IP Litigation Matters

• In the Matter of Certain Video Security Equipment And Systems, Related Software, Components Thereof, and Products Containing Same (International Trade Commission Investigation No. 337-TA-1281) – Representation of Motorola Solutions and affiliates as complainants in patent infringement investigation in the ITC involving video security technologies.
• MicroPairing Technologies LLC v. American Honda Motor Co. (United States District Court for the Central District of California) – Defense of American Honda in patent infringement case related to in-vehicle electronics systems.
• Bishop Display Tech LLC. v. Samsung Electronics Co. et al. (United States District Court for the Eastern District of Texas) – Defense of Samsung in patent infringement case related to LCD display technologies.
• MyPaq Holdings Ltd. v. Samsung Electronics Co. et al. (United States District Court for the Western District of Texas) – Defense of Samsung in patent infringement case related to power control semiconductor devices.
• Moxchange LLC v. Avigilon USA Corp. (United States District Court for the District of Delaware) – Defense of Avigilon in patent infringement action related to video encryption technologies.
• Gladiator IP LLC v. Ricoh USA, Inc. (United States District Court for the Western District of Texas) – Defense of Ricoh in patent infringement case related to multifunction printer technologies.
• In the Matter of Certain Chemical Mechanical Planarization Slurries and Components Thereof (International Trade Commission Investigation No. 337-TA-1204) – Representation of CMC Materials in patent infringement investigation involving CMP slurries.
• Autronic Plastics, Inc. d/b/a Clear-Vu Lighting v. Apogee Lighting, Inc. et al., (United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York) – Representation of Clear-Vu Lighting in consolidated patent infringement actions related to mass transit LED lighting technologies.
• FUJIFILM North America Corporation v. Abesons Corp et al. – Representation of FUJIFILM North America Corporation (FNAC) in gray market goods litigation brought against 14 companies accused of importing, advertising and selling gray market FUJIFILM and INSTAX cameras in violation of Section 43 of the Lanham Act.
• 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.
• In the Matter of Certain Magnetic Data Storage and Tapes and Cartridges Containing the Same (II) (International Trade Commission Investigation No. 337-TA-1076) – Representation of Fujifilm in ITC Investigation filed by Fujifilm related to magnetic tape data storage technologies.
• FUJIFILM North American Corp. v. Abesons Corp. et al. (United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York) – Representation of FUJIFILM in connection with Lanham Act and related claims stemming from defendants’ sales of gray market cameras.
• 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.
• 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.
• 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.