Source: https://www.hollandhart.com/tidonahey
Timestamp: 2019-04-26 08:18:57+00:00

Document:
Teague Donahey has over 15 years of major law firm experience litigating and trying high-stakes intellectual property matters and other complex business disputes for some of the world’s most significant technology companies.
His practice spans federal and state courts, as well as administrative bodies such as the United States International Trade Commission (ITC) and the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board (TTAB).
In addition to representing major corporations, Teague also enjoys providing counsel to smaller, growing businesses that are seeking to protect and enforce their intellectual property or are engaged in intellectual property disputes. Although differently-situated businesses may have different legal requirements, Teague understands the fundamental bottom line: all companies, large or small, desire high-quality legal representation delivered with value and efficiency.
Prior to joining the firm, Teague was a partner with Sidley Austin LLP in San Francisco and also worked in the Silicon Valley office of Skjerven Morrill LLP.
Teague counsels businesses engaged in trademark and copyright disputes and represents clients in litigation in federal courts and in the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board (TTAB).
Universal Electronics, Inc. v. Universal Remote Control, Inc. (C.D. Cal.): Trial counsel for electronics client in patent infringement action involving universal remote control technology. After a two week trial, the jury found in client’s favor on all claims and affirmative defenses, resulting in a decision of non-infringement, invalidity, and unenforceability based on patent misuse and unclean hands. Instrumental in obtaining a $4.6 million post-trial award of attorneys’ fees and costs for the client.
In the Matter of Certain Semiconductor Chips With Minimized Chip Package Size and Products Containing Same, Inv. No. 337-TA-605 (ITC) and Tessera, Inc. v. Advanced Micro Devices, Inc., et al. (N.D. Cal.): Defended multinational semiconductor manufacturer in parallel patent infringement actions in ITC and district court involving semiconductor packaging technologies. Was partner responsible for non-infringement issues in action involving novel court-appointed expert (“CAE”) procedures. After CAE agreed that all asserted patents were not infringed and invalid, the parties entered into a settlement agreement.
In the Matter of Certain Integrated Solar Power Systems and Components Thereof, Inv. No. 337-TA-811 (ITC): Led team defending major solar panel manufacturer in ITC Section 337 patent infringement investigation. The investigation was terminated after the parties entered into a settlement agreement during discovery.
In the Matter of Certain Encapsulated Integrated Circuit Devices and Products Containing Same, Inv. No. 337-TA-501 (ITC) and Amkor Technology, Inc. v. Carsem (M) Sdn Bhd et al. (N.D. Cal.): Represented leading semiconductor company in parallel patent infringement actions in ITC and district court involving semiconductor packaging technologies. After the ITC entered an exclusion order barring the adversary’s infringing products from being imported into the United States, the parties entered into a settlement agreement.
Eolas Technologies Inc. v. Adobe Systems, Inc., et al. (E.D. Tex.): Defended major consumer electronics company in a patent infringement action involving fundamental World Wide Web technologies. The parties settled prior to trial.
EON Corp. IP Holdings, LLC v. T-Mobile USA, Inc., et al. (E.D. Tex.) and EON Corp. IP Holdings, LLC v. FLO TV Inc., et al. (D. Del.): Defended major consumer electronics company in co-pending patent infringement actions involving telecommunications and smartphone technologies. The parties settled prior to trial.
In the Matter of Certain Display Devices, Including Digital Televisions and Monitors, Inv. No. 337-TA-713 (ITC): Defended foreign manufacturer in ITC Section 337 patent infringement investigation involving digital television technologies. The parties settled prior to trial.
In the Matter of Certain Wireless Communication System Server Software, Wireless Handheld Devices and Battery Packs, Inv. No. 337-TA-706 (ITC): Defended major consumer electronics company in ITC Section 337 patent infringement investigation involving various smartphone technologies. The parties settled prior to trial.
Teague is also active in pro bono matters on behalf of military veterans, having worked with the National Veterans Legal Services Program and Swords to Plowshares to provide legal counseling in connection with proceedings before the Veterans Benefits Administration, the Board of Veterans Appeals, and the U.S. Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims. Teague is accredited with the Veterans Administration.

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