Source: http://www.willi.com/attorneys/james-n-willi
Timestamp: 2019-04-21 22:02:48+00:00

Document:
James N. Willi - Austin Patent Attorney, Austin Patent Infringement Attorney, Texas Patent Attorney, Texas Patent Infringement Attorney, Austin Patent Litigator, Austin Patent Litigation, Austin Patent Lawyer, Austin Trademark Attorney, Austin Copyright Attorney - Willi Law Firm, P.C.
Jim Willi has over 18 years of civil, commercial, and intellectual property litigation and appellate experience with particular focus on patent infringement litigation, trademark infringement litigation and prosecution, copyright infringement litigation, and trade secret misappropropriation litigation. He also has considerable experience with business transactions, contracts, patent infringement opinions, patent reexaminations, intellectual property licensing, Texas business entity formation, and real property transactions and litigation. He has represented clients at all levels of federal courts including District Courts, Courts of Appeals, and the United States Supreme Court, and at all levels of Texas courts.
Mr. Willi is licensed to practice law in Texas and Colorado, registered to practice law in the United States Patent and Trademark Office, and admitted to practice law before the United States Supreme Court, the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, and the United States District Courts for the Northern, Southern, Eastern, and Western Districts of Texas. Mr. Willi is a member of the College of the State Bar of Texas, the Austin Bar Association, the Austin Intellectual Property Law Association (Austin IPLA), and the Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers (IEEE).
Goodman v. ON Semiconductor Corp. Willi Law Firm was lead counsel representing Arizona-based ON Semiconductor Corporation in a patent infringement lawsuit filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Texas, Houston Division. The patent in suit, U.S. Patent No. 6,243,315, relates to computer memory systems with a low power down mode. The case was settled to the mutual satisfaction of the parties.
7-Eleven, Inc. v. Getagadget, Inc. Willi Law Firm represents Austin-based Getagadget, Inc. in two trademark opposition proceedings in the United States Patent and Trademark Office before the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board (TTAB). Getagadget sells BIG BITE™ bottle openers and beach toys to mass merchandisers (such as Wal-Mart, Walgreens, and CVS pharmacy), convenience stores, vacation resort gift shops, surf shops, souvenir stores, restaurants, bars, nightclubs, promotional companies, marinas, theme parks, water parks, yacht clubs, and golf clubs in the United States and foreign countries. 7-Eleven sells its BIG BITE® hot dogs in 7-Eleven convenience stores. 7-Eleven alleged that consumers will be confused, mistaken, or deceived into believing that Getagadget's BIG BITE™ bottle openers and beach toys, which were not sold in 7-Eleven convenience stores, are somehow related to or originate from 7-Eleven. Alternatively, 7-Eleven alleged that Getagadget's use of the BIG BITE™ mark for bottle openers and beach toys would somehow dilute 7-Eleven's trademark for hot dogs. The cases settled to the mutual satisfaction of the parties, and the trademark opposition proceedings were dismissed.
Mavrix Photo, Inc. v. Popscreen, Inc.Willi Law Firm represented Houston-based Popscreen, Inc. in a copyright infringement lawsuit filed in the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas, Houston Division. The case against Willi Law Firm's client was voluntarily dismissed by the Plaintiff with no settlement payments being made by Popscreen.
Uniloc Luxembourg S.A. et al. v. OriginLab Corporation. Willi Law Firm was lead counsel for Masschusetts-based OriginLab Corporation in a patent infringement lawsuit filed in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Texas, Tyler Division. The patent in suit, U.S. Patent No. 5,579,222, relates to distributed license administration system using a local policy server to communicate with a license server and control execution of computer programs. OriginLab is a licensed user of Flexera Software, LLC's FlexNet Licensing and FlexNet Publisher software. The case against Willi Law Firm's client was dismissed with prejudice after Flexera obtained a license to the patent in suit.
InNova Patent Licensing, LLC v. Ipswitch, Inc. Willi Law Firm was local counsel for Massachusetts-based Ipswitch, Inc. in a patent infringement lawsuit filed in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Texas, Marshall Division. The patent in suit, U.S. Patent No. 6,018,761, relates to a system for adding information obtained from sources external to an electronic mail transport process to electronic email messages. The case was settled to the mutual satisfaction of the parties.
Uniloc Luxembourg S.A. et al. v. Ipswitch, Inc. Willi Law Firm is local counsel for Masschusetts-based Ipswitch, Inc. in a patent infringement lawsuit filed in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Texas, Tyler Division. The patent in suit, U.S. Patent No. 7,024,696, relates to a method and a system for prevention of piracy of software applications via a communications network, such as the Internet.
Innovative Automation LLC v. Audio and Video Labs, Inc. d/b/a Disc Makers et al. Willi Law Firm represented Formats Unlimited, Inc., Kunaki LLC, U.S. Digital Media, Inc., and Vervante Corporation in a patent infringement lawsuit, which was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Texas, Tyler Division, against multiple defendants. The patent in suit related to computer-implemented methods and a system for digital data duplication systems using networks to fully automate the process from customer order processing to delivery. Willi Law Firm filed a request for ex parte reexamination of the patent in suit, U.S. Patent No. 7,174,362, and for a continuation of the patent in suit, U.S. Patent No. 7,392,283, on February 14, 2012, in which Willi Law Firm requested the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office to reexamine all claims of the '362 and '283 patents in view of ten different prior art U.S. patents. On March 1, 2012 and on May 11, 2012, the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office determined that a substantial new question of patentability affecting all claims of the '362 and '283 patents, respectively, was raised by Willi Law Firm's request for ex parte reexamination and, therefore, granted Willi Law Firm's request for ex parte reexamination of the '362 and '283 patents. On May 17, 2012, the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office issued an office action rejecting claims 1, 2, 4, 7 and 8 of the '362 patent in view of the submitted prior art. On May 31, 2012, U.S. Magistrate Judge John D. Love issued a report and recommendation that the motion to dismiss pursuant to Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 12(b)(2) and 12(b)(3) filed by Willi Law Firm on behalf of its client, Formats Unlimited, Inc., should be granted and that that the patent infringement lawsuit against Willi Law Firm's client should be dismissed for improper venue. On September 27, 2012, Judge Leonard Davis adopted the recommendation of Magistrate Judge Love and ordered the patent infringement case against Willi Law Firm's client, Format's Unlimited, dismissed for improper venue. The case against Willi Law Firm's remaining clients was settled to the mutual satisfaction of the parties. On February 20, 2013, the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office issued an office action rejecting all 14 claims of the '283 patent in view of the submitted prior art. During the reexamination proceedings for the '283 patent, the patent amended calism 1 and 3-4 and added calism 15-19 and 21-25. On August 29, 2013, the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office issued a final office action rejecting all claims of the '283 patent in view of the submitted prior art.
Quanta Services, Inc. et al. v. Liveline Solutions, Inc. et al. Willi Law Firm represented the Canadian defendants in a patent infringement lawsuit, which was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Texas, Houston Division. The patent in suit, U.S. Patent No. 5,538,207, involved a rotating and telescoping robotic arm operable by remote control for temporarily supporting and repositioning energized power lines to enable repair or replacement of transmission or distribution poles, crossarms, insulators, insulator pins and the like, or to relocate conductors to facilitate their replacement. The case against Willi Law Firm's clients was settled to the mutual satisfaction of the parties.

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