Source: https://www.manatt.com/Robert-D-Becker
Timestamp: 2019-04-20 22:36:30+00:00

Document:
Robert Becker is a partner in the San Francisco office. He represents both emerging and developed companies in complex patent, antitrust, copyright, trade secret, and trademark cases in federal courts throughout the United States.
Rob is recognized as one of the top lawyers in his field. He was selected for inclusion in IP Law & Business’s May 2008 “Top 50 Under 45” and the Daily Journal’s 2010 list of the top Litigators in California. He was also named as one of the top patent lawyers by the Daily Journal in April 2008. He is a regular speaker and writer on intellectual property law and has been quoted in numerous publications, including The Wall Street Journal, Silicon Valley/San Jose Business Journal and the Daily Journal.
Rob represents clients in patent litigation and prosecution, including inter partes review (IPR) proceedings, and has successfully represented clients in disputes relating to a wide variety of technologies, including optical, wired, wireless and cellular networks; solar cells and panels, e-mail, e-commerce and Internet business methods; facial recognition, music recognition and downloads; content encryption and copy protection; data storage, access and synchronization; analog and digital signal processing; computer software, hardware and peripherals; and physics and mechanical engineering.
*Ironburg Inventions Ltd. v. Valve Corporation—Filed patent infringement action to address large scale infringement by Valve. The defendant sells the popular Steam controller for use on gaming platforms. The patents cover revolutionary reprogrammable controls on the back of the controller that are now used by all professional gamers. Six IPR requests have been filed by the defendant for the patents in the suit since the infringement actions were filed and we have been successful in protecting claims at issue in the suits.
*Capella Photonics, Inc. v. Cisco Systems, Inc.—Filed four patent infringement actions to address large scale infringement by Cisco, Tellabs, Fujitsu, and Ciena. The defendants provide the fiber-optic switching systems that power the Internet as we know it in America. The patents cover reconfigurable optical add-drop multiplexers (ROADMs), which are used to route (or to switch), on the wavelength level, optical signal traffic in fiber optic networks across the United States. Eight IPR requests have been filed by the defendants and their partners for the patents in suit since the infringement actions were filed.
Zenith Electronics LLC et al. v. *ViewSonic Corporation—Complex patent infringement and antitrust case involving patents that are alleged to be essential to digital television transmission standards. In addition to the traditional non-infringement and invalidity issues, the case involves the Plaintiffs’ failures to license patents on FRAND terms and related antitrust injuries attendant to Plaintiffs’ breaches of their FRAND obligations.
*Clairmail Inc. v. Maxim Integrated Products, Inc.—Filed a declaratory judgment complaint against Maxim Integrated Products on behalf of Clairmail Inc., a company that provides mobile banking applications, and whose banking customers had been sued or had received demand letters from Maxim for alleged infringement of patents for secure mobile banking transactions. The Clairmail action was consolidated in a multidistrict litigation along with other cases involving Maxim’s claims of infringement.
Crossroads Systems, Inc. v. *DataDirect Networks, Inc. et al. (W.D. Tex.)—Recently settled patent infringement action against DataDirect Networks in the Western District of Texas. Crossroads Systems asserted patent claims involving a storage router for providing virtual local storage on remote storage devices to devices.
*Visto Corp. v. Microsoft (E.D. Tex.)—Recently settled patent infringement action against Microsoft in the Eastern District of Texas (Marshall/Texarkana). Visto holds a portfolio of patents directed to wireless messaging and e-mail, calendar and contact synchronization, including U.S. Patent No. 6,085,192, which recently emerged from reexamination. Microsoft recently announced Messaging and Security Feature Pack (MSFP) for Windows Mobile 5.0 and Service Pack 2 (SP2) for Microsoft Exchange Server 2003. Direct Push technology in MSFP and Exchange Server 2003 SP2 is designed to allow Exchange Server to send messages and other PIM information directly to Windows Mobile 5.0 devices over the air (OTA) through wireless accounts. The case settled for a confidential amount just before trial.
*Visto Corp. v. Research In Motion (E.D. Tex.)—One of several patent infringement actions on the Visto patent portfolio against RIM in the Eastern District of Texas (Marshall/Texarkana). The cases settled for $267.5 million.
Philips v. *Concord Records, Inc., *Concord Music Group, Inc. et al. (S.D. N.Y.)—Patent infringement action pending in the Southern District of New York. Philips asserts claims for infringement of U.S. Patent 5,068,846 (“’846 patent”), entitled “Reflective, Optical Record Carrier”. Philips asserts in its Complaint against the Concord entities and other content publishers and CD manufacturers that use of the ‘846 patent is essential to manufacturing CDs that conform to standard specifications. We recently obtained a dismissal for our clients on the basis of exhaustion.
*Visto Corp. v. Good Technology, Inc. (E.D. Tex.)—Recently settled patent infringement action in the Eastern District of Texas (Marshall) involving the Visto patent portfolio. Visto acquired Good and is now the provider of GoodLink wireless messaging software.
*Visto Corp. v. Seven Networks, Inc. (E.D. Tex.)—Recently settled patent infringement action pending in the Eastern District of Texas (Marshall) involving the Visto patent portfolio. Seven is the provider of Sprint Business Connection software and Cingular Xpress Mail software. After a jury verdict of willful infringement in favor of Visto in April 2006 (19.75% royalty rate), the court doubled damages, awarded attorneys’ fees and entered a stayed injunction. The case subsequently settled. As part of the settlement agreement, Seven acknowledged the validity and enforceability of Visto’s patent portfolio and agreed to licensing terms.
*Visto Corp. v. Smartner Information Systems Ltd. (E.D. Tex.)—Patent infringement action involving the Visto patent portfolio. The action was pending in the Eastern District of Texas (Marshall), and recently settled as part of a global settlement with Seven Networks, Inc.
*Visto Corp. v. Infowave Software, Inc. (E.D. Tex.)—Recently settled patent infringement action against Infowave in the Eastern District of Texas (Marshall) involving the Visto patent portfolio. As part of the settlement, Infowave acknowledged the validity of Visto's and agreed to licensing terms.
*Visto Corp. v. Sproqit (N.D. Cal.)—Patent infringement action involving the Visto patent portfolio. Sproqit ceased operations and the action was dismissed.
Gracenote, Inc. v. *Musicmatch, Inc. (N.D. Cal.)—Recently concluded patent infringement action in the Northern District of California. Gracenote asserted several patents directed to Internet-based music recognition software and services. Musicmatch asserted counterclaims of invalidity and unenforceability due to material information about Gracenote’s prior systems that was fraudulently withheld from the USPTO during prosecution of the Gracenote “CDDB” patents, as well as antitrust violations based on the same conduct. The parties agreed to settle the case after Musicmatch obtained summary judgment on all patent claims.
*Macrovision Corp. v. 321 Studios (S.D.N.Y.)—Recently concluded patent infringement and Digital Millennium Copyright Act action against 321 Studios. Macrovision received both preliminary and permanent injunctions enjoining the sale of 321’s popular DVD X Copy products. Paramount and other motion picture studios received a similar injunction first, but 321 avoided those injunctions by removing the CSS breaking ripper. Macrovision’s injunction goes one step further, and blocks the new DVD X “RF” (Ripper Free) products, which were being sold online with a link to a third-party ripper.
E-Data v. *Ticketmaster, *Fandango, et. al. (S.D.N.Y.)—Recently dismissed patent infringement action regarding the Freeny patent brought by E-Data (formerly Interactive Gift Express Inc).
*Macrovision Corp. v. Sima Corp. (S.D.N.Y.)—Now concluded patent infringement and Digital Millennium Copyright Act action pending against Sima and Interburn in the southern District of New York. Interburn has settled. As a part of the settlement, Interburn acknowledged the validity of the Macrovision patents and was permanently enjoined. A motion for preliminary injunction against Sima is currently pending.
The Braun Corp. v. *Maxon Lift Corp. (N.D. Ind.)—Patent infringement action brought by The Braun Corp. After obtaining summary judgment on all of Braun’s claims, we secured an affirmance from the Federal Circuit. The decision was based on a controversial “Scimed” type subject matter disclaimer.
*Maxon Lift Corp. v. Ricon, Corp. and The Braun Corp. (C.D. Cal.)—Antitrust action filed in the Central District of California to block the proposed merger between Ricon, Corp. and The Braun Corp. The case was dismissed after the defendants abandoned the proposed combination.
Atmel v. Information Storage Devices, Inc. (N.D. Cal.)—Patent infringement action concerning nonvolatile memory chips in the Northern District of California. Represented third party Xicor, Inc.
*Flying J v. Central California Kenworth (E.D. Cal.)—Copyright infringement action that resulted in a multimillion dollar jury verdict in favor of Flying J.
Abbott Labs and Mitsubishi Tokyo Pharmaceuticals, Inc. v. *Dey, Inc. (N.D. Ill.)—Patent infringement action regarding two patents assigned to Tokyo Tanabe (now Mitsubishi Tokyo Pharmaceuticals). The patents are directed to pulmonary surfactants and methods for use in alleviating infant respiratory distress syndrome (IRDS).
Adrain v. *Hypertech (D. Utah)—Patent infringement action in the District of Utah. Adrain asserted two patents directed to apparatus and software for modifying the control provided by automotive engine control modules.
*ICMI, Inc. v. Ricoh (W.D. Pa.)—Patent infringement action concerning toner cartridges for laser printers. Summary judgment in favor of ICMI upheld by the Federal Circuit on appeal.
Hewlett-Packard v. *Nu-kote (N.D. Cal.)—Patent infringement action concerning numerous patents on ink formulations and ink cartridges for ink jet printers. Settled after trial and numerous summary judgments in favor of Nu-kote.
Canon v. *Nu-kote (C.D. Cal.)—Patent infringement action concerning numerous patents on ink and ink cartridges for ink jet printers. Settled after summary judgment on invalidity of critical ink patent.
Seiko-Epson v. *Nu-kote (C.D. Cal.)—Patent infringement action concerning numerous patents on ink cartridges for ink jet printers. Settled after partial summary judgment in favor of Nu-kote.
Rainin Instrument Co. v. *Sherwood Medical (N.D. Cal.)—Patent infringement action concerning medical pipettes. Summary judgment of noninfringement granted in favor of Sherwood Medical.
Comora v. *Thoratec Laboratories (N.D. Cal.)—Patent infringement action concerning left ventricular assist devices. Summary judgment of noninfringement granted in favor of Thoratec.
In re Left Ventricular Assist Device Patent Litigation (D. Nev)—Consolidated patent infringement actions concerning left ventricular assist devices. See description, above.
Speaker, Bilski, The Giles S. Rich American Inn of Court, Washington, D.C., 2010.
Speaker, Bilski Panel, Institute of Intellectual Property & Social Justice, Seventh Annual Intellectual Law Property Seminar, Washington D.C., 2010.
Co-chair, Andrews Publications Intellectual Property Litigation 2005 Conference, San Francisco, CA, October 2005.
Speaker, Intellectual Property Risk Management Seminar. Palo Alto, CA, May 2002.
In 2005, he was named as one of the best intellectual property lawyers in the bay area by Bay Area Lawyer Magazine and one of the best intellectual property litigation lawyers by Northern California Super Lawyers.
“Patents For Software Remain Viable & Vital In European Union,” Washington Legal Foundation, Vol. 16, No. 11, May 2006.
“A New Strategy to Deal with Grokster,” Intellectual Property Litigation Reporter, March 2005.
“Patents Give the DMCA Needed Teeth, Salvaging Copy Protection in the Post-Grokster Era,” Journal of Internet Law, September 2004.
“Court Order Halts DVD Copying Technology Sale,” Associated Press, May 2004.
“Macrovision Wins Preliminary Injunction Against 321 Studios in Patent and Copyright Infringement Lawsuit,” The Wall Street Journal, May 2004.
“Injunction Issued Against 321 Studios’ Software,” St. Louis Business Journal, May 2004.
“Macrovision Gains Injunction Against DVD X Software,” Silicon Valley/San Jose Business Journal, May 2004.
Co-author with Ronald S. Katz and Noel S. Cohen, “Back to the Future: Patent Parallels Between SARS, HIV/AIDS,” BNA Pharmaceutical Law & Industry Report, Vol. 1, No. 26, July 11, 2003.
“AIDS Group Says Patents on AZT Are Invalid,” Andrews Antitrust Litigation Reporter, August 2002.
“AIDS Group Sues GlaxoSmithKline Over Drug Patents, Pricing,” The Wall Street Journal (WSJ.com), July 2002.
“AIDS Healthcare Foundation Sues Glaxo for Antitrust; AHF Discovers Invalid Patents on AZT & Other HIV Drugs,” PRNewswire, July 2002.
“Glaxo Faces U.S. Lawsuit Over AIDS-Drug Pricing,” Smartmoney.com, July 2002.
“Manatt Phelps: Three Practitioners Come From Coudert,” The Daily Journal, California Law Business, March 2002.
“FDA Regulation Of Single-Use Device Reprocessing Amounts To Fiscal Irrationality,” Health Industry Today, July 2001.
“District Court Rules in Favor of Dey in Abbott Laboratories Lawsuit to Stop The Sale of Life-Saving Pulmonary Surfactant,” PRNewswire, May 2001.
“The Truck Stops Here -- Not all truck stops are created equal. That's what Tommy G. Pistacchio found out when a jury slapped the trucking mogul with most of a $7.7 million verdict for copyright infringement,” The Daily Journal, Verdicts & Settlements, October 2000.
“TechnoLaw Roundtable: A Monthly Forum for High Technology Attorneys,” Aspen Publishing, 1996-1998.
Both Sides Claim Victory in ITC Ruling re Converse's "Chuck Taylors"

References: 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.