Sonrai v. Samsung (ITC): Representing Samsung in an ITC investigation involving power savings technology.
Dynamics v. Samsung (ITC): Representing Samsung in an ITC investigation involving magnetic emulation technology.
Ericsson v. Samsung (E.D. Tex.): Representing Samsung in a patent infringement action involving cellular technology.
Pact v. Intel (D. Del./PTAB): Representing Intel in a patent infringement action and related IPR proceedings where PACT is asserting multiple patents covering various computer processor technologies.
Intel v. Future Link (D. Del.): Representing Intel in a declaratory-judgment action involving multiple patents directed to various aspects of computer design technology including bus design and interconnects.
Largan v. Samsung (S.D. Cal.): Representing Samsung in a patent infringement action involving camera lens technology.
Uniloc v. BeeTalk (E.D. Tex.): Representing BeeTalk in a patent infringement action involving VoIP technology.
Samsung v. Nvidia (ITC): Representing Samsung in an ITC investigation involving chip-miniaturization technology.
Cisco v. Arista (ITC): Representing Cisco in an ITC investigation involving networking technology.
IXI v. Samsung (N.D. Cal.): Representing Samsung in a patent infringement action involving multi-communication devices.
Samsung v. Ericsson (ITC): Representing Samsung in an ITC investigation involving processor module technology.
High Point v. Sprint (D. Kan.): Representing Alcatel Lucent in a patent infringement action involving wireless network infrastructure technology.
ChriMar v. Cisco (ITC and N.D. Cal.): Representing Cisco in an ITC investigation and parallel district court action involving Power-over-Ethernet technology.
Titanide v. IBM (E.D. Tex.): Representing IBM in a patent infringement action involving computer networking technology.
Coloplast v. C.R. Bard (D. Minn.): Representing C.R. Bard in a patent infringement action involving medical devices.
MOSAID v. IBM (D. Del.): Representing IBM in a patent infringement action involving computer networking technology.
Thomson Licensing v. Chimei et al. (ITC): Representing Thomson Licensing in an ITC investigation involving LCD technology.
JuxtaComm v. IBM et al. (E.D. Tex.): Representing IBM in a patent infringement action involving database technology.
Alcatel Lucent v. Microsoft (E.D. Tex.): Representing Alcatel Lucent in a patent infringement action involving computer networking technology.
Alcatel Lucent v. Microsoft et al. (S.D. Cal.): Representing Alcatel Lucent in a patent infringement action involving digital video compression, perceptual audio coding, user interface, video display, and communications protocol technologies.
ON Semiconductor v. Samsung (D. Del.): Representing Samsung in a patent infringement action involving semiconductor technology.
Lucent v. Extreme Networks et al. (D. Del.): Representing Lucent in a patent infringement action involving networking technology.
Choice-Intersil v. Agere (E.D. Pa.): Representing Agere Systems in a copyright and trade secret action involving wireless networking technology.
