Halo Electronics, Inc. vs. Pulse Electronics, Inc. (District of Nevada, Fish & Richardson) - Patent Infringement
"A federal jury in Nevada awarded Halo Electronics Inc. $1.5 million on Monday after finding Pulse Electronics Corp. infringed three patents for packaging that houses surface mount transformers, which are used in computers and other electronic devices.
'Halo is an example of small business ingenuity that came up with an idea so good that larger companies, like Pulse, decided to copy it,' Fish & Richardson PC's Thomas Melsheimer, co-lead counsel for Halo, said in a statement Tuesday. 'Pulse's willful infringement was seen by the jury for what it was — a large corporation taking and using the innovation of a much smaller rival.'" - Law360
Enzo Biochem vs. Applera Corp. (EDTX, Baker Botts) - Patent Infringement
Federal jurors in the Enzo Biochem vs. Applera Corp. trial in New Haven, Connecticut, found that the claims asserted by the plaintiff were valid and infringed, and awarded damages of $48.6 million, with pre-judgement interest to be awarded by the court likely adding another $20-$30 million. The patents in suit involve chemical compounds used in DNA sequencing, such as the Human Genome Project.
Fujitsu Network Communications Inc et al v. Tellabs, Inc. et al (NDIL, Sidley Austin) - Patent Infringement
A Northern District of Illinois jury found that Tellabs didn't infringe Fujitsu Optical Systems' patent. "Following a nine-day trial, the jurors returned a unanimous verdict that Naperville, Ill.-based Tellabs' optical signal amplifiers hadn't infringed Fujitsu's U.S. Patent Number 7,227,681. The amplifiers are a component in optical broadband networks, which transmit data using light rather than electric signals." - Law360
CEATS, Inc. vs. Continental Airlines Inc, et al. (EDTX, Fish & Richardson, Thomson and Knight, Goldman Ismail, Robinson & Cole, Klemchuk Kubasta, Parker, Bunt & Ainsworth, Ward & Smith, Wilson Robertson & Cornelius) - Patent Infringement
East Texas jurors in the CEATS, Inc. vs. Continental Airlines Inc, et al., trial in Tyler found that the four claims asserted by the plaintiff were infringed, but were also invalid based on v.2 of the Expedia.com website, which Microsoft had developed and released prior to the filing of the patents-in-suit.
State of Texas, ex rel. Allen Jones v Jannsen, et al. (Texas 250th Judicial District Civil Court, Fish & Richardson, Scott Douglass & McConnico, Locke Lord Bissell & Liddell) - Medicaid Fraud
Johnson & Johnson's subsidiary Janssen agreed to pay $158 million to settle claims from the State of Texas that it defrauded the Texas Medicaid program in the promotion of the antipsychotic drug, Risperdal. It was the largest settlement paid in a Medicaid fraud case in Texas history.
Eolas v. Adobe, et al. (EDTX, Haltom & Doan, Torres & Friedman, Fish & Richardson, Weil Gotshal & Manges, Ireland Carroll & Kelley, Ropes & Gray, King & Spalding, Potter Minton, Buether Joe & Carpenter) - Patent Infringement
In Judge Leonard Davis's courtroom in Tyler, after a short deliberation, the jury in the Eolas case found the patents-in-suit invalid. This was a huge development in the software patent wars, since Eolas had effectively claimed that they owned the World Wide Web and had already sued several dozen companies, presumably with more lawsuits to follow, had the patents held up.
Alcatel-Lucent v. Overstock & Newegg.com (EDTX, Kent Baldauf, Jr. and James Boscoe of The Webb Law Firm along with John Barr, Jr. and Alan Albright of Bracewell & Giuliani. ) - Patent Infringement
In Alcatel-Lucent v. Overstock & Newegg.com, the defendants prevailed on every issue submitted to the jury. Barnes & Roberts helped the defendants prove their case with compelling demonstratives, deposition video clips and trial exhibits.
Michael Smith's EDTexweblog|
Bloom Strategic Consulting
The American Lawyer
Mondis Technology Ltd. v LG, et al. (EDTX, Dechert and Ireland, Carroll & Kelley) - Patent Infringement
Mondis Technology Ltd. successfully prosecuted its Data Communication Channel (DCC) patents in the Eastern District of Texas against Defendants Innolux and Hon Hai, receiving a lump sum payment of $15 million, along with a continuing licensing fee. Mondis and LG previously settled their case out of court. Barnes & Roberts worked with Mondis and their attorneys to prove that the Defendants infringe Mondis's patents in their monitor and TV manufacturing business, and the jury decided that they must pay Mondis for past use, as well as pay a royalty for all future use of the technology.
Bedrock v Yahoo! (EDTX, McDermott Will & Emory and Haltom & Doan) - Patent Infringement
Barnes & Roberts worked with attorneys from McDermott Will & Emory and Haltom & Doan to create demonstratives used to defend Yahoo! against allegations of patent infringement in Tyler, TX. Bedrock alleged that the open source Linux code used on some of Yahoo!'s servers infringed their patent, and asked for $32 million in damages. Instead, the jury returned a unanimous verdict of non-infringement after just fifty minutes of deliberation. The verdict is expected to have wider repercussions for Bedrock's continuing attempt to monetize their patent at the expense of the open source community.
Richard Garriott v NCsoft (WDTX, Fish & Richardson) - Breach of Contract
Barnes & Roberts represented the plaintiff, Richard Garriott, in this breach of contract suit against his former employer NCsoft. When Garriott's employment with NCsoft ended in 2008, NCsoft claimed that Garriott resigned voluntarily, and gave him just 40 days to exercise the stock options he had earned when his company, Destination Games, was bought by NCsoft in 2001. Because of this decision, Garriott was forced to exercise his options during a period of depressed stock values. However, the jury agreed with Garriott that he had been fired, and that according to the terms of his contract, he should have had 2 1/2 years to exercise his options providing him with the ability benefit from a rebound in stock value. The jury found $28 million in damages to Garriott caused by NCsoft's breach of the employment agreement.
Austin Business Journal
Red Hat and Novell v. IP Innovation and Technology Licensing Corp. (EDTX, Gibson Dunn) - Patent Infringement
Barnes & Roberts worked closely with Gibson Dunn lawyers from New York, Dallas and Silicon Valley throughout this case: from the technology tutorial, claim construction, discovery battles, summary judgement motions and through trial, to develop and present an easily-understandable case against the Plaintiffs. The patents covered certain methods of creating and quickly switching between multiple desktops on a computer. Showing actual systems at work was critical to our defense.
Not only did we help defendants Red Hat and Novell put on ample evidence of non-infringement, to prove invalidity, we also set up live demonstrations of two, 25-year-old computers: a Macintosh 512k and a Commodore Amiga. Because of their age, these computers could not connect to the court's display system. Barnes & Roberts obtained permission to bring a video camera and other equipment into the courtroom so we could send a live feed of the computer screen through the presentation system during the expert's operation of prior art software. Since not all old software can be found or made to run on available computers, we also created several simulations of prior art software, which functioned just like the original programs, as they had been described in manuals or seen in old videotape footage.
In the end, the jury found that the patents were invalid due to the improper joinder of inventors who had not truly worked together to conceive of the invention. This finding was supported by the testimony of two of the three named inventors who each claimed that they had never worked with each other. The jury also found, based upon the live demonstrations of prior art systems, that the asserted claims were invalid for anticipation.
The jury's findings included: No direct infringement. No induced infringement. Invalidity for improper inventorship. Invalidity for anticipation by prior art. And, in case there was any doubt, damages were zero.
Novell, Red Hat win verdict in Linux case - The Boston Globe
Red Hat, Novell win verdict in Linux patent infringement case | ZDNet
Total victory for open source software in a patent lawsuit | opensource.com
Michael Murphy, et al v. Harold Simmons, et al. (Dallas, TX) - Breach of Fiduciary Duty / Breach of Contract:Barnes & Roberts worked with Susman Godfrey and Fish and Richardson during the two-week trial to prove that NL Industries and several of its officers had improperly drained NL EMS of assets in the months leading up to the minority shareholders' sale of their stock back to the company. The jury's award includes $33.7 million in actual damages, $140 million in punitive damages against NL Industries, and an additional $5 million levied against an individual corporate officer. The $178.7 million dollar verdict is believed to be the largest verdict in Dallas County in 2009 to date. Barnes & Roberts provided full trial support including demonstrative creation, exhibit and video database management, courtroom set up and presentation during the trial.
| Dallas Business journal|
Fish and Richardson
West v. Perry (EDTX, Vinson & Elkins) - Copyright Infringement:Barnes & Roberts represented filmmaker Tyler Perry in defeating accusations that he copied the play "Fantasy of a Black Woman" for his film, "Diary of a Mad Black Woman.
|Diary of a Mad Black Woman (film) - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia|
The Mathworks v. Comsol Inc. (EDTX, Jones Day) - Copyright Infringement and Breach of Contract:Barnes & Roberts represented The Mathworks in proving that Comsol had not only breached the parties' contract, but had also copied much of the plaintiff's software into it's own competing software application. The jury awarded damages of $9.9 million.
|Eastern District of Texas Federal Court Practice: Copyright Verdict in Tyler|
KCI v Medela/Blue Sky (EDTX, Baker Botts) - Patent Infringement, False Advertising, Unfair Competition and Conspiracy:Barnes & Roberts represented Medela in this complex case involving vacuum assisted bandages for intractable wounds. After a six-week trial, the jury issued a verdict of non-infringement and found against the plaintiff on their remaining claims.
|IPBiz: All appellants lose at CAFC in KCI v. Blue Sky on vacuum bandages|
Deep Nines v. McAfee (EDTX, Fish & Richardson) - Patent Infringement:Barnes & Roberts represented the plaintiff, Deep Nines, in this suit. The jury returned a verdict for our client in the amount of $18 million, finding infringement under the doctrine of equivalents of this computer security software patent.
|Eastern District of Texas Federal Court Practice: Patent verdict in Lufkin case|
Texas Instruments v. Talluri (Collin County, TX, Fish & Richardson) - Trade Secrets:Barnes & Roberts represented Texas Instruments in this case alleging inevitable disclosure of trade secrets if one of its senior engineers was allowed to work for its chief competitor, Qualcomm. After a one-day evidentiary hearing, the Court issued a restraining order preventing the former employee from working at Qualcomm for a period of one year.
Brazos River Authority v. GE Ionics (Brazos County, TX, Vinson & Elkins n.k.a. K&L Gates) - Breach of Contract and Negligence:Barnes & Roberts represented plaintiff BRA in two trials on this case. The first jury found against BRA but this verdict was vacated and remanded for new trial. At the conclusion of the second trial, a settlement favorable to BRA was reached while the jury was deliberating.
|BRAZOS RIVER AUTHORITY, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. GE IONICS, INC., Also Known as Ionics, Incorporated, et al., Defendants, GE Ionics, Inc., Also Known as Ionics, Incorporated; Cajun Constructors, Inc., Formerly Known as Cajun Contractors, Inc., Defendants-Appellees. - AltLaw|
Giles v. Wyeth (SDIL, Jones Day) - Product Liability and Inadequate Warnings:We represented the pharmaceutical company, Wyeth, in this case implicating its anti-depressant drug Effexor as the cause of adult suicide. This three-week trial pitted the emotional testimony from the victim's family against the scientific weight of medical evidence from physicians and epidemiological studies. In the end, the jury found that there was no evidence that the drug caused the victim to take his own life and returned a verdict in favor of our client.
|Jacquelyn Giles v. Wyeth, Inc. and Wyeth Pharmaceuticals, formerly known as American Home Products Corporation|
Tailwind/Lance Armstrong v. SCA Promotions (Arbitration, Herman Howry & Breen) - Breach of Contract:This case revolved around allegations that our client, Tailwind/Lance Armstrong, had breached an agreement by taking banned, performance-enhancing substances in his 2004 Tour de France victory. SCA was under contract to pay Lance Armstrong a bonus of $5M if he won the race, which he did. After the arbitration proceedings, but before the panel issued its ruling, SCA settled the case by paying Armstrong $7.5 million.
|Lance Armstrong - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia Allegations Trail Armstrong Into Another Stage - Los Angeles Times|
In re: Certain Self-Cleaning Litter Boxes (ITC, Baker Botts) - Patent Infringement:Barnes & Roberts represented the complainant, Applica, in the International Trade Commission in their effort to exclude a foreign companies, Lucky Litter and OurPets, from importing devices that infringed it patents. After a two-week trial, the ITC found the patent valid, enforceable and infringed. A general exclusion order was issued with a 100% bond rate. A parallel patent infringement case is pending in the EDTX.
Power-One v Artesyn Technologies (EDTX, Fish & Richardson) - Patent Infringement:Represented Power-One in its infringement contentions against Artesyn tried before Magistrate Judge Love in Marshall Texas. A jury returned a verdict in favor of Power-One finding that Artesyn infringed Power-One's 7,000,125 patent which covers a digital power control system for programming, controlling, and monitoring an array of Point of Load regulators using a data bus for communication with and control of the Point of Load regulators. Power-One stipulated to damages of $100 and received an injunction to keep Artesyn from selling products that use Power-One's '125 patent.
Alcatel/Lucent v. Microsoft (SDCA, Fish & Richardson) - Patent Infringement claims and counterclaims:Barnes & Roberts represented Microsoft in this massive case involving dozens of patents and at least 6 trials spread across two years reaching from California to Texas to Washington DC. We completed three trials, all in SDCA, lasting a combined 18 weeks. Microsoft overturned the record-breaking $1.5B verdict and won a dismissal in the first trial. Microsoft won on summary judgement in the second part of the case before going to trial. In the interplay of claims and counterclaims, the third trial had mixed results but the fourth trial ended with Microsoft being found not to infringe the Alcatel patent. In late 2008, the parties resolved all of their remaining claims against one another and settled this line of cases.
|Alcatel-Lucent v. Microsoft - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia|
TGIP v. AT&T (EDTX, Sidley Austin) - Patent Infringement:Barnes & Roberts represented AT&T in this two-week trial which was interrupted by a hurricane and brought a storm of controversy all its own. The Court had withheld judgement on pre-trial JMOL motions until after the verdict. The jury returned a decision against AT&T for $156 million - the largest in EDTX history. However, the Court granted Defendant's JMOL and set aside the verdict finding no infringement as a matter of law.
|Eastern District of Texas Federal Court Practice: Judge Clark Grants JMOL for Defendant in TGIP v. AT&T|
American Calcar v. American Honda (SDCA, Fish & Richardson) - Patent Infringement:Barnes & Roberts represented Honda in this infringement case asserting 15 patents. After receiving a transfer from EDTX, Honda prevailed at trial on 12 of 15 of the patents. The case is currently in post trial briefing for disposition of the remaining three patents.
Elan Pharma v. Abraxis Bioscience (DE, Baker Botts) - Patent Infringement:Barnes & Roberts represented Elan Pharma in this case which was the first nanotechnology patent case to be taken to jury trial. The technology concerned the formulation for nanoparticles that delivered the breast cancer drug, Abraxane. A verdict for our client in the amount of $55 million was returned by the jury.
|Bloomberg.com: Health Care|
Blackboard v. Desire2Learn (EDTX, McDermott Will & Emery) - Patent Infringement:Barnes & Roberts represented the plaintiff, Blackboard, in this patent infringement suit against its competitor, Desire2Learn. The patent claims at issue broadly cover an e-learning system. Both companies provide software solutions to universities and the like for students, teachers and administrators to use in an e-learning environment. The jury found for our client and ordered Desire2Learn to pay $3 million in damages.