Overview

Represented a Fortune 500 electronics company in a dispute over HDCP 2.x-enabled SoCs, and televisions and monitors that contained them. Following an evidentiary hearing, the ITC issued a finding of no violation based on no infringement of the asserted patents. The case was watched closely by other large industry players involved in the manufacture and sale of HDCP 2.x-enabled devices.

Took over the representation of a prominent manufacturer of garage door openers after the client received an unfavorable ITC ruling that resulted in the pending exclusion of nearly all of its products. Fish worked with the client to implement changes to design around the asserted patents and clear those products for importation. 

Represented a surgical device manufacturer at the ITC in a dispute over robotically controlled surgical instruments that both cut and staple tissue. As a result of the ALJ’s decision and Commission opinion, Fish prevailed on two of the three patents at issue; as to the third, the Commission suspended any remedial orders because that patent stands rejected in an IPR that was also handled by Fish.

Certain Sleep-Disordered Breathing Treatment Mask Systems and Components Thereof, Inv. No. 337-TA-1134, and Certain Obstructive Sleep Apnea Treatment Mask Systems and Components Thereof, Inv. No. 337-TA-1136 – Represented ResMed as complainant and respondent, respectively, in investigations concerning CPAP therapy masks.

Certain Subsea Telecommunication Systems and Components Thereof, Inv. No. 337-TA-1098, and Certain Submarine Telecommunication Systems, Inv. No. 337-TA-1113 – Represented NEC Corporation as respondent and represented NEC Corporation as complainant, respectively, in investigations concerning subsea telecommunication equipment.

Certain Sleep-Disordered Breathing Treatment Mask Systems and Components Thereof, Inv. No. 337-TA-1022 – Represented complainant ResMed in an investigation concerning CPAP therapy masks.

Certain Network Devices, Related Software and Components Thereof I & II, Inv. No. 337-TA-944 & -945 – Represented respondent Arista Networks in investigations concerning network devices.

Certain Non-Volatile Memory Chips and Products Containing the Same, Inv. No. 337-TA-916, and Certain Devices Containing Non- Volatile Memory, Inv. No. 337-TA-922 – Represented Macronix as respondent and complainant, respectively, in investigations concerning non-volatile memory, such as Flash memory.

Certain Television Sets, Television Receivers, Television Tuners, and Components Thereof, Inv. No. 337-TA-910 – Represented LG in ITC investigation against complainant CrestaTech and its infringement assertion of patents related to television tuner technology.

Certain Sleep-Disordered Breathing Treatment Systems and Components Thereof, Inv. No. 337-TA-890 – Represented complainant ResMed in an investigation concerning CPAP therapy systems.

Certain Microelectromechanical Systems (“MEMS Devices”) and Products Containing the Same, Inv. No. 337-TA-876 – Represented respondent InvenSense against STMicroelectronics in patent litigation concerning various MEMS technologies.

Certain Wireless Consumer Electronics Devices and Components Thereof, Inv. No. 337-TA-853 – Represented LG in ITC investigation through trial and final Commission review against complainants TPL, Patriot Scientific, and Phoenix Digital System and their infringement assertion of a patent related to variable speed system clocks in microprocessors.

Certain Wireless Devices with 3G Capabilities and Components Thereof Inv. No. 337-TA-800 – Defending respondent LGE against patent infringement claims brought by InterDigital seeking exclusion of LGE’s mobile phone products.

Certain Electronic Devices Having A Digital Television Receiver and Components Thereof, Inv. No. 337-TA-774 – Represented complainant Zenith Electronics Ltd. against Sony entities seeking exclusion of Sony digital television receivers.

Certain Display Devices, Including Digital Televisions and Monitors II, Inv. No. 337-TA-765 – Defended respondent LGE against patent infringement claims brought by Sony Electronics seeking exclusion of LGE’s digital television products.

Certain Digital Televisions and Components Thereof, Inv. No. 337-TA-764 – Represented complainant LGE against Sony entities seeking exclusion of Sony’s PlayStation3 and digital television products.

Certain Digital Televisions and Components Thereof, Inv. No. 337-TA-742 – Represented complainant LG Electronics in investigation enforcing patents related to digital televisions.

Certain Liquid Crystal Display Devices and Products Containing The Same, Inv. No. 337-TA-699 – Represented complainant Samsung Electronics in investigation enforcing patents related to liquid crystal display.

Certain Video Displays, Components Thereof, and Products Containing the Same, Inv. No. 337-TA-687 – Represented complainant LG Electronics in investigation enforcing patents related to digital televisions.

Certain Electronic Devices Having Image Capture or Display Functionality, Inv. No. 337-TA-672 – Represented complainant LG Electronics in investigation enforcing patents related to image capture and display.

Certain Liquid Crystal Display Modules and Products Containing the Same, and Methods for Using the Same, Inv. No. 337-TA-634 – Defended Samsung respondents in a patent infringement action relating to liquid crystal displays.

Certain Liquid Crystal Display Devices and Products Containing the Same, Inv. No. 337-TA-631 – Represented complainant Samsung Electronics in a patent infringement action relating to liquid crystal displays.

Certain Dynamic Random Access Memory Devices and Products Containing Same, Inv. No. 337-TA-595 – Defended Samsung respondents in an investigation defending against patent infringement claims brought by Renesas Technology Corp. accusing Samsung’s DRAM products.

U.S. District Court

NEC Corp. v. Xtera Inc., et al. (D. Del.) – Represented plaintiff NEC Corporation in a patent infringement case related to subsea telecommunications technology.

Xtera Inc., et al. v. NEC Corp., et. al. (N.D. Tex.) – Represented defendant NEC Corporation in a patent infringement case related to subsea telecommunications technology.

Huawei Technologies Co. Ltd v. T-Mobile US, Inc. and T-Mobile USA, Inc. (E.D. Tex.) – Represented plaintiff Huawei in a series of four related cases related to 3GPP/LTE standards and SEPs for core network equipment.

Advanced Micro Devices, Inc., et al. v. LGE, et al. (N.D. Cal.)– Defended LG defendants in a patent infringement case concerning a variety of integrated circuit technology.

EON Corp. IP Holdings, Inc. v. LGE, et al. (D. Del. and E.D. Tex.) – Defended LGEMU through successful summary judgment of invalidity of the asserted patent in a patent infringement case accusing LG’s video-capable mobile phones.

Multimedia Patent Trust v. LG Electronics. Inc., et al. (S.D. Cal.)– Defended LGE through jury trial and appeal in a patent case accusing LG’s video-capable cellular telephones.

InterDigital Communications, LLC v. LG Electronics, Inc. (D. Del.)– Represented LG entities in a patent infringement case relating to mobile phone technology.

Pragmatus AV, LLC v. Huawei Technologies Co., Ltd. and Futurewei Technologies Inc.(D. Del.)– Represented Huawei defendants in a patent infringement case concerning video conferencing technology.

Select Retrieval v. LG Electronics, USA, Inc. (D. Del.)– Represented defendant LG Electronics USA in a patent infringement case concerning website technology.

LG Electronics, Inc. v. Sony Corporation (S.D. Cal. & C.D. Cal.) – Represented LGE in a patent case against Sony relating to blu-ray disc players and digital television products.

Anvik Corp. v. Chi Mei Optoelectronics Corp. (S.D.N.Y.) – Represented defendant Chi Mei Optoelectronics in suit alleging infringement of patents related to a scanning microlithography system used in the production of liquid crystal displays.

Reactrix Systems, Inc. v. GestureTek, Inc. (N.D. Cal.) – Represented GestureTek in patent infringement litigation concerning video image based control systems.

The Saunders Group, Inc. v. ComforTrac, Inc. and Care Rehab and Orthopaedic Products (E.D. Va.) – Represented defendants ComforTrac and Care Rehab and Orthopaedic Products in a case alleging infringement of a patent directed to a cervical traction device.

MicroStrategy Incorporated v. Harry & David Operations Corp. (E.D. Va.) – Represented plaintiff MicroStrategy Incorporated in a case asserting copyright infringement and breach of contract.

Guardian Industries Corp. v. Hewlett Packard Co. (D. Del.) – Represented defendant Hewlett Packard in a case alleging infringement of patents related to the use of retardation films in twisted nematic LCDs to improve viewing angles.

Commissariat À L’Energie Atomique v. Chi Mei Optoelectronics Corp. (D. Del.) – Represented defendant Chi Mei Optoelectronics in case alleging infringement of patents directed to compensating the birefringence of liquid crystal materials to improve the viewing angle of liquid crystal displays.

U.S. Court of Appeals

ERI v. Hauge (Fed. Cir.) – Represented and argued for appellant Hauge in appeal related to contempt finding and entry of injunction. Obtained full reversal of adverse District Court ruling.