Source: https://www.shb.com/professionals/l/lujin-patrick
Timestamp: 2019-04-26 15:41:56+00:00

Document:
Pat's practice focuses on patent infringement litigation and counseling involving computer hardware and software, automotive, and video game technology. He represents clients in federal courts across the country and in inter partes review proceedings before the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office. Pat frequently speaks and writes on current patent issues, and he has co-authored two amicus briefs filed in the Supreme Court of the United States on behalf of the Intellectual Property Owners Association: WesternGeco v. ION Geophysical (2018) and Alice Corp v. CLS Bank (2014).
Prior to rejoining Shook in 2002, Pat served as in-house patent counsel for Microsoft in Redmond, Washington. During law school, Pat was a staff member of the UMKC Law Review and won the Giles S. Rich Patent Moot Court Competition in Washington, D.C., where he successfully argued before a panel of judges from the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit. Before law school, Pat worked as an electrical design engineer for an engineering consulting firm in St. Louis, Missouri.
Ironburg Inventions Ltd. v. Valve Corp. – Represent defendant Valve in patent infringement litigation involving video game controller technology in the Western District of Washington (Seattle) and represent Valve in appeal of related inter partes review proceedings to the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit.
Omega Flex, Inc. v. Ward Mfg., LLC – Represent defendant Ward in patent infringement litigation in the District of Delaware involving fluid piping technology.
PalTalk Holdings, Inc. v. Valve Corp. – Represent defendant Valve in patent infringement litigation involving multiplayer online video game technology in the Western District of Washington (Seattle) and represent Valve in related inter partes review proceedings before the Patent Trial and Appeal Board.
Post Media Systems LLC v. Spotify USA Inc. – Represented defendant Spotify in patent infringement litigation in the Eastern District of Texas (Marshall) involving technology for creating and sharing playlists resulting in a favorable settlement for Spotify.
Uniloc USA, Inc. et al. v. Valve Corp. – Represented defendant Valve in multiple patent infringement litigations in the Eastern District of Texas (Marshall) involving software for network management resulting in a favorable settlement for Valve.
Signal IP, Inc. v. Nissan North America, Inc. – Represented defendant Nissan in patent infringement litigation involving automotive technology in the Central District of California (Los Angeles), and represented Nissan in related inter partes review proceedings before the Patent Trial and Appeal Board, resulting in a favorable settlement for Nissan.
Uniloc USA, Inc. et al. v. Microsoft Corp. – Represented defendant Microsoft in patent infringement litigation in the Eastern District of Texas (Marshall) involving call conferencing technology resulting in a favorable settlement for Microsoft.
Uniloc USA, Inc. et al. v. Activision Blizzard, Inc. et al. – Represented defendant Activision Blizzard in patent infringement litigation in the Eastern District of Texas (Tyler) involving software registration technology resulting in a favorable settlement for Activision Blizzard.
Uniloc USA, Inc. et al. v. Take-Two Interactive et. al. and Uniloc USA, Inc. et al. v. Valve Corp. – Represented defendants Valve and 2K Games in patent infringement litigations in the Eastern District of Texas (Tyler) involving software registration technology resulting in a favorable settlement for Valve and 2K Games.
PanTaurus LLC v. Microsoft Corp. et al. – Represented defendant Microsoft in patent infringement litigation in the Eastern District of Texas (Beaumont) involving computer security technology resulting in a favorable settlement for Microsoft.
SimpleAir, Inc. v. Microsoft Corp. et al. – Represented defendant Microsoft in patent infringement litigations in the Eastern District of Texas (Marshall) involving data transmission technology resulting in a favorable settlement for Microsoft.
Skyline Software Systems, Inc. v. Analytical Graphics, Inc. – Represented defendant Analytical Graphics in patent infringement litigation in the Eastern District of Virginia (Norfolk) involving software for displaying three-dimensional images resulting in a favorable settlement for Analytical Graphics.
Princeton Digital Image Corp. v. Microsoft Corp. – Represented defendant Microsoft in patent infringement litigation in the District of Delaware involving technology for encoding digital signals resulting in a favorable settlement for Microsoft.
Tallgrass Prairie Management, LLC v. Microsoft Corp. et al. – Represented defendant Microsoft in patent infringement litigation in the Eastern District of Texas (Marshall) involving encryption technology resulting in a favorable settlement for Microsoft.
E-Contact Technologies LLC v. Microsoft Corp. – Represented defendant Microsoft in patent infringement litigation in the Eastern District of Texas (Beaumont) involving email technology resulting in a favorable settlement for Microsoft.
Walker Digital, LLC v. Activision, Inc. et al. – Represented defendants Activision Blizzard and Zynga in patent infringement litigation in the District of Delaware involving online game technology resulting in favorable settlements for Activision and Zynga.
InNova Patent Licensing, LLC v. 3COM Corp. et al. – Represented defendant Cinemark in patent infringement litigation in the Eastern District of Texas (Marshall) involving electronic mail technology resulting in a favorable settlement for Cinemark.
Uniloc USA, Inc. et al. v. Sony Corporation of America et al. – Represented defendant Quark in patent infringement litigation in the Eastern District of Texas (Tyler) involving software registration technology resulting in a favorable settlement for Quark.
Prism Technologies, LLC v. Adobe Systems, Inc. et al. – Represented defendant Quark in patent infringement litigation in the District of Nebraska (Omaha) involving hardware-enabled authentication and authorization software resulting in a favorable settlement for Quark.
Skyline Software Systems, Inc. v. ESRI, Inc. and Microsoft Corp. – Represented defendant Microsoft in patent infringement litigation in the Eastern District of Virginia (Norfolk) involving software for displaying three-dimensional images resulting in dismissal of Microsoft.
Performance Proxy Research, LLC v. Microsoft Corp. – Represented defendant Microsoft in patent infringement litigation in the Northern District of Illinois (Chicago) involving networking technology resulting in a favorable settlement for Microsoft.
Prism Technologies, LLC v. Research in Motion, Ltd. and Microsoft Corp. – Represented defendant Microsoft in patent infringement litigation in the District of Nebraska (Omaha) involving hardware-enabled authentication and authorization software resulting in a favorable settlement for Microsoft.
Venetec International, Inc. v. Nexus Medical, LLC – Represented defendant Nexus Medical in patent infringement litigation in the District of Delaware involving catheter securement devices resulting in a favorable settlement for Nexus Medical.
PhatRat Technology, Inc. v. Timex Corp. and Garmin International, Inc. – Represented defendant Garmin in patent infringement litigation in the District of Colorado (Denver) involving fitness devices resulting in a favorable settlement for Garmin.
Nash v. Microsoft Corp. – Represented defendant Microsoft in patent infringement litigation in the Southern District of Texas (Houston) involving anti-piracy software resulting in summary judgment of non-infringement in favor of Microsoft. Affirmed on appeal.
Freeman et al. v. The First Years, Inc. – Represented plaintiffs in patent infringement litigation in the District of Kansas (Kansas City) involving child care products resulting in favorable settlement for clients.
Pave Tech, Inc. et al. v. Snap Edge Corp. et al. – Represented defendants in patent infringement litigation in the Northern District of Illinois (Chicago) involving landscaping products resulting in a favorable settlement for clients on the first day of trial.
Mike v. Dymon, Inc. – Represented defendant Dymon in litigation involving trade secret misappropriation and breach of contract in the District of Kansas (Kansas City) resulting in a favorable post-trial settlement for Dymon.
The Future of Automotive Patent Litigation, by Patrick A. Lujin, Shook, Hardy & Bacon, L.L.P., and Matthew D. Satchwell, DLA Piper LLP (US); published by the American Bar Association on April 3, 2017, at pp. 821-34 at http://www.aba-cdrom.com/2017/Motor_Vehicle/Begin.pdf.
Through the Looking Glass: Litigating Software and Business Method Patents Under Section 112, by George, N. Chaclas, Edwards Angell Palmer & Dodge LLP, Patrick A. Lujin, Shook, Hardy & Bacon, L.L.P., Binal J. Patel, Banner & Witcoff Ltd., Leslie M. Spencer, Ropes & Gray LLP, and Michael D. Stein, Woodcock Washburn LLP; published by the Intellectual Property Owners Association on June 2, 2009 at www.ipo.org/articles.
Speaker, The Future of Automotive Patent Litigation, American Bar Association Motor Vehicle Conference at the Arizona Biltmore Resort and Spa, Phoenix, Arizona, April 6, 2017.
Moderator, IP Issues in Cloud Computing, Annual Meeting of the Intellectual Property Owners Association at the JW Marriott at L.A. Live, Los Angeles, California, September 12, 2011.
Speaker, KSR v. Teleflex and the Business Methods Taxonomy, Annual Meeting of the Intellectual Property Owners Association at the Waldorf-Astoria Hotel, New York City, New York, September 11, 2007.
Speaker, Determining the Value of IP, American Intellectual Property Law Association's 29th Mid-Winter Institute at the La Quinta Resort & Club, La Quinta, California, February 2, 2006.

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. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v.