Selected Results *

The following is a selection of patent-related litigation matters that our firm has handled:

• Grantley Patent Holdings, Inc. v. Clear Channel Communications, Inc.: A patent infringement case in which a federal jury in the Eastern District of Texas awarded Grantley Corporation $66 million. The jury found that Clear Channel Communications, Inc. infringed on four of Grantley Corporation's patents related to an integrated inventory management system for radio advertising time. The jury also found that the infringement was willful. The verdict was announced on April 22, 2008.
• Ricoh Corp. v. Pitney Bowes Inc.: Defended Pitney Bowes in a patent infringement involving communications and control within Pitney Bowes' mailing machines. The case was tried in the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey, Trenton Division, with Judge Brown presiding. The jury returned a verdict of invalidity in favor of Pitney Bowes finding anticipation of all 18 asserted claims. In addition, during trial, the Court entered summary judgment of anticipation of four additional claims. Jury decision was affirmed in a post-trial memorandum by the district court.
• Eolas Technologies, Inc. and The Regents of the University of California v. Microsoft Corporation: Represented Eolas Technologies, Inc. and the Regents of the University of California, in action for patent infringement of web browser technology for the delivery of interactive applications embedded in web pages. The case was tried in United States District Court, Northern District of Illinois, Eastern Division, Chicago, Illinois, Zagel, Judge. Jury verdict in favor of Eolas and the University of California, on issues of infringement, validity, and damages in the amount of $520.6 million. On January 14, 2004, the court entered judgment for $565,894,868 which includes the amount of the original verdict plus prejudgment interest. On appeal, the Federal Circuit affirmed the finding of infringement and the damages award, and ordered that Microsoft’s invalidity and inequitable conduct defenses be retried. The case settled on a confidential basis four days before the start of the invalidity trial.
• Intergraph v. Dell, Hewlett-Packard Co. and Gateway Inc.: Represented Intergraph Corp. in patent litigation involving microprocessor system design in a case venued in East Texas. Recovered a total of 440 million dollars in settlements as follows:
  • Hewlett-Packard $141 million, with cross licenses;
  • Dell/Intel $225 million;
  • Gateway $12 million plus ongoing royalties;
  • AMD $15 million plus potential future royalty profits;
  • IBM $10 million plus a license to IBM’s portfolio;
  • Fujitsu $9.75 million;
  • Sony $15 million;
  • Acer $7.5 million; and
  • Other licenses
• Pitney Bowes Inc. v. Hewlett-Packard Co.: Represented Pitney Bowes in a patent infringement case against Hewlett-Packard involving patents on laser-jet printer technology. The case settled, on the morning opening statements were to be made, for $400 million and other business considerations.
• TVI v. Microsoft (N.D. Calif): TVI is the owner of several patents covering the autoplay feature of Windows. TVI sued Microsoft in the Northern District of California alleging that all versions of Microsoft Windows since Windows 95 infringed these patents. The case settled in October 2005 a little more than one week before trial. Microsoft took a license under the patents. All other terms of the settlement are confidential.
• Fonar v. General Electric: Represented Fonar Corporation and Dr. Raymond V. Damadian in a patent infringement action against General Electric involving patents on magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) machines. At trial the jury awarded Fonar $110.5 million. The Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit affirmed almost the entire award, ordering General Electric to pay $103.4 million, reported at the time to be the largest patent infringement jury verdict ever upheld on appeal (IP Worldwide). Fonar Corporation v. General Electric Co., 107 F.3d 1543 (Fed. Cir.), cert. denied, 118 S.Ct. 266 (1997). After the Supreme Court denied certiorari, General Electric paid Fonar $128 million (judgment plus interest).
• Electromotive Division of General Motors Corporation v. Transportation Systems Division of General Electric Co., et al.: Defended General Electric in a patent infringement action brought by General Motors involving planetary and compressor bearings used in diesel locomotive engines. Summary judgment which found invalidity of the patents on the basis of on-sale bar was upheld by the Federal Circuit in Electromotive Div. of General Motors Corp. v. Transportation Systems Div. of General Elec. Co., 417 F.3d 1203, 75 U.S.P.Q.2d 1650 (Fed. Cir. 2005).
• Honeywell v. Minolta: Represented Honeywell in a patent infringement case against Minolta involving patents on autofocus cameras. After a five-month trial, the jury awarded Honeywell $96.3 million. The case subsequently settled for $127.5 million. Additional litigation against other autofocus camera manufacturers resulted in total settlements of approximately $500 million.
• UNOCAL Corp. v. ARCO, Chevron, Exxon, Mobil, Shell and Texaco: Represented UNOCAL in a patent infringement case over UNOCAL's patent on gasoline. Jury verdict for $69 million in favor of UNOCAL on liability and damages and court judgment also in favor of UNOCAL on defendants’ claims that patent was unenforceable. With interest and attorney fees, the judgment in favor of UNOCAL amounted to $91 million. Verdict upheld on appeal.
• Tulip Computers Int’l v. Dell Computers, Inc. (D. Dell. 2003): A patent infringement action tried to a jury in which our firm represented the patent owner Tulip, a Dutch corporation. The case settled two days before going to the jury with Dell paying Tulip $49.5 million.
• St. Clair Intellectual Property Consultants, Inc. v. Canon, Inc. et al.: Represented St. Clair Intellectual Property Consultants, Inc. in a patent infringement case in which a federal jury in Wilmington, Delaware awarded $34.7 million after a finding that Canon infringed four patents relating to digital camera technology. The verdict was announced on October 8, 2004.
• Honeywell Inc. v. Victor Company of Japan and U. S. JVC Corp.: Trial counsel on behalf of Honeywell Inc. in action for patent infringement of color filters in video cameras. The case was tried in the U.S. District Court, District of Minnesota, St. Paul, Minnesota, Frank, Judge. Jury verdict in favor of Honeywell for $30 million, which reflects royalties of two percent of JVC’s sales of the accused camcorders to calculate past damages for the unlicensed use of the technology.
• TriStrata Technology, Inc. v. Mary Kay Inc.: Patent infringement case relating to alpha-hydroxy acid (AHA) anti-aging skin technology. Our client, TriStrata Technology, Inc., was awarded $26,359,405 in damages plus interest. The jury ruled in TriStrata’s favor on all issues of infringement and validity. The U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware in Wilmington, Del. issued a final judgment March 31, 2006 granting prejudgment and post-judgment interest to TriStrata Technology, Inc. bringing the total award to over $43 million. Case was summarily affirmed by the Federal Circuit on January 10, 2007.
• St. Clair Intellectual Property Consultants, Inc. v. Sony Corp. et al.: No. 01-557 (D. Del., filed Aug. 14, 2001) a case in which a federal jury in Wilmington, Delaware awarded St. Clair, $25 million after a finding that Sony infringed four patents relating to digital camera technology. The verdict was announced on February 25, 2003. The parties entered into a license agreement two days later, the terms of which are confidential.
• St. Clair Intellectual Property Consultants, Inc. v. Fuji Photo Film, Ltd. et al.: Represented St. Clair Intellectual Property Consultants, Inc. in a patent infringement case in which a federal jury in Wilmington, Delaware awarded $3 million after a finding that Fuji infringed four patents relating to digital camera technology. The verdict was announced on October 25, 2004.
• LaserMaster v. Sentinel Business Systems: Represented a manufacturer of large format inkjet printers in a trade secret case. Our firm was retained just five weeks before trial and won a jury verdict of $2.2 million which is one of the largest trade secret verdicts in the jurisdiction.
• Talbert Fuel Systems Patents Company v. Unocal Corporation: Defense of patent infringement and judicial interference action in Central District of California. Summary judgment in favor of UNOCAL, affirmed by the Federal Circuit Court of Appeals, certiorari granted, vacated, remanded by the U.S. Supreme Court. On October 28, 2003, the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit unanimously ruled in favor of UNOCAL on all issues in this matter.

http://www.rkmc.com/Intellectual-Pro...