Reston, VA
Arbitration Lawyer at Reston, VA
Practice Areas: Arbitration, Patent Infringement, Patent Application
OUTCOME: Achieved dismissal of the case prior to Answer.
Civil Action No. 1:12-cv-01274-SLR (D. Del.). Served as lead counsel for Defendants accused of infringing a patent relating to method and apparatus for adaptively providing pre-coding and pre-emphasis ... conditioning to signal data for transfer over a communication channel – U.S. Patent No. 5,396,519.
OUTCOME: Client Prevailed
Served as lead counsel in successfully representing Respondents against charges of infringing five (5) patents relating to printer, networking and Internet technologies. The ITC issued its Final Determ ... ination on January 25, 2010 finding no violation of Section 337 resulting in complete win for client.
OUTCOME: Resolved Favorably For Client
Lead counsel for Respondents Funai Electric Co., Ltd., Funai Corporation, Inc. and P&F USA, Inc. in multi-respondent Section 337 investigation. The complaint was filed on December 21, 2011, alleging i ... nfringement of U.S. Patent No. 6,262,505 (owned and asserted by non-producing entity Walker Digital) by Blu-ray disc players that incorporate BD-Live (Profile 2.0) and/or Bonus View (Profile 1.1) features.
OUTCOME: Currently stayed
Serve as lead counsel representing one of 15 defendants against charges of infringing two (2) patents pertaining to printer and facsimile technologies. Case currently stayed pending ex parte reexamina ... tion of both patents-in-suit.
OUTCOME: Favorable settlement
Successfully defended client Hirata Corporation in ICC international arbitration involving claims including patent infringement and theft of trade secrets.
OUTCOME: Client Prevailed
Lead counsel for client Clontech in landmark “false marking” case under 35 USC § 287.
OUTCOME: Favorable Settlement
Lead counsel for defendant/declaratory judgment plaintiff, Digene. Digene sought a declaration that the asserted patent, U.S. Patent No. 6,221,581, was invalid, unenforceable and not infringed. Enzo a ... ccused Digene of willful infringement. Favorable settlement achieved.
OUTCOME: Client prevailed
Lead counsel for defendant/declaratory judgment plaintiff Clontech in two suits consolidated for trial. Clontech was charged with willful infringement of U.S. Patent Nos. 5,244,797, 5,668,005 and 6,06 ... 3,608 for its making, using and selling of products derived using or containing RNase H minus reverse transcriptase enzymes. Several issues have been decided for our client on summary judgment including invalidating 178 of 196 claims as indefinite under 35 U.S.C. § 112, 2nd ¶, and finding certain prior art available under 35 U.S.C. § 102(g). Judgment of invalidity under 35 U.S.C. § 101(g) of all asserted claims entered in September 2003.
OUTCOME: Client prevailed
Lead counsel for plaintiff for case for willful infringement of U.S. Patent No. 5,436,161. Biacore (formerly known as Pharmacia Biosensor) is a Swedish scientific instrument manufacturer whose princip ... al business is directed to state of the art SPR-based biosensors. The patent-in-suit is directed to certain biocompatible matrices suitable for use in biosensor systems. The Court found the patent was valid and infringed, holding that Biacore was entitled a permanent injunction of a 40% royalty based upon the gross revenues from the infringing biosensors. Oral Argument was conducted on March 6, 2002, which was followed by the Court’s March 15, 2002, per curiam decision affirming the District Court’s decisions.
OUTCOME: Client prevailed
Lead counsel for Ajinomoto against ADM for case for infringement of U.S. Patent No. 4,278,765. ADM was found to infringe Ajinomoto’s patent directed to the production of recombinant microorganisms cap ... able of producing threonine – a feed additive used in livestock feeds. The Court found the patent-in-suit infringed, valid and enforceable – entering a permanent injunction and awarding Ajinomoto damages for past infringement (ca. $28 million). On October 3, 2000, the Federal Circuit affirmed the district court’s decision. The United States Supreme Court denied ADM’s petition for writ of certiorari on May 14, 2001.
Ad
Transform legal challenges into solutions.
Connect now to review your situation.
