OUTCOME: Prevailed in a multi-day jury trial in the Eastern District of Texas Federal Court obtaining a $12.3 million verdict.
Prevailed in a preliminary injunction in the Eastern District of Texas Federal Court (click here to see orders)enjoining the sale of the completing product pending the outcome of the trial, and
Defeat...ed the appeal of the preliminary injunction to the Federal Circuit, and
Defeated the mandamus action alleging a jurisdictional fault in the Federal Circuit, and
Prevailed in both the ‘282 and ‘749 PTAB trials, and
Prevailed in the appeal of the ‘282 and ‘749 decisions before the Federal Circuit
Prevailed in a multi-day jury trial in the Eastern District of Texas Federal Court obtaining a $12.3 million verdict.
Patent infringement
Swimways Corp. v. Zuru, Inc., No. 2:13CV334, 2014 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 98092 (E.D. Va. July 18, 2014)
Jul 18, 2014
OUTCOME: Judge Davis of the Norfolk Division of the EDVA found, as a matter of law, that a patent was either anticipated or rendered obvious by the prior art. Summary judgement for the Defendant (our client) Zuru, LLC invalidating the patent.
Represented an international company based in China that was named as a defendant in a multimillion-dollar patent infringement lawsuit pending in the United States District Court for the Eastern Distri...ct of Virginia.
Government contracts
United States ex rel Carter v. Halliburton Co
Mar 18, 2013
OUTCOME: The Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals reversed the dismissal of a qui tam action that the district court held was barred by the statute of limitations and the first-to-file bar under the False Claims Act (“FCA”).
Carter brought a qui tam action against Halliburton Company, KBR, Inc., Kellogg, Brown, & Root Services, Inc. (collectively “KBR”) for alleged fraudulent billing of the United States for services provi...ded to the military serving in Iraq. KBR provided logistical support to the United States military in Iraq under a government contract; Carter worked for KBR in a water purification unit. Carter alleged that no water purification took place for over four months when KBR represented it was and was billing the government during that time, and further, that employees were instructed to submit time sheets for 12 hour days, 7 days per week when that time was not actually worked. Carter’s action was originally filed February 1, 2006; the complex procedural history of his complaint involved his lawsuit being dismissed twice and this action was re-filed on June 2, 2011. The district court held his action was barred by the statute of limitations, but Carter alleged, and the Fourth Circuit agreed, that the Wartime Suspension of Limitations Act (“WLSA”) tolled the statute of limitations.
Under the WSLA, the running of the statute of limitations is tolled for actions involving fraud against the United States until three years after the termination of hostilities as proclaimed by the President. The question presented to the court was what the term “at war” means for the purposes of the WSLA. The Fourth Circuit determined that the term does not require a declaration of war, and the “at war” status ceases at the time of a Presidential proclamation. Therefore, the WLSA governs the relevant time period in this action. Next, the Court interpreted the term “offense” in the WLSA to include civil actions like this one and rejected KBR’s argument that it applies only to criminal cases. The Court also concluded that the WLSA does apply only to cases that are brought by a relator, and not to cases where the United States is a party as KBR alleged.
Next, the Court considered whether Carter’s action was barred by the first-to-file rule under the FCA. The Court adopted the “material elements” test which states that a later suit is barred if it is based upon “the same material elements of fraud” as the earlier suit even if the allegations include somewhat different details. The two other lawsuits that barred Carter’s suit were both dismissed; therefore, those lawsuits cannot have a preclusive effect on Carter’s suit. KBR argued in the alternative that the Court should affirm the dismissal on the alternative ground of the public disclosure bar. The FCA’s public disclosure bar removes subject matter jurisdiction for FCA claims that are based upon matters that have been disclosed publicly unless the relator was the original source of the allegations.
Government contracts
In re: World Airways, Inc., Government Accountability Office (GAO) Case B-402674
Jul 10, 2010
OUTCOME: Bid protest for $485 million under Department of Defense for air cargo transportation services of fixed-price ID/IQ air cargo transportation services within CENTCOM.
Bid protest on behalf of incumbent contractor World Airways, Inc. on the award of five contracts for $485 million under a request for proposals (RFP), issued by the United States Transportation Command..., Department of Defense, for air cargo transportation services of five fixed-price indefinite-delivery indefinite-quantity (ID/IQ) contracts, for a base period of one year with one one-year option for international commercial air cargo transportation services within the United States Central Command CENTCOM).
Intellectual property
Buffalo Wings, Factory, Inc. v. Charbroil Grill of Wordlgate, Inc.
Jul 30, 2009
OUTCOME: Obtained judgment & $81,000 in sanctions and fees
Brought a challenging trademark infringement and unfair competition case against corporate and individual defendants and obtained a favorable consent order and monetary judgment through settlement. Su...ccessfully argued first and only Virginia State Court opinion on trademarks claims, (Fairfax 2006).
Patent infringement
MIZ Engineering, Ltd. v. Avganim, et al., Case No. 2:2005cv00722 (E.D. Va. 2005-2007)
Dec 10, 2007
OUTCOME: Dismissal of anti-trust counterclaims under Sherman Act, created new precedential decision concnering attempted monopoly under Sherman Act in the 4th Circuit.
Filed and prosecuted patent infringement claims, trademark infringement (Lanham Act) and Virginia Business conspiracy claims on behalf of a Virginia distributor and Chinese-based manufacturer against I...sraeli and California based distributors. Defended various counterclaims, including RICO, fraud and an anti-trust counter claim, which winning decision was noted as a “2007 Most Important Case of the Year” by the American Bar Association Section for Antitrust.
