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): Judgment entered for client Zillow on over 95% of claims for infringement of copyrighted images.
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Wearable Activity Tracking Devices, Investigation No. 337-TA-973 (I.T.C. 2016): Complaint against client Jawbone withdrawn after finding that asserted fitness tracking patents were invalid for claiming ineligible subject matter.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. 8:07-cv-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.