Significant Success as Lead IP Trial Counsel
Kasowitz's Intellectual Property Litigation group has extensive experience in all aspects of patent, trademark, trade secret, false advertising, copyright, right of publicity, and related antitrust and unfair competition litigation. Our clients have included Google, Adobe, Verizon, Mallinckrodt, Watson Pharmaceuticals (now Teva), Oracle and TransPerfect, among others.
Our lawyers handle matters for some of the world’s largest technology and pharmaceuticals companies as both plaintiff and defendant.
Kasowitz differentiates itself with our experience trying intellectual property cases as lead trial counsel and our success in front of juries. Many of our intellectual property lawyers have advanced technological and scientific degrees.
Our intellectual property lawyers have been consistently recognized as leading attorneys by Chambers USA, Best Lawyers in America, Managing Intellectual Property, LMG Life Sciences, and Super Lawyers. We regularly represent clients in all the major federal patent and trademark venues throughout the country.
Our team prides itself on having an incredibly diverse roster of lawyers of both national and international origins. We continually strive to present opportunities to lawyers of diverse backgrounds with the belief that a diverse team is the best team.
Google in a significant and rarely achieved victory for patent action defendants involving a motion to transfer venue of Ryujin Fujinomaki vs. Google Inc., et al. from the Eastern District of Texas to the Northern District of California. The decision also permitted Kasowitz clients Motorola, LG, ASUS and Samsung to join in the motion. The complaint in the action alleges that certain lock features, including Google’s Smart Lock feature, in defendants’ Android-based smartphones and wearables infringed Fujinomaki’s patent. It is very rare for defendants like Google to win motions to transfer venue from Texas to California.
Google in successfully securing a complete dismissal in a patent infringement challenge brought by Data Engine Technologies in the District of Delaware. Data Engine alleged that Google Sheets infringed patents which purportedly covered the Quattro Pro for Windows® spreadsheet program sold by Borland Software Corporation in the 1990s. Chief Judge Leonard P. Stark found that the asserted claims were directed to patent-ineligible subject matter and thus invalid, and granted Google’s motion to dismiss. This matter originally began as a six-patent case against Google, which Kasowitz successfully reduced to three patents.
Google in a patent infringement case in California federal court in which Google seeks a declaration that it has not infringed Eolas Technologies’ patent covering interactive web browser functions. This is the third case involving Google and Eolas in which Kasowitz has served as trial counsel for Google.
- In the first case, Kasowitz served as trial counsel for Google and YouTube in the Eastern District of Texas in a patent infringement action brought by Eolas and the University of California. Kasowitz achieved a jury verdict of patent invalidity on behalf of Google, YouTube, and the joint defense group, defeating claims for hundreds of millions in damages as well as injunctive relief against interactive web pages. This verdict has been hailed in headlines worldwide, including “Texas Jury Strikes Down Patent Troll’s Claim to Own the Interactive Web,” by Wired.com and “Eolas patent trial: Relax! The Internet is saved,” by the Toronto Star.
- In the second case, Kasowitz represented Google in a patent infringement case brought in California federal court in which Google and J.C. Penney sought declarations that they have not infringed two Eolas Technologies patents covering interactive web browser functions. Eolas moved to dismiss Google’s complaint, alleging a lack of personal jurisdiction. Eolas’s motions were denied, ruling California’s long-arm statute establishes the court’s personal jurisdiction over Eolas because its exclusive licensing agreement for the patents-in-suit created continuing patent-related obligations with the patents’ California-based owners. The case ultimate was dismissed and resolved favorably.
LG in a four-patent infringement case involving USB chargers in the Eastern District of Texas. Plaintiff Fundamental Innovation Systems licensed the patents-in-suit from Blackberry, and assert infringement against several high-profile companies, including Samsung, Huawei and ZTE.
Mallinckrodt in a patent infringement matter involving Mallinckrodt’s patent for opioid painkiller Opana ER. The District Court of Delaware upheld the validity of Mallinckrodt’s patent, rejecting arguments from Amneal Pharmaceuticals and Teva Pharmaceuticals. Amneal and Teva defended their potential generics, alleging that prior art anticipated Mallinckrodt’s patent. In his opinion, the judge found that neither a 1957 academic paper, nor a 2005 patent application, anticipated the process or product described in the patent.
Verizon in numerous patent infringement matters involving cellular communication hand-offs, cellular phone hotspot technology, data transmission protocols, network extender products, audio communication systems for computer networks and interactive media guides.
Adobe Systems in a patent infringement matter alleging numerous high-profile companies, including technology giants Apple and Hewlett Packard, violated PanTaurus LLC’s patent describing a secure computer system.
Recreational Equipment, Inc. (REI) in a patent infringement action as part of a joint defense group that included Staples, L.L. Bean, Dillard’s, Drugstore.com, HSN, J.C. Penney, and Rhapsody. All other defendants settled in June 2014, and REI prepared for trial as the sole remaining defendant. Shortly before trial, REI settled the case.
Dr. G. David Jang in successfully securing a jury trial verdict in favor of Dr. G. David Jang against Boston Scientific Corporation for infringing Dr. Jang’s patent on a stent he invented for treatment of certain atherosclerotic lesions and for breaching its contractual obligations to pay him royalties. The royalties due to Dr. Jang, together with prejudgment interest, amount to more than $200 million. The two-and-a-half-week trial in federal court in the Central District of California followed a successful appeal by Kasowitz, after replacing prior counsel, to the Federal Circuit Court of Appeals, which reversed the district court’s adverse claim construction ruling and remanded the action for trial.
United Promotions and Promotoras Unidas in matters arising from misappropriation of patent applications and trade secrets by a departed employee. The team reached settlement on portions of the claims in Colombia and Mexico, and is currently pursuing additional claims in Peru, Argentina, Ecuador, and Bangladesh by enforcing the settlement agreement and pursuing claims in bankruptcy court.
RolleSolutions in a trade secret and unfair competition breach of contract case alleging various business torts against a former employee.
Coda Development in a trade secret misappropriation, false inventorship and fraud matter involving a self-inflating automobile tire.
JadeLiquid Software in a multi-jurisdiction patent litigation against Novell regarding allegations of patent infringement relating to cloud computing.
TransPerfect in a trial involving a patent infringement action in the Northern District of California against website translator MotionPoint. We defended the suit against MotionPoint’s claims of patent infringement and counterclaimed based on its own patent. The federal jury verdict found the three patents owned by MotionPoint to be invalid and not infringed by TransPerfect, and also found that MotionPoint had infringed TransPerfect’s valid patent. The jury further awarded TransPerfect monetary damages and a running royalty.
Hitachi Global Storage Technologies in successfully obtaining summary judgment for Hitachi and against M.I.T. and MagSil in the District of Delaware by invalidating M.I.T.’s patent, after all of the other major players in the disk drive industry had paid tens of millions of dollars for licenses. Kasowitz also represented Hitachi in the appeal to the Federal Circuit and again prevailed, preserving the district court’s summary judgment.
Yahoo! in two matters in the District of Delaware against Walker Digital concerning internet advertising and game technologies.
Oracle in in a patent infringement action relating to its social networking software, and in a nine-patent case relating to cloud technologies.
Microsoft/Skype in defense of claims of patent infringement relating to peer-to-peer networking technology.
Adelphia Communications in a multi-district patent infringement litigation over the provision of high-speed internet services via cable modems. After discovery and the submission of expert reports, the plaintiff Rembrandt dismissed its case against Adelphia, resulting in no liability for Adelphia.
Liggett in a trademark infringement litigation brought by Lorillard in the Middle District of North Carolina. The case was settled on favorable terms shortly before trial.
Purolite in its action for trade secret misappropriation against competitor Thermax, relating to stolen manufacturing formulae. We successfully obtained $38 million for Purolite.
Shaklee in a patent infringement litigation against Masimo regarding pulse oximetry technology in the Central District of California.
Watson Pharmaceuticals (now Teva) in Hatch-Waxman patent litigations relating to a number of drugs, including Ultracet®, Aplenzin®, Renvela®, Intuniv®, and WelChol® in the District of Delaware, the District of New Jersey, the Southern District of Florida and the Northern District of California