Stross v. Zillow Inc., Case No. 2:21-cv-01489-RAJ-BAT (W.D. Wa. 2022): Won motion to dismiss claims that client Zillow infringed 106 real estate photographs.
International Business Machines Corp. v. Zillow Group Inc., Case No. 2:20-cv-01130 (W.D. Wa. 2022): Five of five asserted patents invalidated or stayed in follow-on case filed after transfer of lead case to client’s home district.
International Business Machines Corp. v. Zillow Group Inc., Case No. 2:20-cv-00851(W.D. Wa. 2022): Seven of seven asserted patents invalidated or stayed pending IPR after obtaining transfer of case from Central District of California to client’s home district.
International Business Machines Corp. v. Zillow Group Inc., Case No. 21-02350 (Fed. Cir. 2022): Federal Circuit affirmed judgment of invalidity under 35 U.S.C. § 101 of two patents asserted against client Zillow.
VHT, Inc. v. Zillow Group, Inc., Case No. 2:15-cv-01096-JLR (W.D. Wa. 2022): Prevailed on affirmative defense of innocent infringement for 388 images and obtained finding of near-minimum statutory damages for 2,312 more in bench trial on damages on remand from Ninth Circuit.
Kean v. Seattle Children’s Hospital, Case No. 20-2-16194-2 SEA (King Co. Super. Ct. 2021): Obtained settlement following close of discovery of claims against client Seattle Children’s Hospital by researcher seeking royalty on pharmaceutical license payments.
Priceline.com v. DDR Holdings LLC, IPR2018-00482 (P.T.A.B. 2018): PTAB affirmed patentability of all challenged claims of client DDR Holdings’ e-commerce technology patent.
Finjan Inc. v. Bitdefender Inc., Case No. 4:17-cv-04790-HSG (N.D. Cal. 2017): Obtained settlement claims against client Bitdefender following completion of summary judgment briefing.
AlmondNet v. Oath Holdings, Case No. 19-cv-00247 (D. Del. 2019): Obtained settlement for patent owner client AlmondNet after defeating eight covered business method review petitions and obtaining transfer to District of Delaware in lieu of dismissal following Supreme Court’s intervening decision in TC Heartland.
Uniloc U.S.A. v. Bitdefender LLC, Case No. 2:16-cv-00394-RWS (N.D. Cal. 2017): Complete summary judgment in favor of client Bitdefender LLC on grounds that asserted software distribution patents were invalid for claiming ineligible subject matter.
VHT, Inc. v. Zillow Group, Inc., Case No. 2:15-cv-01096-JLR (W.D. Wa. 2017): Ninth Circuit affirmed judgment for client Zillow on over 95% of claims for infringement of copyrighted images and vacated award of damages for the remainder.
In the Matter of Certain Wearable Activity Tracking Devices, Investigation No. 337-TA-973 (I.T.C. 2016): Complaint against client Jawbone withdrawn after finding that asserted fitness tracking patents were invalid for claiming ineligible subject matter.
In Re Queen’s University at Kingston, No. 2015-145 (Fed. Cir. 2016): Grant of mandamus petition for client Queen’s University at Kingston established the application of the attorney-client privilege to prosecution related communications with registered patent agents.
Two-Way Media LLC v. AT&T et al., No. 2014-1302 (Fed. Cir. 2015): Affirmed $40 million judgment obtained at trial for client Two-Way Media LLC for infringement of streaming content delivery patents by AT&T.
ViaSat, Inc. v. Space Systems/Loral, Inc. et al., No. 3:12-cv-00260-H (S.D. Cal. 2014): Vacated award of damages against client Space Systems/Loral for alleged infringement of satellite communications patents.
DDR Holdings, LLC v. Hotels.com, L.P. et al., No. 2013-1505 (Fed. Cir. 2014): Opinion affirming in part trial judgment obtained for client DDR Holdings was first, and, for eighteen months, only Federal Circuit decision to uphold the validity of a computer software patent on subject matter grounds after the Supreme Court’s decision in Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank Int’l, 134 S. Ct. 2347 (2014).
Native American Marketing and Development Corp. v. Arctic Slope Regional Corporation et al., No. 8:07cv-02436 (D. Md. 2009): Complete summary judgment for client Arctic Slope Regional Corporation in a suit seeking a hundred-million dollar finder’s fee on the largest single-source government contract in history.
Novell, Inc. v. Microsoft Corp. (2004): Settlement of antitrust claims for client Novell in a confidential amount that the New York Times later reported to be $536 million.