Communications

• Papst Licensing GmbH & Co., K.G. v. Apple, Inc. et al. (E.D. Tex., PTAB, Fed. Cir.)

  Trial and appellate counsel for Papst enforcing patents 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. DiNovo Price 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 a $5.9 million jury verdict against Samsung and settled favorably while appeal pending.

• 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.

• 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.

• 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.

• Microlog Corp. v. InContact, Inc., et al. (D. Del.)

  Represented plaintiff software company in patent litigation relating to call center software against several providers of call center services and manufacturers of call center systems.

• 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.

• Z-Tel Communications, Inc. v. SBC Communications, Inc., et al. (E.D. Tex.)

  Prior to joining the firm, partner Christopher Goodpastor represented a competitive telephone provider as plaintiff in antitrust litigation against a large Regional Bell Operating Company. The matter settled favorably for a confidential sum.

• Inter Partes Review re Camera Phones

  Navigated the filing of twenty (20) IPRs of camera phone technology patents by seven (7) accused infringers and a non-practicing entity, securing non-institution of several petitions and resulting in survival of patentable claims asserted in litigation.

• Inter Partes Review re Data Transfer Technology

  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.

• 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.