Source: https://www.gtlaw.com/de/professionals/k/kassenoff-allan-a
Timestamp: 2019-04-23 05:12:46+00:00

Document:
Allan Kassenoff is an experienced litigator with 20 years of experience in patent matters covering a wide range of technologies and industry sectors, including financial services, aerospace, automotive, avionics, biotechnology, chemical, consumer products, electronics and pharmaceutical. In addition to having taken hundreds of depositions and arguing motions and conducting Markman hearings in federal courts throughout the country, he has tried four patent cases to verdict. Allan has also been recognized as a leading IP practitioner including as a member of the IAM Patent 1000, an “IP Star” by Managing IP Magazine's World IP Handbook and Survey, "IP Stars" by IAM Magazine, as a “Life Science Stars” in LMG Life Sciences Guide for 2017 and 2018 as well as various other industry organizations.
Uniloc USA, Inc., et al. v. Samsung Electronics America, Inc., et al.: Lead counsel for Samsung in a consolidated patent infringement case alleging infringement of 5 patents concerning pedometer functionality.
Uniloc USA, Inc., et al. v. Samsung Electronics America, Inc., et al.: Lead counsel for Samsung in 4 patent infringement cases alleging infringement of 4 patents concerning Bluetooth, LTE and other communication protocols.
Advanced Electrolyte Technologies LLC, et al. v. Samsung SDI Co. Ltd., et al.: Lead counsel for defendants in a patent infringement case concerning lithium battery technology in the Western District of Texas.
Music Choice v. Stingray Digital Group Inc. and Stingray Music USA, Inc.: Representing Stingray in a patent infringement concerning patents related to the distribution of audio and video content.
Mobile Telecommunications Technologies, LLC v. Amazon.com, Inc.: Represented the defendant in patent litigation regarding technology for two-way wireless communications, including methods and devices for processing data messages between a mobile unit and a network operations center, delivery notification technology.
Garmin Switzerland GMBH, and Garmin Corporation v. Navico, Inc.: Representing the defendants in a patent infringement case involving marine route navigation technology.
IpLearn, LLC v. Blackboard Inc.: Represented Blackboard in a patent case involving on-line educational software.
DietGoal Innovations LLC v. General Mills Sales, Inc.: Represented General Mills in a patent infringement action concerning a patent related to diet planning. Successfully transferred the case from the Eastern District of Texas to the Eastern District of Virginia.
Taranis IP LLC v. Garmin International, Inc., et al.: Represented Garmin International in a patent litigation initiated by Taranis IP in the Northern District of Illinois. The asserted patent generally relates to synthetic vision systems for vehicles.
Honeywell International Inc. v. Furuno Electric Co. Ltd., et al.: Represented Navico in a multi-patent case brought by Honeywell in the District Court of Minnesota.
Parallel Iron v. TeleNav, Inc.: Lead counsel for TeleNav, a leading provider of location-based services (LBS) for smartphones, in a patent case in the District Court of Delaware involving data storage via high throughput storage devices.
Network Signatures, Inc. v. General Mills, Inc.: Represented General Mills in a patent litigation in the Central District of California. The patent related generally to a method of using public and private keys to generate a cryptographic signature which can be used to authenticate information. Succeeded in rendering all asserted claims unenforceable due to inequitable conduct.
Glory Licensing LLC v. Toys "R" Us, Inc.; Glory Licensing LLC v. Sears Holding Corporation: Representation of Sears Holding Corporation and Toys "R" Us, Inc. in connection with separate actions initiated by Glory Licensing in the District of New Jersey. The patents in suit relate to collecting and extracting data from hard copy documents. Invalidated all asserted claims under §101 on motion to dismiss.
Ambato Media, LLC v. Garmin International, Inc., et al.: Represented Garmin International, Inc. in a multi-defendant case filed by Ambato Media in the Eastern District of Texas before the Honorable Judge Rodney Gilstrap.The asserted patent relates to navigation devices. After prevailing at the Markman hearing, Ambato was forced to drop its allegation of infringement against over 95% of the accused products.
SBJ IP Holdings 1, LLC v. Blockbuster Inc., et al.: Represented Toys "R" Us, Inc. in a patent litigation initiated by SBJ IP Holdings 1, LLC in the Eastern District of Texas before Judge Ward. The asserted patent relates to generating and displaying pre-customized web pages.
Honeywell v. Universal Avionics: Defending Universal Avionics against Honeywell's assertion of five patents relating to terrain awareness and warning systems used in aircraft.
Universal Avionics v. Optima Technology Group, et al.: Representing Universal Avionics in a declaratory judgment action asserting invalidity and non-infringement of two aviation technology patents, together with various state law claims.
Symbology Innovations, LLC v. General Mills, Inc.: Represented General Mills in the Eastern District Texas before the Honorable Judge Schroeder. The patents involved the use of QR codes to directly access product information on the Internet. Settled with plaintiff.
Reflection Code LLC v. General Mills, Inc.: Represented General Mills in the Eastern District Texas before the Honorable Judge Gilstrap. The patents involved the use of QR codes to access a database that redirects a user to product information on the Internet. The case settled.
Tru-Balance, LLC v. Alcoa Inc.: Representing Alcoa Inc. in a patent litigation initiated by Tru-Balance in the District of Colorado. The asserted patent related to a wheel centering pin device. Prevailed on a motion to stay the case pending a reexamination initiated by GT and all claims of the patent were found invalid by the PTO.
Minkus Electronic Display Systems Inc. v. Adaptive Micro Systems LLC, et al.: Representation of six defendants in a patent litigation initiated by Minkus Electronic Display Systems Inc. in the District of Delaware before Chief Judge Robinson. The complaint alleged infringement of a patent generally relating to digital display technology.
KKG, LLC v. Reynolds Consumer Products Inc., et al.: Represented Reynolds Consumer Products Inc. and “a Fortune 50 Retailer in a patent litigation in the Eastern District of Texas brought by a patent holding company in connection with Reynolds Slow Cooker Liners. After a three-day trial, the jury returned a verdict of non-infringement in approximately one hour.
Selecto, Inc. v. Everpure, LLC and Pentair Filtration, Inc.: Represented Pentair Corporation in connection with a litigation in the Central District of California involving infringement by Selecto of a patent relating to modular water filtration devices.
Poly-America L.P. v. Presto Products Co.: Representing Presto, a subsidiary of Alcoa, in a patent litigation pending in the Eastern District of Texas relating to methods of manufacturing "wave cut" plastic trash bags.
Alcoa Inc. v. The PackMate Co., et al.: Brought action on behalf of Alcoa in the Eastern District of Virginia for infringement by PackMate of patents, trademarks and copyrights relating to Alcoa's Handi-Vac® vacuum-sealing system.
Alcoa Inc. v. Alcan: Asserted patent on behalf of Alcoa relating to the aluminum alloy used to construct the Boeing 777. Alcoa accepted Alcan's offer of judgment to cease selling and offering for sale the infringing alloy.
Illinois Tool Works Inc. v. Alcoa Inc. & Reynolds Consumer Products, Inc.: Represented Alcoa and Reynolds in defense of claims for patent and trademark infringement relating to plastic bag technology. Resulted in cross-license agreement.
CyberSource v. Retail Decisions: Represented Retail Decisions, a UK-based financial services company, in a patent litigation before Chief Judge Patel in the Northern District of California against CyberSource. The asserted patent relates to methods of detecting fraud in on-line credit card transactions. Prevailed on motion for summary judgment of invalidity of all asserted claims based on the "machine or transformation" test enunciated In re Bilski. After CyberSource appealed the district court's decision, the Federal Circuit affirmed and held that the claims failed the “machine-or-transformation” test and claimed an unpatentable mental process.
Secure Axcess, LLC v. Bank of America Corp., et al.: Represented North Dallas Bank and Trust in a patent case involving a picture authentication system for on-line banking.
Leon Stambler v. BankUnited, Inc. and BankUnited, National Association: Represented BankUnited in a patent litigation action in the Southern District of Florida concerning encryption technology used in the banking industry. The plaintiff dismissed the case with prejudice with no payments being made.
Joao Bock Transaction Systems, LLC v. Bank of Stockton, et al.: Represented Farmers and Merchants Bank of Long Beach in a patent case involving account limitations placed on on-line banking transaction.
Joao Bock Transaction Systems, LLC v. Scottrade, Inc.: Represented Scottrade, Inc. in connection with the defense of a patent litigation initiated by Joao Bock in the Northern District of Georgia. The asserted patents generally relate to on-line secure transactions. Successfully moved to transfer the case from Georgia to the Eastern District of Missouri.
Leon Stambler v. Amazon.com, Inc., et al.: Represented Office Depot in a multi-defendant case filed by Leon Stambler in the Eastern District of Texas before the Honorable Judge Folsom. The asserted patents relate to secure online payment services.
Leon Stambler v. Intuit Inc., et al.: Represented S1 Corporation and International Bancshares in a patent litigation in the Eastern District of Texas. The patents-in-suit generally relate to encryption technology for securing online technologies.
Leon Stambler v. Merrill Lynch & Co., et al.: Represented Metavante Corporation, a division of Fidelity Information Services, in connection with alleged infringement of patents relating to secure online payment services.
Barry v. Medtronic Inc.: Represented Medtronic in a litigation involving surgical methods and systems for correcting severe spinal deformities in the Eastern District of Texas.
Braun Melsungen AG, et al. v. Becton, Dickinson and Company, et al.: Representation of B. Braun in a litigation involving infringement by Becton, Dickinson and Company of 10 patents generally relating to IV catheter safety systems. The case is presently pending in the District of Delaware.
Enzo v. Amersham Biosciences, Inc., et al.: Representing Enzo in multiple patent litigations relating to methods and devices for labeling, hybridization and detection of nucleic acids used in the detection of disease.
Collegium Pharmaceutical, Inc. v. Teva Pharmaceuticals USA, Inc.: Representing Teva in the Paragraph IV ANDA challenge of Collegium Pharmaceutical, Inc.’s patents in the District of Delaware relating to Xtampza® ER (oxycodone) extended-release capsules indicated for the management of pain severe enough to require daily, around-the-clock, long-term opioid treatment and for which alternative treatment options are inadequate.
Recro Gainesville LLC v. Actavis Laboratories FL Inc.: Representing Actavis/Teva in Paragraph IV challenge of Recro Gainesville LLC in the Federal Circuit relating to Pernix's patents on Zohydro® extended release tablets indicated for the management of severe pain requiring daily, around the clock, long term treatment.
Hanmi Pharmaceutical Co., Ltd.: Represented Hanmi Pharmaceutical in connection with an NDA filing under 505(b)(2) for S-omeprazole and related patent due diligence.
°The above representations were handled by Mr. Kassenoff prior to his joining Greenberg Traurig LLP.
Becton Dickinson and Company v. B. Braun Melsungen AG(IPR2017-01587) – Representing patent owner in IPR proceedings related to patents covering IV catheter safety systems.
Stingray Digital Group Inc., et al v. Music Choice(IPR2018-00114) – Representing petitioner in IPR proceedings related to patents covering the distribution of digital music.

References: v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 §101
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v.