Sarah Guske

Department Chair - Intellectual Property (San Francisco) Partner

sarahguske

San Francisco

P: +1.415.291.6205 F: +1.415.291.6305

Representative Litigation Cases

  • Twilio Inc. v. TeleSign Corp. (Northern District of California; Central District of California; PTAB) – litigation counsel for Twilio in patent litigation related to telecommunications technology.
  • Capella Photonics, Inc. v. Cisco Systems, Inc. (Northern District of California; PTAB; Federal Circuit) – litigation counsel for Cisco in patent litigation related to MEMs technology.
  • Patent Asset Licensing, LLC v. Bright House Networks, LLC (Middle District of Florida; PTAB) – litigation counsel for Bright House Networks in patent litigation related to telecommunications network technology.
  • Bright House Networks, LLC v. Focal IP (PTAB) – PTAB litigation counsel for Bright House Networks in PTAB litigation related to telecommunications network technology.
  • Cisco Systems, Inc. v. Focal IP (PTAB) – PTAB litigation counsel for Cisco in PTAB litigation related to telecommunications network technology.
  • Iridescent Networks, Inc. v. AT&T Inc. (Eastern District of Texas) - litigation counsel for AT&T in patent litigation related to telecommunications network technology.
  • Open Text S.A. v. Box, Inc. (Northern District of California) – litigation and trial counsel for Open Text in patent litigation related to document management and collaboration technology.
  • ZeniMax Media Inc. v. Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. (Northern District of Texas) – litigation counsel for Samsung in copyright infringement, trade secret, and unfair competition case involving VR technology.
  • Labyrinth Optical Technologies LLC v. Oclaro, Inc. (Northern District of California) – litigation counsel for Oclaro in patent litigation related to optics technology.
  • Finisar Corp. v. Oplink Communications Inc. (Northern District of California; Eastern District of Texas) – litigation counsel for Oplink in patent litigation related to optical transceiver technology.
  • Mondis Technology Ltd. v. Innolux Corp. (Eastern District of Texas) - trial counsel for Innolux in patent litigation related to computer monitor technology.
  • ACQIS LLC v. IBM Corp. (Eastern District of Texas) - trial counsel for ACQIS in patent litigation related to server technologies.
  • Interactive Systems Worldwide, Inc. v. Mikohn Gaming Corp. et al. (District of Nevada) - litigation counsel for Mikohn Gaming Corp. and STB Holdings, Inc. in patent litigation related to real-time sports betting technologies.
  • Zenith Electronics v. Thomson, Philips Electronics, TTE Technology, Pioneer Electronics (Eastern District of Texas) - litigation counsel for Zenith in patent litigation over patents essential for compliance with ATSC Digital Television Standard.
  • Bookham, Inc. v. Unaxis Balzers AG et al. (Northern District of California) - litigation counsel for Bookham in patent litigation related to color wheel technology.
  • HyperRoll Israel, Ltd. v. Hyperion Solutions (Eastern District of Texas) - litigation counsel for HyperRoll Israel, Ltd. in a patent litigation against Hyperion Solutions, The technology in this case involves database-management software.
  • HyperRoll, Inc. v. Hyperion Solutions (Northern District of California) - litigation counsel for HyperRoll, Inc. in a declaratory judgment action brought by Hyperion Solutions. The technology in this case involves database-management software.
  • Qualcomm Incorporated v. Nokia Corporation (Eastern District of Texas) - litigation counsel for Qualcomm in a patent infringement action involving cellular telephony systems and mobile TV applications.
  • International Printer Corp. v. Brother International et al. (Eastern District of Texas) - litigation counsel for International Printer in a patent infringement action against twelve manufacturers of networkable multifunction printer and imaging technology.
  • Ronald A. Katz Technology Licensing, L.P. v. Various Defendants (Central District of California; Federal Circuit) - litigation counsel for Katz in a patent infringement action against nine defendants. The technology involves computer telephony and call-center systems.
  • Widevine Technologies, Inc. v. Verimatrix, Inc. (Eastern District of Texas) - litigation counsel for Verimatrix in a patent infringement action involving encryption technology.
  • Widevine Technologies, Inc. v. Verimatrix, Inc. (Western District of Washington) - litigation counsel for Verimatrix in a patent infringement action involving encryption and data stream flow control technology.
  • OPTi Inc. v. nVidia Corp. (Eastern District of Texas) - litigation counsel for nVidia in a patent infringement action involving chipset design and operation.
  • OMS Investments, Inc., et al. v. TerraCycle, Inc. (District of New Jersey) - litigation counsel for TerraCycle in trade dress infringement and unfair competition action.