G. Hopkins Guy, III

Partner

Hop Guy Photo

Palo Alto

P: +1.650.739.7510 F: +1.650.739.7610
  • In Elbit Systems Land and C4I Ltd. et al v. Hughes Network Systems LLC et al. - Mr. Guy represented the world’s leading provider of satellite broadband technology in a patent infringement lawsuit brought by a major Israeli defense electronics firm and former competitor. The plaintiff accused DISH and Hughes Network System’s VSAT and mobile sat products of infringement, which are used by carriers, large enterprises, and consumers to access voice and data services using existing commercial satellites and next generation high-throughput satellites. Trial is set for July 31, 2017.  
  • In California Institute of Technology v. Hughes Communications Inc. et al. - Mr. Guy represented DISH Network and Hughes Communications in a patent suit related to digital satellite transmission. After favorable rulings against Caltech on related inter partes reviews, the matter settled with a licensing agreement.
  • In Dragon Intellectual Property LLC v. DISH Network LLC - Mr. Guy represented DISH Network in a patent case involving continuous recording DVR devices. After a Markman hearing, judgment of non-infringement was entered in favor of DISH. The matter is now on appeal.
  • In Custom Media Technologies LLC v. Dish Network Corporation - Mr. Guy represented DISH Network Corporation in a patent infringement relating to customizing and distributing presentations for user sites. The suit was dismissed with prejudiced.
  • In Tessera Corporation v. Toshiba Corporation - Mr. Guy represents Toshiba in a patent license dispute involving semiconductor packaging.  Mr. Guy argued and was granted summary judgment. The matter is now on appeal.
  • In Custom Media Technologies LLC v. Dish Network Corporation - Mr. Guy is representing DISH Network Corporation in a case involving patents that relate to systems of data management for on demand products.  Trial is set for September 5, 2017.
  • In TQ Beta LLC v. Dish Network Corporation et al. - Mr. Guy represented DISH in a case regarding broadcast signals. The case was stayed pending the resolution of two parallel instituted inter partes reviews filed at the PTAB.  The PTAB cancelled all asserted claims for DISH.  The Matters is now on appeal. 
  • In BrightEdge Technologies, Inc. v. Searchmetrics, GmbH et al - Mr. Guy represented BrightEdge in a patent infringement case against Searchmetrics Inc. and Searchmetrics GmbH, a competitor of BrightEdge in the search engine optimization (“SEO”) technology area as well as a trade secret case in California state court. Matter is pending. BrightEdge is a leading provider of software to assist in SEO and has obtained several foundational patents in that space.  BrightEdge has asserted five of these patents against Searchmetrics.
  • In Tessera, Inc. v. Toshiba Corporation - Mr. Guy represented Toshiba against Tessera involving a license dispute under Tessera’s Compliant Chip Licenses (“TCC”) packaging patents.  
  • In Free Stream Media Corp. (aka Samba) v. Alphonso Inc. - Mr. Guy represented Samba, a company that develops software for televisions, set-top boxes, smart phones and tablets to enable interactive television, in a competitor suit in the Northern District of California. The matter is pending. 
  • Mr. Guy led respondents Acer America Corporation, Acer, Inc. Nanya Technology Corporation USA, Nanya Technology Corporation and Powerchip Semiconductor in patent litigation before the United States International Trade Commission (ITC) Section 337 concerning Tessera’s semiconductor packaging technology in the 630 investigation. After a two-week hearing, Mr. Guy and his team achieved a finding on no violation by the full commission on all asserted patent claims and a finding of patent exhaustion from the ALJ -a first of its kind decision from the ITC. This decision was affirmed by the Federal Circuit in May 2011 and is now on appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court.
  • In eBay/PayPal vs. Google, Mr. Guy represented eBay/PayPal in a trade secret litigation involving a migrating employee responsible for Google’s eWallet program. The case settled in early 2012.
  • Mr. Guy co-led a team on behalf of Apple against S3G, an HTC Company, before the ITC in a two-week ITC Trial hearing in March, 2011. The ALJ found for Apple on the majority of claims. The ITC Commission later found in its Final Determination that no violation had occurred, resulting in a favorable judgment for Apple. The technology involved certain graphics processors used in all Apple iPhones, iPads and the iPod Touch.
  • Mr. Guy represented Acer/Gateway, 2wire, Westell and NetGear in patent litigation filed by Wi Lan in the Eastern District of Texas. The matter settled favorably in February 2011 on the eve of trial.
  • In the ATS v. Applied Materials - Mr. Guy lead a team against ATS’ US$500 million claim to US$1 million before trial. In November 1999, the case went to a two-week trial in the Central District of California before Judge James V. Selna resulting in a decision in favor of Applied Materials.
  • In DSC Communications v. Advanced Fibre Communications - Mr. Guy represented AFC in a trade secret case before Judge Folsom in the Eastern District of Texas. The case involved Next Generation Digital Loop Carrier technology and was the first technology case tried before Judge Folsom. Mr. Guy conducted all technical cross-examination at trial of DSC’s witnesses. The case settled after three days of the plaintiff’s case on terms that allowed AFC to proceed immediately with its Initial Public Offering -setting a record for the largest IPO as of that time.
  • In Affinity Engines v. Google - Mr. Guy was lead counsel in the first litigation involving social networks now dominated by MySpace and Facebook, Inc. The Affinity Engines litigation involved the assertion of trade secret litigation against Google. Mr. Guy also has represented Facebook in trade secret litigation against ConnectU.
  • In Biax Corp. v. Intel Corp. - Mr. Guy represented Intel in a patent infringement action involving parallel processing technologies. Plaintiff Biax accused Intel’s Pentium 4 and Itanium 2 microprocessors of infringing four patents dating back to 1989.
  • In Cisco Systems v. Huawei - Mr. Guy was lead counsel for Cisco in obtaining a worldwide preliminary injunction against Huawei to protect Cisco trade secrets. The case concluded following Huawei’s agreement to change its command line interface, user manuals, help screens and portions of its source code to address Cisco’s concerns. The completion of the lawsuit came after a third party review of Huawei’s products, and after Huawei discontinued the sale of products at issue in the suit and agreed to only offer the sale of new, modified products on a worldwide basis and submitted its relevant products for review by a neutral third party expert.
  • In InterWave v. Cisco Systems - Mr. Guy was lead counsel for Cisco in a trade secret and patent infringement case brought by InterWave. The case involved GSM cellular telephone technology and the use of Internet VoIP/H.323 protocols for the transport of voice data. His team defended a preliminary injunction motion brought by InterWave to halt sale of Cisco’s VoIP ViperCell wireless product and dismissing all InterWave patents from the case on summary judgment. The case settled after a recommendation by the Special Master that InterWave had also failed to adequately identify its trade secrets and had instead claimed public domain information as its secrets. The case settled favorably to Cisco.
  • Mr. Guy represented Fairchild Semiconductor Corp. in four patent trials in the District of Delaware. Power Integrations, Inc. alleged that certain of Fairchild’s and System General’s Off-Line Conversion Integrated Circuits infringe three Power Integrations’ patents and Fairchild’s lawsuit against Power Integrations, Inc. for infringement of certain SG patents. The case resulted in an 82% remittur of damages based on foreign sales.
  • Mr. Guy was engaged by eBay, Inc. and its subsidiary PayPal, Inc. (which eBay recently acquired) to defend both companies in a patent infringement action brought by AT&T in Delaware, AT&T Corp. v. eBay, Inc. et al., (D. Del.). The case involves eBay’s and PayPal’s popular on-line payment mechanisms. Patent litigation involving technologies for sending documents and messages over the internet as well as on-line payment systems.
  • In AOS v. Siliconix - Mr. Guy represented AOS in patent litigation in which Siliconix, Inc. accused AOS’s Power MOSFET devices of infringing Siliconix’s patents. The case settled on favorable terms in 2004 after Markman hearing.
  • In Tegal v. Lam Research - Mr. Guy was lead counsel for LAM and defeated Tegal’s assertion of infringement of two patents involving plasma etching processes. After a limited Markman hearing, the Court dismissed the case on summary judgment in favor of Lam Research. Tegal did not appeal.
  • In Quantum v. Imation - Mr. Guy was lead counsel for Quantum in a trade secret case seeking preliminary injunction relief in Santa Clara County Superior Court in the fall of 2001. Mr. Guy and his trial team were able to obtain a preliminary injunction within one month of filing the action against Imation based on expedited discovery, which revealed Imation’s misappropriation. The novel injunction required the defendant to pay a 30% royalty to continue sales of the product at issue. The case has since settled.
  • In Starsight v. United Video & TV Guide, Inc. - Represented Gemstar in patent litigation involving an interactive onscreen television guide against United Video and TV Guide Online. United Video attempted to resolve the case by acquiring Gemstar in a US$2 billion hostile takeover. Subsequently, as a direct result of the trial, Gemstar acquired United Video and TV Guide Online in a US$8 billion merger.
  • In Myrio v. Minerva Networks - Mr. Guy was part of the team that represented Minerva against trade secret, unfair competition and trade disparagement claims made by Myrio. Minerva manufactures a head-end M-PEG2 compression engine for placing video streams on IP-based telephone networks, as well as the head-end management software. The case settled favorable to Minerva after the Court ruled Myrio could not identify its trade secrets adequately.
  • In MPath v. Lipstream - Mr. Guy represented MPath in a patent enforcement action on two upper level protocol patents held by MPath. The technology involved multicast IP networks for group and voice chat over the internet. With Mr. Guy as the lead trial counsel, MPath achieved its construction of all terms during a four-day Markman hearing in the Northern District of California. The case settled during the volatile summer of 2000. Mpath continues with its HearMe division, and Lipstream has since failed and is no longer a competitor.
  • In Coolsavings v. Planet U - Represented Planet U, a small dot-com startup, against patent infringement claims related to Coolsavings’ interactive coupon business method. The case resulted in sanctions entered against Coolsavings during the discovery phase. These sanctions included Coolsaving’s patent filing date would serve as its date of invention and a sanction that would have resulted in the invalidity of the patent in suit. The case settled prior to the close of discovery.
  • In Acta v. Sagent - Mr. Guy represented Acta, a data mart software developer, in trade secret and copyright litigation brought to declare the rights of Acta with respect to claims made by Sagent that Acta had misappropriated trade secrets and was using Sagent code. All claims were evaluated and declaratory action was brought against Sagent. The case settled favorably to Acta without substantial discovery.
  • In Diasonics v. Acuson Corp. - Mr. Guy represented the plaintiff, Diasonics, in a jury trial on two patents relating to phased array ultrasound imagers. A verdict in favor of Diasonics was returned , but the verdict was in part set aside by the trial judge as going beyond the evidence. After the court identified only a narrow issue for retrial, a ruling favorable to Diasonics was obtained and the case was settled.
  • In Level One Communications v. Seeq Technology - Mr. Guy defended Seeq Technology in a case that involved a coaxial and 10BaseT PHY layer Ethernet LAN technology, including all IEEE 802.3 standards up to a gigabit Ethernet.
  • In LSI Logic Corporation v. Maker Communications - Mr. Guy represented LSI Logic Corporation in a case that involved a second generation ATM SAR (segmentation assembly and reassembly) chip technology with a variety of multiplexer devices and techniques, as well as encoding techniques.
  • In Stanford v. Harris - Mr. Guy defended Harris in this case, where the plaintiff asserted a claim of patent infringement against Harris’ IGBT power transistors. This case determined the inventor of this class of transistors. Harris filed for reexamination and the case has since settled on confidential terms.