Source: https://www.oblon.com/alexander-j-hadjis?representative-matters
Timestamp: 2019-04-18 17:43:03+00:00

Document:
MediaTek Inc. v. Freescale Semiconductor, Inc. (Northern District of California).
Lead counsel for Freescale against MediaTek in this multi-patent case involving semiconductor bus arbitration technology and power management technology. Successfully defended Freescale through trial against all four of the patents asserted by MediaTek. This case settled favorably, along with several other cases between the parties, as a result of the trial and before a verdict was rendered.
Certain Electronic Imaging Devices (International Trade Commission, 337-TA-850, and District of Delaware).
Lead counsel for Huawei Technologies in these multi-patent cases initiated by FlashPoint Technology, Inc. The cases involved three patents directed to mobile imaging technology used in handsets, tablets, and other mobile devices. Successfully defended Huawei through a full trial and a final decision against all of the patents asserted by FlashPoint.
Certain Light-Emitting Diodes and Products Containing Same (International Trade Commission, 337-TA-798, 337-TA-785, and District of Delaware).
Lead counsel for Osram against Samsung and LG. These multi-patent cases, which involved LED technology, included both offensive and defensive actions. The cases settled favorably after a full trial.
Certain Electronic Digital Media Devices (International Trade Commission, 337-TA-796).
Counsel for complainant Apple. This was a high-profile multi-patent case against Samsung involving software and hardware smartphone technology. The case ended, after a full trial, with a decision in favor of Apple and an exclusion order against Samsung.
Certain Semiconductor Chips and Products Containing Same (International Trade Commission, 337-TA-753).
Lead counsel for Hitachi Global Storage Technologies through a full trial against Rambus. This six-patent case, which was initiated by Rambus, involved DRAM controller and host interface technology. After the ITC finalized its decision of no violation, the case settled favorably for Hitachi Global Storage Technologies.
Certain Liquid Crystal Display Modules, Products Containing Same and Methods for Using Same (International Trade Commission, 337-TA-634).
Counsel for complainant Sharp in a multi-patent litigation against Samsung pertaining to liquid crystal display televisions and other electronic devices. Successfully defended the case through a full trial.
Certain Liquid Crystal Display Devices and Products Containing Same (International Trade Commission, 337-TA-631).
Counsel for Sharp in this multi-patent litigation against Samsung pertaining to liquid crystal display televisions. Successfully prosecuted the case through a full trial.
Certain Semiconductor Chips With Minimized Chip Package Size and Products Containing Same (International Trade Commission, 337-TA-605).
Lead counsel for Spansion against Tessera. Defended Spansion through a full trial. Prior to trial, argued and obtained a stay, based on parallel reexamination proceedings, from the trial judge in this multi-patent semiconductor chip case.
Certain Color Television Receivers and Color Display Monitors and Components Thereof (International Trade Commission, 337-TA-534).
Lead trial counsel for Thomson. Successfully prosecuted patent infringement claims through a full trial in a multi-patent suit against BenQ Corporation and AU Optronics Corporation. The case settled favorably for Thomson before a decision issued. The case involved LCD panel processing and circuitry technology.
Certain Optical Disk Controller Chips and Chipsets and Products Containing Same, Including DVD Players and PC Optical Storage Devices (International Trade Commission, 337-TA-523).
Lead counsel for MediaTek Inc. Represented MediaTek against Zoran Corporation, Oak Technology, Inc., and Sunext Technology Co., Ltd. in a multi-patent suit involving optical disc drive controller technology.
Certain Display Controllers and Products Containing Same (International Trade Commission, 337-TA-491).
Lead counsel for Genesis Microchip. Successfully prosecuted patent infringement claims against MStar Semiconductor, Inc. and Media Reality Technologies, Inc. through a full trial. Obtained an exclusion order after the administrative law judge's decision was reviewed and adopted by the full Commission. The case involved semiconductor and LCD panel controller technology.
Certain Recordable Compact Discs and Rewritable Compact Discs (International Trade Commission, 337-TA-474).
Lead counsel for Princo Corporation, Gigastorage Corporation, and Linberg Enterprises. Successfully defended Princo, Gigastorage, and Linberg through a full trial against patent infringement claims of Philips. All six of the patents that Philips asserted were part of a billion-dollar patent pool and were deemed unenforceable due to an antitrust-based patent misuse defense. The case involved optical storage medium and CD-R and CD-RW technology.
Certain Integrated Repeaters, Switches, Transceivers and Products Containing Same (International Trade Commission, 337-TA-435).
Successfully prosecuted patent infringement claims for Intel against Altima Communications through a full trial. Lead lawyer for Intel on the patent that covered the Altima products at issue, and obtained an exclusion order covering those products. The case involved semiconductor packaging technology.
Certain SDRAMs, DRAMs, ASICs, RAM-and-Logic Chips, Microprocessors, Microcontrollers, Processes for Manufacturing Same, and Products Containing Same (International Trade Commission. 337-TA-404).
Successfully prosecuted patent infringement claims through a full trial. The case settled favorably for the client before the administrative law judge issued a decision. The case involved semiconductor and memory technology.
Frequency Systems, LLC v. IOGear, Inc. et al. (Eastern District of Texas).
Lead counsel for ATEN Technology, ATEN International, and IOGear (collectively, “ATEN”) against patent infringement allegations brought by Frequency Systems in the Eastern District of Texas related to wireless voice and data communications, and is directed to techniques to select an antenna from a plurality of antennae used for wireless communications. The case is ongoing.
MAKO Surgical v. Stanmore Implants Worldwide (District of Massachusetts, Northern District of California, and International Trade Commission).
Lead counsel for MAKO Surgical in a series of cases initiated by MAKO in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California, the U.S. District Court of Massachusetts, and the U.S. International Trade Commission against Stanmore Implants Worldwide. The cases were focused on patents covering robotic surgical systems and software designed to be used by surgeons for automated knee and hip implant procedures. Successfully prevented Stanmore from entering the U.S. market with robotic surgical knee and hip implant systems.
Certain Sintered Rare Earth Magnets, Methods of Making Same, and Products Containing Same (International Trade Commission, 337-TA-855).
Lead counsel for Hitachi Metals against over thirty respondents in a multi-patent case pertaining to the composition and manufacture of rare earth magnets. After obtaining a favorable Markman ruling, this litigation settled favorably prior to trial.
Advanced Display Technologies of Texas, LLC v. Sharp Corp., et al. (Eastern District of Texas).
Counsel for Sharp in this multi-patent case brought by Advanced Display Technologies. The case involved LCD panel technology.
Certain Liquid Crystal Display Devices, Including Monitors, Televisions, and Modules, and Components Thereof (International Trade Commission, 337-TA-741).
Lead counsel for Thomson against Chimei Innolux, Qisda, BenQ, MStar Semiconductor, and Realtek Semiconductor. This multi-patent case involved LCD panel and LCD controller technology.
Certain Articulated Coordinate Measuring Arms and Components Thereof (International Trade Commission, 337-TA-684).
Lead counsel for Metris against Hexagon Metrology. This case, which was brought by Hexagon Metrology, involved precise, computer-driven measuring systems.
Baltimore Aircoil Co., Inc. v. Evapco, Inc. (District of Maryland).
Lead counsel for Evapco in this multi-patent suit involving industrial heat exchange technology.
Clearwater Systems Corp. v. Evapco, Inc., et al. (District of Connecticut).
Lead patent counsel for Evapco against Clearwater in this multi-patent case involving non-chemical, electronic water treatment technology. After obtaining a favorable Markman ruling, obtained summary judgment of non-infringement on one asserted patent and summary judgment of invalidity on the other asserted patent.
Enhanced Security Research, LLC v. Sourcefire, Inc. (District of Delaware).
Lead counsel for Sourcefire in this multi-patent suit initiated by Enhanced Security Research. The case involved computer network security software.
Fast Memory Erase, LLC v. Spansion Inc., et al. (Northern District of Texas).
Lead counsel for Spansion. This case involves non-volatile memory erase operation technology.
Fastenetix, LLC v. Medtronic Sofamor Danek, Inc., Medtronic Sofamor Danek USA, Inc., et al. (District of New Jersey).
Lead patent counsel for Fastenetix. Represented Fastenetix against Medtronic in this high-stakes, multi-patent case on pedicle screw spine implant technology, and obtained a favorable Markman order for Fastenetix. The case successfully settled for $125 million for Fastenetix after the Markman order issued and prior to trial.
TimeCertain, LLC v. AuthentiDate Holding Corp. and AuthentiDate, Inc. (Middle District of Florida).
Lead counsel for AuthentiDate against TimeCertain. Successfully defended AuthentiDate in this multi-patent suit by obtaining a Markman order that was dispositive of non-infringement, and that led to a successful settlement. The case involved software cryptography technology.
Certain Baseband Processor Chips and Chipsets, Transmitter and Receiver (Radio) Chips, Power Control Chips, and Products Containing Same, Including Cellular Telephone Handsets (International Trade Commission, 337-TA-543).
Represented Broadcom in connection with this multi-patent action. The matter involved cellular chipset technology.
Matsushita Electrical Industrial Co., Ltd. v. CMC Magnetics Corp., HotanCorp., KHyperMediaCorp. (Northem District of California).
Lead counsel for CMC Magnetics, Holan, and KHyperMedia. Successfully defended CMC Magnetics, Holan, and KHyperMedia in a three patent suit brought by Matsushita on recordable and rewritable optical disc technology. The case settled favorably for the defendants.
MicroUnity Systems Engineering, Inc. v. Intel Corp. (Eastern District of Texas).
Successfully defended Intel against patent infringement claims in a multi-patent case brought by MicroUnity. This case involved microprocessor and microprocessor chipset technology.
Certain Semiconductor Timing Signal Generator Devices, Components Thereof, and Products Containing Same; Certain Power Saving Integrated Circuits and Products Containing Same (International Trade Commission, 337-TA-465, 337-TA- 463).
Successfully represented Cypress Semiconductor as patentee/complainant and respondent against Integrated Circuit Systems. One of the two ICS patents at issue was eliminated from the case as a result of a summary determination motion. The case settled favorably for Cypress, as, among other things, ICS agreed to stop selling an entire line of products. The case involved standard-setting defenses and semiconductor and phase-lock loop (PLL) technology.
Intel Corp. v. Broadcom Corp. (District of Delaware).
Represented Intel. Successfully prosecuted patent infringement claims against Broadcom. This case settled and involved standard setting defenses and semiconductor packaging technology.
Altima Communications, Inc, v. Intel Corporation (Northern District of California).
Lead counsel for Intel. Successfully prosecuted patent infringement claims for Intel against Altima Communications. This case settled and involved semiconductor packaging technology.
Atmel Corp. v. STMicroelectronics, Inc.; STMicroelectronics, Inc. v. Atmel Corp. (District of Delaware, Northern District of Texas).
Represented Atmel against STMicroelectronics. A total of 17 patents involving memory and microcontroller chips were asserted in both cases. Cases settled favorably.
Vocus, Inc. v. Cypress Semiconductor Corporation (Maryland State Court).
Lead counsel for Cypress Semiconductor. Represented Cypress against Vocus in a breach of contract action involving software. Case settled favorably.
Telecom Technical Servs. v. Siemens Rolm Communications (Northern District of Georgia).
Defended Siemens against Kodak-based antitrust claims brought by independent service organizations and prosecuted multiple patents against the ISOs. The case was decided in favor of Siemens on summary judgment. This case involved telecommunications and PBX technology.
PMC and Gemstar v. Scientific Atlanta (Northern District of Georgia).
Prosecuted patent infringement claims for Gemstar against Scientific Atlanta in a seven-patent case involving cable set-top box and media broadcasting technology.
Xerox Corp. v. Mita Copystar Am. Inc. (Northern District of New York).
Represented Xerox. Prosecuted multiple xerography patents against Mita. Case settled favorably.
Asha Corp. v. Dana Corp. (Eastern District of Michigan).
Defended Dana against Asha. Patent and breach of contract case involving automotive component and limited slip differential technology.
MCI Corp. v. AT&T Am. Transtech, Inc. (Eastern District of Pennsylvania).
Defended Cincinnati Bell against MCL Multi-patent case involving telecommunications technology. Case settled favorably.
Premier Networks v. Quest (Northern District of Illinois).
Defended Quest against Premier Networks. Multi-patent case involving telecommunications technology.

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