Source: https://www.dechert.com/people/b/justin-boyce.html
Timestamp: 2019-04-20 05:15:06+00:00

Document:
Justin F. Boyce, a former aerospace engineer, litigates patent cases on behalf of sophisticated companies in the electronics, semiconductor, and computer industries. He has experience in a number of federal courts, having handled all phases of patent litigation, from pre-filing investigations through trial.
Mr. Boyce also has a strong patent prosecution background, having devoted the first five years of his legal career to strategic patent counseling and prosecution in the areas of computer hardware and software, communications networks, optics, electronic circuitry, semiconductor device fabrication, and mechanical devices.
Amkor Tech., v. International Trade Commission, No. 2010-1550 (Fed. Cir. Aug. 22, 2012). Obtained reversal by Federal Circuit for Amkor of an adverse determination by the International Trade Commission (ITC) finding Amkor’s patent for integrated circuit packaging invalid under 35 U.S.C. § 102(g)(2). The Federal Circuit held that the ITC committed a legal error by applying a rule from interference proceedings (i.e., according the last possible conception date to a party who can only provide a range of dates) to a validity determination. The Federal Circuit also declined to affirm the ITC’s invalidity determination on alternative grounds raised by the Intervenors, Carsem (i.e., the respondents in the ITC investigation below). The case was therefore remanded to the ITC for further proceedings consistent with the Federal Circuit’s decision that Amkor’s patent is not invalid.
In re Certain Voltage Regulator Circuits, Components Thereof and Products Containing Same, Investigation No. 337-TA-564, Enforcement Proceeding (International Trade Commission). Representing Respondent, Advanced Analogic Technologies, Inc., in a patent infringement suit relating to voltage regulator circuitry. Ongoing.
The Quantum World Corp. v. Atmel Corp. et al. (United States District Court, Eastern District of Texas). Represented Defendant, Lenovo (United States), Inc., in a patent infringement suit relating to hardware random number generator technology. Settled.
Pitchware, Inc. v. Monster Worldwide, Inc. et al. (United States District Court, Northern District of California). Represented defendant Monster Worldwide, owner of the Internet job site Monster.com, in a patent infringement suit relating to electronic commerce. Case was dismissed without any settlement payment or other conditions.
Acer Inc. et al. v. Hewlett-Packard Co. (United States District Court, Western District of Wisconsin). Represented Acer in an action involving multiple patents on various computer-related technologies, including computer graphics systems, I/O systems, device drivers, and power management. Settled.
Lucent Technologies, Inc., et al. v. Gateway, Inc., et al. (United States District Court, Southern District of California). Defended Gateway in an action involving multiple patents on various computer-related technologies including computer graphics systems. Settled.
Abstrax, Inc. v. Dell, Inc. and Gateway, Inc. (United States District Court, Eastern District of Texas). Represented defendant Gateway, Inc. in a patent suit relating to automated manufacturing methods. Settled.
Synopsys, Inc. v. Magma Design Automation, Inc., Corp. (U.S. District Court, Northern District of California; U.S. District Court, District of Delaware). Represented electronic design automation company Synopsys, Inc. in a five-patent infringement case against Magma Design Automation. Settled.
Synopsys, Inc. v. Nassda Corp. (U.S. District Court, Northern District of California). Represented Synopsys, Inc. in a two-pronged patent and trade secret action involving technology for testing integrated circuits. After the court adopted all of Synopsys’ positions in the claim construction phase, and after a number of other-pre-trial victories, the parties agreed to a settlement agreement enabled Synopsys to acquire Nassda.
ADE Corporation v. KLA-Tencor Corporation (U.S. District Court, District of Delaware). Represented semiconductor capital equipment manufacturer KLA-Tencor in a patent infringement action involving patents for semiconductor inspecting technology and related software applications. Member of team that won on summary judgment motions for non-infringement of the ADE patents.
Therma Wave, Inc. v. Boxer Cross Inc. (U.S. District Court, Northern District of California). Defended a start-up semiconductor capital equipment company in patent litigation involving semiconductor wafer inspection technology for the interferometric measurement of “ultra shallow junctions.” Successfully opposed a motion for preliminary injunction asserted against our client’s flagship wafer inspection tool and asserted counterclaims against the plaintiff’s newly released tool applications that infringed our client’s patents. Settled favorably.

References: v. 
 § 102
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v.