PRACTICE AREAS
Intellectual Property LitigationInter Partes Review
EDUCATION
- University of Notre Dame (J.D., 2000)
- University of Texas (B.A., History, 1996)
LICENSES & ADMISSIONS
- Licensed to practice in Texas
- United States District Court for the Eastern and Western Districts of Texas
- U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit
Affiliations
- Named Texas Super Lawyer, 2014-2020
- Named Texas Rising Star, 2007-2010; 2012-2014
- U.S. District Courts for the Western, Southern and Eastern Districts of Texas
- U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit
- Licensed to practice in Texas
V-Card
-
Bandspeed, Inc. v. Broadcom Corp., et al. (W.D. Tex.)
Represented plaintiff hardware company in a patent litigation relating to Bluetooth communications against numerous integrated circuit manufacturers. The matter settled favorably for confidential sums.
-
Papst Licensing GmbH & Co., K.G. v. Apple, Inc. et al. (E.D. Tex., PTAB, Fed. Cir.)
Represent patent owners in case involving allegations of patent infringement related to high data rate, device-independent information transfer against multiple cell phone manufacturers. Trial court denied motion to transfer venue and appeal court denied mandamus. Navigated the filing of twenty-three (23) IPRs of data transfer technology patents by nine (9) accused infringers, securing non-institution of many petitions and resulting in survival of patentable claims asserted in litigation. Obtained $5.9 million jury verdict against one defendant; other defendants settled favorably.
-
Parity Networks LLC v. Nokia Solutions and Networks US, LLC (E.D. Tex.)
Represented patent owner in case involving allegations of patent infringement related to networking technology.
-
Norman IP Holdings, LLC v. Lexmark International, Inc., et al. (E.D. Tex.)
Represented patent owner in case involving allegations of patent infringement related to semiconductor technology.
-
eWatch, Inc. v. Apple Inc., et al. (E.D. Tex.)
Represented plaintiff hardware and software company in patent litigation relating to image capture, storage, and transmission against numerous manufacturers of camera phones. The matter settled favorably for confidential sums.
-
No Magic, Inc. v. Thales E-Security, Inc. (E.D. Tex.)
Represent plaintiff software company in patent litigation relating to data encryption against several manufacturers of hardware security modules.
-
Cell and Network Selection LLC v. AT&T Inc. (E.D. Tex.)
Represented technology company in enforcing patents relating to cellular tower selection by mobile phones.
-
TecSec, Incorporated v. Microsoft Corporation (E.D. Virginia)
Represented patent owner in case involving allegations of patent infringement regarding data encryption, breach of contract, fraud, and negligent misrepresentation.
-
Bandspeed, Inc. v. Sony Electronics, Inc., et al. (W.D. Tex.)
Represented plaintiff hardware company in patent and antitrust litigation relating to Bluetooth communications against 45 hardware manufacturers and a standards setting organization. The matter settled favorably for confidential sums.
-
Preservation Technologies, LLC v. Netflix, Inc. et al. (C.D. Cal. & D. Del.)
Represented patent owner against multiple accused infringers of patents related to architecture and techniques for indexing, accessing, distributing, and surveying multimedia data; cases settled favorably after conducting source code deposition and securing favorable discovery and pleading-stage rulings.
-
Digital Reg of Texas, LLC v. Adobe Systems Inc. et al. (Fed. Cir. & N.D. Cal.)
Represented patent owner in enforcement of patents related to digital rights management, resulting in favorable settlements.
-
Infinity Computer Products, Inc. v. Toshiba America Business Solutions, Inc. et al. (C.D. Cal., E.D. Pa., D. Del., E.D.N.Y., & E.D.K.Y)
Represent patent owner in multiple litigations enforcing patents related to methods for transferring print and scan data between a fax machine and computer.
-
Inter Partes Review re Wireless Technology
Navigated the filing of eleven (11) IPRs of wireless technology patents by three (3) accused infringers, resulting in survival of patentable claims asserted in litigation. No IPR invalidated all of its challenged claims.