Robert Maier

Partner

maier.rob

New York

P: +1.212.408.2538 F: +1.212.259.2538

IP Litigation Matters

  • AI Automation, LLC v. Samsung Electronics Co. Ltd. et al. (United States District Court for the Eastern District of Texas) – Representation of Samsung in defense against allegations of patent infringement relating to mobile device handwriting recognition technologies.
  • Koninklijke KPN N.V. v. Samsung Electronics America, Inc. et al. (United States District Court for the Eastern District of Texas) – Representation of Samsung in defense against allegations of patent infringement relating to mobile phone technologies.
  • SecureNova LLC v. Samsung Electronics Co. Ltd. et al. (United States District Court for the Eastern District of Texas) – Representation of Samsung in defense against allegations of patent infringement relating to mobile phone technologies.
  • ScentSational Technologies LLC v. PepsiCo, Inc. et al. (United States District Court for the Southern District of New York) – Representation of PepsiCo in defense of allegations regarding trade secret and patent claims directed to food packaging.
  • ContentGuard Holdings, Inc. v. Samsung Electronics Co. Ltd. et al. (United States District Court for the Eastern District of Texas) – Representation of Samsung in defense against allegations of patent infringement relating to digital rights management technologies.
  • Patentmarks Communications LLC v. Samsung Telecommunications America, LLC (United States District Court for the District of Delaware) – Representation of Samsung in defense against allegations of patent infringement relating to multiple path wireless telecommunications technologies.
  • Smartflash LLC v. Samsung Electronics Co. Ltd. et al. (United States District Court for the Eastern District of Texas) – Representation of Samsung in defense against allegations of patent infringement relating to data storage and access system technologies.
  • Hartford Fire Insurance Co. v. Progressive Corp. et al. (United States District Court for the Northern District of Ohio) – Representation of Hartford in patent litigation relating to insurance processing system technologies.
  • Varia Holdings v. Samsung Electronics America et al. (United States District Court for the Southern District of New York) – Representation of Samsung in defense against allegations of patent infringement relating to mobile device input technology.
  • Ushijima v. Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. (United States District Court for the Western District of Texas) – Representation of Samsung in defense against allegations of patent infringement relating to liquid crystal display manufacturing technology.
  • Lewit v. PepsiCo, Inc. (United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois) – Representation of PepsiCo in a utility patent infringement suit involving drink packaging.
  • Williamson v. AT&T, Inc. et al. (United States District Court for the Southern District of New York) – Representation of AT&T in defense of patent infringement allegations relating to delivery of IPTV over a network.
  • Intellectual Ventures I LLC et al. v. AT&T Mobility LLC et al. (United States District Court for the District of Delaware) – Representation of AT&T in defense of patent infringement allegations relating to cellular communications and other wireless communications technologies.
  • Semcon Tech LLC v. Fujifilm Electronic Materials U.S.A., Inc. (United States District Court for the District of Delaware) – Representation of Fujifilm in a patent infringement action relating to semiconductor manufacturing methods and materials. Secured dismissal without prejudice on behalf of Fujifilm.
  • Fujifilm Corp. v. Eastman Kodak Co. (United States District Court for the Southern District of New York) – Representation of Fujifilm in patent infringement action against Kodak relating to digital camera and imaging technologies.
  • Phoenix Licensing LLC v. The Hartford et al. (United States District Court for the Eastern District of Texas) – Representation of The Hartford in a patent infringement action relating to business method patents.
  • Fractus, S.A. v. Samsung Electronics Co, Ltd; et. al. (United States District Court for the Eastern District of Texas) – Representation of Samsung in a patent infringement action relating to mobile phones.
  • American Calcar v. American Honda Motor Co. (United States District Court for the Southern District of California) – Representation of American Calcar in patent infringement suit involving in-vehicle telematics technology.
  • Solar Physics Corp. et al. v. Chi Mei Optoelectronics et al. (United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York) – Representation of Plasma Physics Corp. and Solar Physics Corp. in series of patent infringement suits relating to LCD display manufacturing technology and plasma enhanced chemical vapor deposition (PECVD) processing.
  • Nuvasive, Inc. et al. v. Orthofix Int’l. Inc., et al. (United States District Court for the District of New Jersey) – Representation of Nuvasive in action for infringement of Nuvasive patent relating to mesenchymal stem cell technologies. Case settled on favorable terms.
  • Honeywell Int’l, Inc. et al. v. Hitachi Display Devices, Ltd. et al. (United States District Court for the District of Delaware) – Representation of Hitachi in patent litigation relating to liquid crystal displays, backlighting, and optical components.
  • Orion IP, LLC v. Fujifilm; Hitachi; Toshiba et al. (United States District Court for the Eastern District of Texas) – Representation of Fujifilm, Hitachi, and Toshiba in series of patent infringement actions relating to Internet applications, software, and business methods.
  • DR Systems, Inc. v. Fujifilm Medical Systems USA, Inc. (United States District Court for the Southern District of California) – Representation of Fujifilm in patent infringement case relating to medical diagnostic imaging equipment.
  • Plasma Physics Corp. and Solar Physics Corp. v. Agilent Technologies et al. (United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York) – Representation of Plasma Physics Corp. and Solar Physics Corp. in series of patent infringement suits relating to semiconductor chip manufacturing technology and plasma enhanced chemical vapor deposition (PECVD) processing.
  • In the Matter of Certain Magnetic Data Storage Tapes and Cartridges Containing the Same (International Trade Commission Investigation No. 337-TA-1012) – Representation of Fujifilm in ITC Investigation of Sony's infringement of a number of Fujifilm patents related to magnetic tape data storage technologies.
  • In the Matter of Certain Magnetic Tape Cartridges and Components Thereof (International Trade Commission Investigation No. 337-TA-1036) – Representation of Fujifilm in ITC Investigation filed by Sony related to magnetic tape data storage technologies.
  • In the Matter of Certain Magnetic Tape Cartridges and Components Thereof (International Trade Commission Investigation No. 337-TA-1058) – Representation of Fujifilm in ITC Investigation filed by Sony related to magnetic tape data storage technologies.

IP Transactional Matters and Counseling

  • Columbia University – prosecution of patents and counseling involving various technologies, including relating to video encoding and MPEG technologies and standards.
  • The Hartford Insurance – counseling regarding patent issues involving business method patents and patent applications.
  • Liberty Media – counseling and due diligence regarding intellectual property issues.
  • MasterCard International Inc. – counseling regarding patent portfolio management and patent prosecution.
  • Vidyo, Inc. – patent counseling, prosecution and management of a worldwide patent portfolio directed to audiovisual data compression and transmission.
  • Fidessa Corp. – counseling and patent prosecution regarding software and trading platform technologies.
  • Various clients – counseling, opinion work, and negotiation of patent licenses and settlement agreements resolving numerous IP litigation matters.