DiNovo Price is pleased to announce a victory on behalf of our client Bandspeed, LLC (“Bandspeed”). On October 13, 2022, the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Texas, Austin Division, denied the motion to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction of defendant Realtek Semiconductor Corporation (“Realtek”), finding that plaintiff Bandspeed had “made a prima facie showing that Realtek is subject to personal jurisdiction by this court under Rule 4(k)(2) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.”
 

The 2022 edition of Texas Super Lawyers, published by Thomson Reuters, has named five DiNovo Price partners – Andrew DiNovo, Adam Price, Christopher Goodpastor, Nicole Glauser, and Gregory Donahue – to its list of Super Lawyers.  

The 2021 edition of Texas Super Lawyers, published by Thomson Reuters, has named five DiNovo Price partners – Andrew DiNovo, Adam Price, Christopher Goodpastor, Nicole Glauser, and Gregory Donahue – to its list of Super Lawyers and one associate, Daniel Schmid, to its list of Rising Stars.

The 2020 edition of Texas Super Lawyers, published by Thomson Reuters, has named five DiNovo Price partners – Andrew DiNovo, Adam Price, Christopher Goodpastor, Nicole Glauser, and Gregory Donahue – to its list of Super Lawyers and one associate, Daniel Schmid, to its list of Rising Stars.

DiNovo Price is pleased to announce a victory on behalf of our client KOM Software, Inc (“KOM”). On August 17, 2020 and September 22, 2020, the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (“PTAB”) issued its final written decisions on three petitions for inter partes review filed by NetApp, Inc. against KOM’s U.S. Patent Nos. 6,654,864 and 9,361,243 relating to restricting access to a storage medium. The PTAB found that multiple claims of U.S. Patent 6,654,864 and U.S. Patent 9,361,243 “have not been shown to be unpatentable."

The 2019 edition of Texas Super Lawyers, published by Thomson Reuters, has named four DiNovo Price attorneys – Andrew DiNovo, Adam Price, Christopher Goodpastor, and Nicole Glauser – to its list of Super Lawyers and one attorney, Daniel Schmid, to its list of Rising Stars.

Samsung can't throw out a jury's $5.9 million infringement verdict over claims its tablets and smartphones infringe a German company's patent on data transfers, a Texas federal judge ruled, saying there's substantial evidence to support the jury's finding and that courts should be "especially deferential" to a jury's verdict.

DiNovo Price is pleased to announce a victory on behalf of our client Papst Licensing GmbH & Co., KG.  On August 1, 2018, Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd., Samsung Electronics America, Inc., Nikon Corporation, Nikon, Inc., Panasonic Corporation, Panasonic Corp. of North America, JVCKenwood Corp., JVC Company of North America, FujiFilm Corp., FujiFilm North America Corp., and Sanyo Co. Ltd. filed a Request for Ex Parte Reexamination of Papst’s U.S. Patent No. 6,865,449 (’449 patent”) with the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (“PTO”), asserting that claims 1 - 18 of the ’449 patent were invalid and unpatentable.  On June 28, 2019, the PTO issued its Notice of Intent to Issue Reexam Certificate, confirming the patentability of claims 1 - 18 of U.S. Patent No. 6,865,449.

The final approval on the deal comes years after dentists first launched a series of litigation accusing three dominant distributors of artificially inflating prices.

DiNovo Price LLP and partners Andrew DiNovo, Christopher Goodpastor, and Greg Donahue have been recognized for exceptional performance in the field of Inter Partes Review in Patexia Inc.’s 2018 IPR Intelligence Report, an annual report that provides rankings, statistics, and comprehensive analysis of IPR stakeholders. 

An Eastern District of Texas jury has slapped Samsung with a $5.9 million verdict, finding it infringed two claims of German intellectual property licensing company Papst’s patent covering data transfers that occur in smartphones and tablets.

The 2018 edition of Texas Super Lawyers, published by Thomson Reuters, has named four DiNovo Price attorneys – Andrew DiNovo, Adam Price, Christopher Goodpastor, and Nicole Glauser – to its list of Super Lawyers and one attorney, Daniel Schmid, to its list of Rising Stars.

DiNovo Price is pleased to announce a victory on behalf of our client Papst Licensing GmbH & Co., KG. On April 13 and 26, 2018, the Patent Trial and Appeal Board issued its final written decisions on two petitions for inter partes review filed by Apple, Inc. against Papst’s U.S. Patent Nos. 8,504,746 (“’746 patent”) and 9,189,437 (“’437 patent”) relating to interface devices for communication between camera phones and computers. The PTAB found that Apple “has not demonstrated by a preponderance of the evidence” that the challenged claims of the ’746 patent and claims 1, 4-6, 9-16, 18, 30, 32, and 34 of the ’437 patent are unpatentable.

Chinese telecom company ZTE Corp. is settling in a consolidated IP suit from a licensing company that also accuses Apple, Motorola and other mobile heavyweights of infringing on data transfer patents, according to dismissal papers filed in Texas federal court on Wednesday.

DiNovo Price LLP attorneys Christopher Goodpastor, Nicole Glauser, and Gabriel Gervey appeared on behalf of Lonny Gold and Glen Reder, proposed lead Plaintiffs for a putative class of consumer vehicle purchasers and lessees in In re German Automotive Manufacturers Antitrust Litigation, pending in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California.

The 2017 edition of Texas Super Lawyers, published by Thomson Reuters, has named four DiNovo Price attorneys – Andrew DiNovo, Adam Price, Christopher Goodpastor, and Nicole Glauser – to its list of Super Lawyers and one attorney, Daniel Schmid, to its list of Rising Stars.

DiNovo Price is pleased to announce a victory on behalf of our client Bandspeed, Inc. On August 5, 2017, August 23, 2017, and September 7, 2017, the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (“PTAB”) issued final written decisions on five petitions for inter partes review filed by Qualcomm Inc. against Bandspeed, Inc.’s U.S. Patent Nos. 7,477,624 (“’624 Patent”), 8,542,643 (“’643 Patent”) and 8,873,500 (“’500 Patent”), relating to selecting and using communications channels based on performance in systems that use frequency hopping protocols in wireless networks such as Bluetooth^®.

DiNovo Price is pleased to announce a victory on behalf of our client Papst Licensing GmbH & Co., KG. In May, June, and July 2017, the Patent Trial and Appeal Board denied institution of  four petitions for inter partes review filed by one or more of Huawei Technologies Co., Ltd., LG Electronics, Inc., and ZTE (USA), Inc. against Papst’s patents on interface devices for communication between camera phones and computers.  The PTAB found that the petitioners had not established a reasonable likelihood that it would prevail with respect to any of the challenged claims of Papst’s U.S. Patent Nos. 6,865,449; 8,504,746; 8,966,144; and 9,189,437.  

DiNovo Price is pleased to announce a victory on behalf of our client Papst Licensing GmbH & Co., KG. In March and April 2017, the Patent Trial and Appeal Board denied institution of nine petitions for inter partes review filed by Apple, Inc. against Papst’s patents on interface devices for communication between camera phones and computers.  The PTAB found that Apple had not established a reasonable likelihood that it would prevail with respect to any of the challenged claims of Papst’s U.S. Patent Nos. 6,470,399; 8,504,746; 8,966,144; and 9,189,437.

A Texas federal judge signed off Friday on a confidential settlement that resolves allegations China-based telecom giant Huawei infringed e-Watch Inc. patents covering cellphone camera technology.

Apple Inc. has become the latest technology giant to reach a settlement ending e-Watch Inc.’s claims that the company is infringing two patents related to cellphone camera technology, according to a document filed in Texas federal court on Friday.

In In re Dental Supplies Antitrust Litigation, Putative Class Plaintiff dental practices and dental labs defeated the respective motions to dismiss of defendants Henry Schein, Patterson Dental and Benco.

DiNovo Price is pleased to announce a victory on behalf of our client Bandspeed, Inc. (“Bandspeed”). On June 26, 2016, the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Texas, Austin Division, denied the motion for judgment on the pleadings of Qualcomm, Inc, Qualcomm Atheros, Inc., and Qualcomm Innovations Center, Inc. (“Qualcomm”), which asserted that the acquisition of CSR plc by Qualcomm Global Trading Pte. entitled Qualcomm to the benefit of Bandspeed’s previous license agreement with Cambridge Silicon Radio Limited. The court denied the motion, finding “a dispute exists on the face of the pleadings as to the factual relationship between [Qualcomm] and Cambridge Silicon Radio Limited, and the court will not take judicial notice of any facts that would connect [Qualcomm] to Cambridge Silicon Radio Limited.” 

DiNovo Price LLP filed a proposed antitrust class action on behalf of dental practices and laboratories alleging that the three largest U.S. distributors of dental supplies and equipment fixed price margins, pressured manufacturers to boycott competitors, and agreed not to poach each other’s employees.