Trade Secrets Litigation

• NALCO Champion v. Aegis et al. – Representing plaintiff asserting theft of trade secret claims under the Texas Theft Liability Act (“TTLA”) and Texas Uniform Trade Secrets Act (“TUTSA”), breach of fiduciary duty, conversion, breach of covenant not to compete, tortious interference with existing contracts, and breach of contract claims related to chemical products
• Derrick v. Screen Logix – Representing defendant companies and officers against patent, false advertising, theft of trade secrets, and unfair trade practices claims related to mud screen technology
• Transformer Protector v. William Kendrick and Sentry Depressurization Systems – Representing plaintiff asserting theft of trade secrets, breach of confidentiality, breach of contract, and tortious interference claims related to power transformer technology

Mergers & Acquisitions

• Forum Energy Technologies, Inc. in various acquisitions and dispositions
• Schlumberger Limited in its formation of OneSubsea, a joint venture with Cameron International Corporation
• WorleyParsons Ltd in a $3.2 billion acquisition of the energy, chemicals and resources division of Jacobs Engineering Group Inc.
• U.S. Silica in the acquisition of certain assets and liabilities

Patent Litigation

• CDN Innovations v. Cable One – Representing Cable One in a seven patent case related to ethernet port triggering, voice recognition, DOCSIS, and video program management
• CommWorks v. Cable One – Representing Cable One in a nine patent case related to IEEE 802.3ah devices, IETF RFC 4090 devices, Wi-Fi enabled cable modems with WPS functionality, IEEE 802.11 access points,
• Castlemorton Wireless v. Cequel, Altice – Representing Cequel and Altice in a patent case related to carrier frequency detection in products compatible with IEEE 802.11b and 802.11g standards
• Diff Scale v. ON Semiconductor – Representing ON Semiconductor in a four patent case related to phased lock loops (“PLLS”) and clock recovery methods for networks
• Sprint v. Mediacom, Grande et al., WideOpenWest, Atlantic Broadband, and Metrocast (District of Delaware) – Representing defendants in patent cases related to telephony, ATM switching, and communication technologies
• Kohler v. Moen (N.D. Illinois) – Representing Moen in a patent case and IPR concerning bathroom shower systems
• Toshiba v. Zond (United States Patent Office) – Representing Toshiba in over 20 Inter Partes Reviews (IPRs) against Zond, LLC before the United States Patent Office
• Grecia v. RCN (District of Delaware) – Defending RCN in a patent case concerning personalized media access systems
• Phoenix Licensing v. Cable One – Defending in a patent case concerning direct marketing systems
• Phoenix Licensing v. Cequel – Defending Cequel (Suddenlink) in a patent case concerning direct marketing systems
• Derrick v. Screen Logix – Defending Screen Logix and Axon in a patent case concerning mud screening systems
• Zond v. Toshiba (District of Massachusetts) – Defending Toshiba in a patent case concerning plasma generation in semiconductor manufacturing
• Sprint v. Cable One (District of Kansas) – Defending Cable One in a patent case related to ATM switching and communication technologies
• TQP v. Cable One (ED of Texas) – Defended Cable One in a patent case concerning encryption technology
• Bear Creek v. Mediacom (District of Delaware) – Defending Mediacom in a patent case concerning VoIP technologies
• Createads v. Mediacom (District of Delaware) – Defending Mediacom in a patent case relating to website services technologies
• GlobeTecTrust v. Cable One, Suddenlink, RCN, Knology , Mediacom , Atlantic Broadband (District of Delaware) – Defending cable companies in a patent case concerning optical and cable communication systems
• Keranos v. Toshiba (ED of Texas) – Defended Toshiba in a patent case concerning flash memory technology
• C-Cation Technologies v. Comcast (ED of Texas) – Defended Cable One and Suddenlink in a patent case related to high-speed data systems
• Net Navigation v. Huawei (ED of Texas) – Defended Huawei in patent case related to network routing systems
• HVAC Modulation v. Goodman (District of Minnesota) – Defended Goodman in a patent case involving HVAC and furnace control systems
• Carrier v. Goodman (District of Delaware) – Defending Goodman in a patent case related to HVAC systems
• In re Certain Refrigerators and Components thereof (USITC) – Represented Whirlpool in the International Trade Commission in a case relating to refrigerator patents; this case seeks an order excluding a significant number of refrigerator products from importation into and sale within, the United States
• LG Electronics v. Whirlpool (District of New Jersey) – Represented Whirlpool and its subsidiary Maytag in a case relating to refrigerator and ice maker patents asserted by both parties
• LG Electronics v. Whirlpool (District of Delaware) – Represented Whirlpool and its subsidiary Maytag in a case relating to refrigerator and ice maker patents asserted by both parties
• Accolade Systems v. WebEx Communications (Southern District of Texas, Judge Lake) – Defended a patent case related to three remote access control PC patents
• ABC v. WebEx Communications (Eastern District of Texas, Judge Davis) – Defended a patent case relating to remote access control PC patents
• Technology Properties Ltd. v. Fujitsu Limited et al. (Eastern District of Texas, Judge Ward) and Toshiba America, Inc. et al. v. Patriot Scientific et al; defended a patent case with three patents concerning microprocessor technologies
• Gammino v. SBC Communications Inc. (Eastern District of Pennsylvania), Gammino v. Southwestern Bell Telephone, L.P. (Northern District of Texas), Gammino v. Illinois Bell Telephone Company (Northern District of Illinois), and Gammino v. The Ohio Bell Telephone Company (Southern District of Ohio) – Defended AT&T in a series of patent infringement actions concerning patents directed to an algorithm for blocking international telephone calls; the district court in the Texas action granted summary judgment in AT&T’s favor, invalidating the asserted claims of both Gammino patents and finding the properly construed claims not infringed (Gammino v. Southwestern Bell Telephone, L.P., 512 F.Supp.2d 626 (N.D. Tex. 2007)); the Federal Circuit affirmed the judgment of invalidity as to the asserted claims of both Gammino patents (Gammino v. Southwestern Bell Telephone, L.P., 2008 WL 515011 (Fed. Cir. 2008))
• TIP Systems LLC and TIP Systems Holding Co., Inc. v. AT&T Corp. (Southern District of Texas) – Defended a group of AT&T entities in a patent infringement action involving multiple patents concerning inmate payphones
• Virtual Hold v. Genesys Telecommunications Laboratories (Eastern District of Texas, Northern District of California) – Represented Genesys in patent cases involving telephone call processing patents asserted by both parties
• Omnistar LP, et al. v. CSI Wireless, Inc., et al. (SD of Texas) – Represented party seeking preliminary injunction to enforce a covenant not to compete included in a corporate acquisition of GPS technology