Source: https://www.kellogghansen.com/practices-Intellectual-Property-Litigation.html
Timestamp: 2019-04-18 18:29:25+00:00

Document:
Kellogg Hansen attorneys have successfully represented clients as both plaintiffs and defendants in patent cases across the country and before the U.S. International Trade Commission. We regularly try patent cases to juries and pride ourselves on our ability to make complex technology understandable to non-specialist judges and jurors. Clients frequently ask us to become involved with cases when it becomes apparent that trial is likely. We are honored that clients have entrusted us with some of their largest and most important patent litigation disputes.
We have dealt with a broad spectrum of technologies, from generic pharmaceuticals to sheet metal fasteners. We have a particularly deep experience in Internet and computer-related technologies, including voice and video streaming and Internet content delivery networks.
Kellogg Hansen has expertise in intellectual property policy as it relates to high-technology companies. We counsel companies engaged in efforts to reform patent law, and we have filed amicus curiae briefs for companies representing trillions of dollars of market value on important patent law issues.
In addition to our patent trial practice, we have a deep bench of appellate expertise in the patent area. Our lawyers have argued patent matters in the Federal Circuit and our Supreme Court practice regularly involves patent and copyright issues.
Audio MPEG, Inc. v Dell Inc., No. 2:16-cv-00082-MSD-RJK (E.D. Va. 2017). Represented Dell against patent infringement claims brought by holders of standard essential patents relating to audio standards. Case settled on confidential terms on the eve of trial.
Verizon v. Vonage Holdings Corp., 503 F.3d 1295 (Fed. Cir. 2007). Represented Verizon in obtaining $58 million jury verdict and an injunction. American Lawyer Magazine ranked the jury verdict #25 of top 100 jury verdicts of 2007. Following affirmance of the injunction on appeal, settled for payment by Vonage of $120 million.
Limelight Networks, Inc. v. Akamai Techs., Inc., 134 S. Ct. 2111 (2014): Successfully represented a technology company in winning unanimous reversal of an en banc Federal Circuit ruling expanding doctrine of induced infringement.
Kappos v. Hyatt, 132 S. Ct. 1690 (2012): Represented inventor in Federal Circuit and Supreme Court litigation establishing right of inventors to introduce new evidence in civil action against the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office to obtain patent under 35 U.S.C. § 145. After winning reversal by the en banc court, won unanimous Supreme Court affirmance.
In the Matter of Certain Electronic Products, Including Products with Near Field Communication, No. 337-TA-950 (International Trade Commission): Represented Dell Inc. against patent infringement claims brought by NXP Semiconductors.
In re Certain Audio Processing Hardware and Software and Products Containing the Same, No. 337-TA-949 (International Trade Commission): Represented Dell Inc. in ITC investigation involving audio processing technology in first case to reach Commission in pilot program for rapid disposition of case-dispositive issues.
Akamai Technologies, Inc. v. Limelight Networks, Inc., 692 F.3d 1301 (Fed. Cir. 2012) (en banc): Won en banc Federal Circuit affirmance of judgment of no direct infringement for provider of Internet content delivery services.
TiVo Inc. v. Verizon Communications Inc., No. 2:09-cv-257-JRG (E.D. Tex. 2012): Represented major national telecommunications company in defending high-stakes patent-infringement action concerning digital video recorders; obtained favorable settlement on eve of trial.
In re Gabapentin Patent Litigation, MDL No. 1384 (D.N.J. 2011): Represented world’s largest generic drug maker in jury trial of patent-infringement action brought by world’s largest branded pharmaceutical company, where branded company made multibillion-dollar damages claim based on our client’s launch of generic drug; obtained favorable settlement two weeks into trial.
Certain Digital Set-Top Boxes and Components Thereof, Inv. No. 337-TA-712, (Initial Determination May 20, 2011): Represented Verizon in winning recommended ITC exclusion order covering all set-top boxes imported by Cablevision.
Ricoh Co., Ltd. v. Quanta Computer, Inc., No. 06-cv-462-bbc (W.D. Wis. 2010): Obtained $14.5 million jury verdict in patent-infringement action brought by major Japanese consumer electronics company against Taiwanese maker of optical disc drives.
In re Certain Baseband Processor Chips and Chipsets, Transmitter and Receiver (Radio) Chips, Power Control Chips, No. 337-TA-543 (International Trade Commission), sub nom. Kyocera Wireless Corp. v. ITC, 545 F.3d 1340 (Fed. Cir. 2008): Represented Verizon Wireless in successfully preventing issuance of ITC exclusion order sought by Broadcom against Verizon Wireless’s devices containing Qualcomm technology.

References: v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 § 145
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v.