. Fla.; C.D. Cal.) Represented Mitsubishi, Philips, Thomson, GE Technology, Panasonic and Sony in a series of patent litigations relating to compression of digital video signals and the MPEG-2 compression standard
• Church & Dwight Co., Inc. v. Abbott Laboratories (D.N.J.) Led trial team representing Church & Dwight in a patent infringement action against Abbott Laboratories relating to over-the-counter pregnancy tests, resulting in jury verdict and a finding of willful infringement for a total award of more than $38 million
• British Telecommunications PLC et al. v. Fortinet Inc. (D.Del.) Represented British Telecom in a patent litigation relating to cybersecurity networks and systems, which included district court litigation, federal circuit appeal, and inter partes review
• British Telecommunications PLC et al. v. Palo Alto Networks (D. Del.) Represented British Telecom in a patent litigation relating to cybersecurity networks and systems, which included district court litigation, inter partes review and patent reexamination proceedings
• British Telecommunications PLC v. Google, Inc., (D. Del.) Represented British Telecommunications in a patent infringement action against Google relating to navigation, location-based services, bandwidth management, and access to personalized services and content
• Tech Mahindra (Confidential Arbitration): Represented Tech Mahindra, a global technology consulting and digital transformation company, in a confidential arbitration involving claims of trade secret misappropriation and breach of contract. Secured a substantial award valued in the tens of millions of dollars
• Confidential Pharmaceutical Arbitration. Represented biotechnology company in a confidential arbitration involving intellectual property licensed from a major research university relating to therapeutics for neurological disorders. The arbitration involved highly technical scientific issues in pharmaceuticals and molecular biology, along with substantial damages claims stemming from alleged breaches of contract and failures to achieve critical development and commercialization milestones
• Radiancy, Inc. v. Viatek Consumer Products Group, Inc. (S.D.N.Y.) Represented Radiancy in a patent and false advertising litigation concerning hair remover devices
• ADREA, LLC v. Barnes & Noble, Inc., Barnesandnoble.com, and Nook Media LLC (S.D.N.Y.) Represented ADREA in a patent litigation relating to electronic book delivery and security systems
• MobileMedia Ideas, LLC v. Blackberry (N.D. Tx.) Represented MobileMedia Ideas (MMI), a patent portfolio licensor of inventions adopted by manufacturers of mobile phones and mobile media technologies, in a high-profile patent infringement case against Blackberry
• Small v. Nobel et al. (S.D.N.Y.) Defended Henry Schein, Inc. and Camlog USA in a patent infringement lawsuit involving dental implants. Action was settled successfully after a favorable claim construction ruling.
• Inverness Medical Innovations, Inc., Inverness Medical Switzerland GmbH, and SPD Swiss Precision Diagnostics GmbH v. Church & Dwight Co., Inc. (D. Mass.) Represented Church & Dwight in a patent infringement action relating to electronic diagnostic technology
• Medsquire, LLC v. Spring Medical Systems, Inc. et al. (C.D. Cal.) Obtained dismissal, on behalf of Henry Schein, Inc., of a complaint alleging infringement of electronic medical records system sold and distributed by Henry Schein
• Portfolio Technologies, Inc. v. Church & Dwight Co., Inc. (ITC) Defended Church & Dwight’s particular prophylactic design marketed under the Trojan® brand name in the U.S. International Trade Commission (ITC); the ITC ruled in favor of Church & Dwight on a patent challenge mounted by plaintiff Portfolio Technologies, Inc., which alleged that Church & Dwight had infringed plaintiff’s patent
• Pfizer, Inc., Warner-Lambert Co. and Warner-Lambert Co, LLC v. Ajix, Inc. (d/b/a Farmacapsulas S.A.) (D. Ct.) Defended Ajix, Inc., distributor of hard gelatin capsules, against Pfizer, Inc. Pfizer sued Ajix alleging that its gelatin capsules infringed a Pfizer patent related to intricate locking mechanisms present on the capsules. Obtained a summary judgment of noninfringement of Pfizer's patent, which was summarily affirmed by the Federal Circuit, per curiam.
• Church & Dwight Co., Inc. v. Pfizer, Inc.; Church & Dwight Co., Inc. v. Quidel Corporation; and Inverness Medical Switzerland GmbH, Unipath Diagnostics, Inc., and Church & Dwight Co., Inc. v. Acon Laboratories, Inc. (D.N.J., S.D. Cal., D. Mass.) Represented Church & Dwight in three additional litigations involving patents relating to lateral flow immunoassays; all actions were settled successfully, one for a publicly reported settlement of $18 million. Another was settled following summary judgment of infringement followed by a jury verdict of validity
• Ossur North America, et al. v. Freedom Innovations, et al. (C.D. Cal.) Obtained a favorable settlement in representing Ossur North America, et al., a leading manufacturer of orthotics and prosthetic devices, in separately filed patent infringement and unfair competition actions respecting prosthetic devices
• Molnlycke Health Care AB et al. v. Medline Industries, Inc., Ossur N. Am. Inc. (N.D. Ga.) Obtained a favorable worldwide settlement in defending Ossur North America in a patent litigation brought by Molnlycke Health Care AB in the U.S. and Sweden involving wound care products
• SPD Swiss Precision Diagnostics GmbH v. Church & Dwight Co., Inc. (D.N.J.) and Church & Dwight Co., Inc. v. SPD Swiss Precision Diagnostics GmbH (D.N.J.) Represented Church & Dwight in a series of actions involving claims for false advertising concerning consumer pregnancy, ovulation and fertility tests
• Robert Gordon et al. v. Church & Dwight Co., Inc. (N.D. Cal.) Obtained dismissal, on behalf of Church & Dwight, of a false advertising complaint concerning the labeling on Church & Dwight’s TROJAN-ENZ spermicidal lubricated condoms
• Vongslay v. Church & Dwight Co., Inc. (S.D. IL) Obtained dismissal, on behalf of Church & Dwight, of a class action complaint against Church & Dwight’s Baby Orajel teething pain medicine