Marcus A. Barber’s practice focuses on complex patent infringement cases involving a wide range of technologies including software, pharmaceutical and telecommunications. He has experience in all phases of patent litigation, including fact and expert discovery, claim construction, motion practice and trial.
Marcus frequently litigates high-stakes matters for some of the largest technology and telecommunications companies in the world, including Google, LG, Uber, Verizon, ASUS, Samsung, Adobe and Sony Electronics.
Marcus currently serves on California Minority Counsel Program’s Ambassadors Council.
Prior to joining Kasowitz, Marcus was a law clerk to Margaret B. Seymour, United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, and also to Matthew J. Perry, Jr., United States District Court for the District of South Carolina.
- Uber in securing dismissal of a patent infringement case alleging that Uber’s user application infringed Halio Technologies’ automated dispatch and payment system patent.
- Google in securing summary judgment based on non-infringement and further granting Google’s motion monetary sanctions in a patent infringement suit brought in the Southern District of Texas by SuperSpeed Software, alleging that “Google Docs” and “Google Drive” infringed two data access patents that SuperSpeed incorporated into software used to accelerate the performance of computers linked to a shared-disk network.
- Google in successfully securing a complete dismissal in a six-patent infringement case 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. The court found that the asserted claims were directed to patent-ineligible subject matter and thus invalid, and granted Google’s motion to dismiss.
- Google, Motorola, LG, Samsung, and ASUS in a patent infringement case alleging Android-based smartphones and wearables infringed a device security patent. Kasowitz won a motion to transfer venue, from the Eastern District of Texas to the Northern District of California, following a one-day evidentiary hearing on behalf of all clients.
- Google in a patent infringement case alleging that Google Drive infringed Hall Data’s database synchronization patent. Kasowitz won a motion to transfer venue, from the Eastern District of Texas to the Northern District of California, on behalf of Google.
- 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.
- LG in a seven-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.
- Adobe Systems Incorporated customers (e.g. Bed Bath & Beyond, QVC, J.C. Penney, Kohl’s Corporation and Dillard’s) in a patent infringement case alleging infringement of Tejas’s image file formatting patent. By utilizing the customer-suit exception, Kasowitz filed a declaratory judgment action in the Northern District of California against Tejas on behalf of Adobe. This rarely utilized exception allowed Kasowitz to secure a walk-away victory on behalf of Adobe and its customers.
- Dr. G. David Jang, plaintiff in Jang v. Boston Scientific Corp. et al., in successfully securing a jury verdict in favor of Dr. Jang against Boston Scientific for infringing Dr. Jang's patents directed to coronary stent design and breaching its contractual obligations to pay him royalties.
- Recreational Equipment, Inc. (REI) in patent litigation concerning website personalization technology.
- Mylan Pharmaceuticals in a Hatch-Waxman litigation against Bristol-Myers Squibb regarding patents covering HIV drug.
- Mylan in Hatch-Waxman litigation against Warner Chilcott regarding oral contraceptive, Loestrin.