CASES

Trend Micro Successful in Invalidating Intellectual Ventures’ Patents

In a hearing before Judge Leonard Stark, Trend Micro has proven that the patents asserted against them by Intellectual Ventures are invalid. Just days before trial was to begin in Delaware, Judge Stark ruled that the subject matters in U.S. Patents 6,460,050 and 6,073,142 were not eligible for patents based on the Supreme Court’s Alice Corp. v CLS Bank ruling. Paul Hastings’ attorneys Yar Chaikovsky and Stuart Bartow argued on behalf of Trend Micro, and Barnes & Roberts is glad to have been there to provide graphics and support at the hearing.

U.S. judge cancels patents on eve of Trend Micro trial (Reuters)

Intellectual Vetures Patents Axed in Symantec, Trend Case (Law360 – partially behind paywall)

Read Judge Stark’s Ruling

CedarCrestone v Xerox Trial Graphics Lead to Settlement

After only a few days of trial, during which attorney Steve Schortgen of K&L Gates put on a strong showing for Xerox, CedarCrestone and Xerox agreed to settle CedarCrestone’s claims. Xerox had countered CedarCrestone’s complaint with claims that CedarCrestone had breached the contract by missing critical deadlines. Barnes & Roberts created a series of trial graphics, including this one, marching through each missed deadline and proving that CedarCrestone had understaffed the project from the beginning. It did not meet the deadlines because, with the staff it had, it could not meet the deadlines.

Highland Capital Wins $40M Against Credit Suisse

Highland Capital won a $40M jury verdict against Credit Suisse and, more importantly, a finding that the banking giant committed fraud in its appraisal of investments related to the ill-fated Lake Las Vegas development that bit the dust back in 2008. Barnes & Roberts created trial graphics for the case including this one that tracks the ever-rising appraisal values. The bar in red represents the final appraisal, which the jury found to be fraudulent, and which Highland Capital relied upon in deciding to invest in the venture.

Moncrief Case Against Gas Giant Blows Up

Moncrief Oil International’s $1.4 Billion case against OAO Gazprom was dismissed on February 2, 2015 after it was revealed during cross examination that the basis for Moncrief’s trade secret claim, Exhibit 1,  was not authentic but was instead manufactured years after the fact. Baker Botts attorney, Van Beckwith, had a Perry Mason Moment when he cross examined Moncrief’s CFO, David Maconchy, to reveal the fabrication. Barnes & Roberts Trial Consulting is proud to have been a part of the trial and congratulates our clients on this stunning victory. http://www.forbes.com/sites/danielfisher/2015/02/02/texas-firms-1-4-billion-suit-against-gazprom-collapses-on-faked-evidence/

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

Cortez Mills v. Texas Vascular Associates, PA, et al. – Employment

On October 7, 2014, a Dallas jury unanimously found that Texas Vascular Associates, PA had committed no wrongdoing in discharging the Plaintiff Cortez Mills, who claimed she was terminated because she refused to perform an illegal act. We wish to congratulate Tom MelsheimerNatalie Arbaugh, and Katrina Eash on their work in this case as well as the doctors for their justified outcome. The team at Fish & Richardson worked tirelessly over the course of this case to make sure their clients were vindicated. We at Barnes & Roberts are happy to have been part of the team!

Fujitsu Network Communications Inc. et al. v. Tellabs Inc. et al. – Patent Infringement

A jury in the Northern District of Illinois found that Fujitsu breached its promise to license U.S. Patent 5,521,737 under “reasonable and nondiscriminatory” terms to Tellabs, who it previously sued for infringement and lost profits.
-Law360

Multimedia Patent Trust v. Apple Inc., et al. – Patent Infringement

The jury found there was no infringement at a trial that began with a “2010 lawsuit by the Paris- based company’s Multimedia Patent Trust accusing Apple and LG Electronics of copying video-compression technology that allows data to be sent more efficiently over communications media, including the Internet and satellites, or stored on DVDs and Blu-Ray disks.”
-Bloomberg

Halo Electronics Awarded $1.5 Million

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

EXPAND

Top Victory Does Not Infringe Hitachi Patents

A jury in Marshall, Texas found that TPV Technology did not infringe the four patents asserted by Hitachi. Hitachi had been seeking over $55 million in damages. Instead, the jury found no infringement, willful or otherwise, and that two of the four patents were invalid.

Update on Alcatel-Lucent v Newegg, Overstock

In Alcatel-Lucent v. Overstock & Newegg.com, the defendants prevailed on every issue submitted to the jury. The case was over allegations by Alcatel-Lucent that Newegg and Overstock infringed e-Commerce patents that it holds.


The jury rejected those claims, finding that two of the patents were not infringed, and that the third patent was invalid. Barnes & Roberts helped the defendants prove their case with compelling demonstratives, deposition video clips and trial exhibits.

UPDATE
The U.S. Court of Appeals upheld the District Court’s decision, including the invalidity of U.S. Patent 5,649,131.

EXPAND