Corning Inc. v. DSM Desotech, Inc. (D. Del.) (counsel for Corning in litigation over fiber optic coatings)
Function Media, L.L.C. v. Google, Inc., et al. (E.D. Tex.) (counsel for Google in multi-patent litigation involving internet advertising technology; 4 parallel inter partes reexaminations)
Geomembrane Technologies Inc v. R P S Engineering Corp et al, (C.D. Cal.) (counsel for URS Corp. in patent litigation concerning clarifier covers for water treatment reservoirs)
Gilead Sciences, Inc. v. AbbVie (D. Del.) (counsel for Gilead in litigation over its hepatitis C treatment Harvoni®)
GSK v Teva; GSK v Glenmark (D. Del.) (counsel for plaintiffs in patent litigation over heart-failure medication Coreg®)
Network Signatures, Inc. v. Nationwide Mutual Insurance Co., (C.D. Cal.) (counsel for Nationwide Mutual Insurance Co. in patent litigation concerning SSL technology)
St. Jude Medical v. Volcano Corp. (D. Del.) (defended Volcano against St. Jude’s assertion of a patent related to cardiac guidewire consoles; case resulted in settlement favorable to client)
Walker Digital, LLC v. Google, Inc. et al. (D. Del.) (counsel for Microsoft in multi-patent litigation involving various internet advertising and automated bidding technologies)
Warsaw Orthopedic, Inc. v. NuVasive, Inc., (S.D. Cal.) (counsel for NuVasive in patent litigation and parallel inter partes reexaminations concerning spinal implant technology)
U.S. International Trade Commission proceedings
ASUSTeK Computer, Inc. and ASUS Computer International v. IBM (337-TA-628) (counsel for ASUS in patent litigation concerning products implementing power supplies, variable speed fans, and Network Address Port Translation; win at trial and initial determination, Commission decided not to review initial determination which became the final determination, and case subsequently settled favorably.)
DSM v. Momentive and OFS Fitel (337-TA-1031) (counsel for Momentive in patent litigation concerning coatings for optical fibers, coated optical fibers, and products containing same)
Renesas Technology Corp. v. Samsung Electronics Co. Ltd., Dynamic Random Access Memory Devices and Products Containing Same (337-TA-595) (counsel for Samsung in patent litigation concerning on-die termination and driver circuits for DDR2 SDRAM memory devices and phase-shift masks allegedly used in the fabrication of DDR1 and DDR2 SDRAM memory devices; Staff concurred with non-infringement and invalidity of asserted patents; settled favorably two days before the initial determination issued).