Source: https://www.dechert.com/people/s/s--michael-song.html
Timestamp: 2019-04-24 06:55:32+00:00

Document:
S. Michael Song represents clients on complex patent litigation matters involving a broad range of technologies, including semiconductors, computer hardware and software, network security, telecommunications and medical devices. He has litigated patent cases in jurisdictions throughout the United States as well as before the International Trade Commission.
Mr. Song is also active in providing IP counseling for clients in a wide variety of transactions, including patent licenses, initial public offerings, mergers and acquisitions and venture financings.
Prior to his legal career, Mr. Song designed superscalar x86 microprocessors for Advanced Micro Devices. Mr. Song is an inventor on two patents — U.S. Patent No. 5,737,550 titled "Cache Memory to Processor Bus Interface" and U.S. Patent No. 6,848,025 titled "Method and System for Programmable Replacement Mechanism for Caching Devices."
Theta IP v. Samsung (U.S. District Court, Eastern District of Texas). Obtained a covenant not to sue on all asserted patents from Plaintiff shortly after deposition of their expert. Represented Samsung in defending against a patent infringement action on RF Transceiver technology.
Red Rock Analytics v. Samsung (U.S. District Court, Eastern District of Texas). Representing Samsung in defending against a patent infringement action on IQ calibration in transceivers. Pending.
Microsoft v. Kyocera. Represented Microsoft in its complaint for patent infringement by Kyocera of seven patents relating to efficient operating systems. Kyocera licensed the patents and our client settled the case.
Hitachi-Maxell, Ltd. v. Top Victory Elec., Co. Ltd., et. al. (U.S. District Court, Eastern District of Texas). Represented Hitachi in enforcing patents relating to video signal processing, digital television systems-on-a-chip (SOC), and high-definition television. Settled.
In re Certain Electronic Devices, Including Mobile Phones and Tablet Computers and Components Thereof (USITC). Represented HTC in an investigation alleging infringement by HTC of nine separate patents. After dismissing five of the nine patents prior to the hearing, and two more as a result of the hearing, the parties reached a successful global settlement after the Commission granted review on multiple grounds on the two remaining patents.
Mosaid Technologies Inc. v. Dell, Inc. et al. Represented Atheros Communications in an action involving six patents related to Wi-Fi technology. Settled on favorable terms for client.
Smartphone Technologies v. HTC Corp. Represented HTC in a case brought by Smartphone Technologies in the EDTX, where the plaintiff asserted five patents covering aspects of the Android operating system and applications used in HTC handsets. Settled.
Represented HTC Corporation in five separate actions: ClassCo v. HTC(NDIL); Cascades Computer Innovation v. HTC (NDIL); Brandywine Communication Technologies v. HTC (MDFL); Advanced Display Technologies v. HTC (EDTX); and Gellyfish Technologies v. HTC (EDTX).
Stanacard LLC. v. Jajah, Inc. Represented Jajah, a provider of VoIP services, in a patent infringement action brought by a competitor concerning virtual telephone numbers. The court, in its claim construction order, agreed that a key claim term in the asserted patent is arguably indefinite. The case settled on favorable terms while a motion for summary judgment of invalidity was pending.
Sharp Corp. v. AU Optronics Corp. Represented LCD manufacturer AU Optronics in an ITC action and Delaware district court action brought by competitor Sharp. The case involved multiple patents on manufacturing and assembly processes. Settled.
STMicroelectronics Inc., v. SanDisk Corp. Represented SanDisk in an infringement suit brought by STMicroelectronics involving flash memory technology. The case settled after a report and recommendation was issued that SanDisk should be granted its motion for summary judgment.
Honeywell Intellectual Properties, Inc. v. AU Optronics Corp. Represented AU Optronics in defending against a patent infringement action on active matrix LCD driving circuitry. The case settled after Honeywell conceded non-infringement by AU Optronics due to a favorable claim construction ruling.
Certain Equipment For Telecommunications Or Data Communications Networks, Including Routers, Switches, And Hubs, And Components Thereof, Investigation No. 337-TA-574. Represented telecommunications chip manufacturer PMC-Sierra before the ITC in an action involving clock recovery mechanisms in an ATM telecommunications network. The complaint was eventually withdrawn against PMC-Sierra.

References: v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v.