The 2023 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 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.  

Blizzard Entertainment said it has settled claims that popular games like World of Warcraft and Diablo infringe a Luxembourg company's patents, notifying a Texas federal court of the deal just a day before the trial was set to kick off.

A Texas federal judge denied a summary judgment bid from incoming Microsoft subsidiary Blizzard Entertainment Inc. on Wednesday, rejecting its attempt to escape a suit accusing it of infringing a networking patent.

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."

DiNovo Price is pleased to announce a victory on behalf of our client KOM Software, Inc.  In IPR2019-00597, the PTAB denied institution of inter partes review for U.S. Patent No. 6,654,864, finding that the “holiday rule” applied to extend the patent owner’s deadline to file a continuing application.

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.

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. 

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.

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.

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.” 

The Patent Trial and Appeal Board found Friday that Apple and ZTE showed that three claims of an e-Watch Inc. patent on digital image technology were invalid as obvious over prior art, but failed to show that eight other claims were unpatentable.

DiNovo Price is pleased to announce a victory on behalf of our client e-Watch, Inc. On May 6, 2016, the Patent Trial and Appeal Board issued a 58-page final written decision on petitions for inter partes review filed by Apple, Inc. and ZTE Corporation against e-Watch’s wireless camera phone patent, finding that Apple and ZTE “have not shown by a preponderance of the evidence that any one of claims 1 – 8 [of U.S. Patent No. 7,365,871] is unpatentable.”

DiNovo Price is pleased to announce a victory on behalf of our client e-Watch, Inc. In May and July 2015, the Patent Trial and Appeal Board denied institution of petitions for inter partes review filed by Apple, Inc., Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd., and Samsung Electronics America, Inc. against e-Watch’s wireless camera phone patent.  The PTAB found that Apple and Samsung failed to establish “a reasonable likelihood of prevailing in showing the unpatentability” of any challenged claim of e-Watch’s U.S. Patent No. 7,365,871.