RESULTS: We are in the business of vindicating wrongs against our clients, as plaintiff or defendant.
Here are just some of our recent client successes.


EDTX Plaintiff Trial Win Over Samsung

A Sherman, Texas jury found that Samsung willfully infringed two of our client Imperium IP Holdings’s patents, awarding $7 million. 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 jury’s verdict also permits the Court to 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 trial victory.

EDTX Defense Trial Win for Gap Inc.

A Marshall, Texas jury returned a defense verdict after 75 minutes of deliberations. The jury found no infringement, and rejected the plaintiff's damages request of $34.5 million. 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. The American Lawyer selected this verdict as one of its three Big Suits in September 2013.

EDTX Defense Trial Win for Barnes & Noble

A Marshall, Texas jury returned a verdict of no infringement of a patent that the plaintiff had licensed to 38 other companies. The plaintiff sought $72 million at trial. For many on our team, this was their third defense jury verdict in Marshall, Texas. VerdictSearch selected this verdict as one of the top trial wins in Texas state and federal courts for 2013.

Federal Circuit Victory for Amazon.com in Appistry I

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."

Federal Circuit Victory for Amazon.com in Appistry II

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.

Federal Circuit Victory for The Gap Inc.

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.

Federal Circuit Victory for Papst Licensing

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.

Federal Circuit Victory for Blackhawk Network

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 indicated that it did not even need to hear our rebuttal argument before making its decision. As a result of the Federal Circuit decision, Blackhawk Network achieved a complete victory.

Federal Circuit Victory for Pier 1 Imports

Less than 48 hours after oral argument, the Federal Circuit issued a 3-0 per curiam 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.

Zero-Dollar Dismissal for Juniper Networks

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.
 
What did our client pay the plaintiff for the cessation of hostilities?   Answer: Nothing.

Another Zero-Dollar Dismissal for Juniper Networks

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.
 
What did our client pay the plaintiff for the cessation of hostilities?   Answer: Nothing.

Zero-Dollar Dismissal for J.C. Penney, Home Depot, Toys R Us

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.
 
What did our clients pay the plaintiff for the cessation of hostilities?   Answer: Nothing.

Zero-Dollar Dismissal for Amazon.com

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.
 
What did our client pay the plaintiff for the cessation of hostilities?   Answer: Nothing.

Zero-Dollar Dismissal for Marriott-Branded Hotels

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.
 
What did our clients pay the plaintiff for the cessation of hostilities?   Answer: Nothing.

Rule 12 victory under §101 for Amazon.com against Appistry

In a case of first impression for the Western District of Washington, Chief Judge 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.

A Second Rule 12 victory under §101 for Amazon.com against Appistry

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.

EDTX Summary Judgment of non-infringment for J.C. Penney

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.

Declaratory Judgment Success for Hearst Corporation

When our client Hearst Corporation received a threat letter from the litigious non-practicing entity Webvention, Hearst did not wait to become Webvention’s next victim. On behalf of Hearst Corporation we filed a declaratory judgment action in the District of Delaware. Shortly after filing, the case was transferred to the District of Maryland and stayed pending the outcome of reexamination. The result was the PTO's cancellation of the claims at issue, and the subsequent dismissal of the dispute for no consideration. By the end, Webvention had amassed 361 licensees, and Hearst Corporation was not one of them.

Temporary Restraining Order Obtained for SPX Corporation

Client SPX Corporation was confronted with trademark and trade secret violations from a combined supplier and competitor. Our team was called on to obtain an injunction in Federal District Court for the Eastern District of Tennessee prohibiting the adversary's conduct. Within 240 hours of receiving the first client call, the case issues were investigated, law researched, complaint and motion for injunctive relief crafted, witness declarations obtained, the case filed, argued, and a TRO ultimately obtained.