Representative Experience

ITC Section 337 Actions

• Counsel for respondents TCL Electronics Holdings Limited, TTE Technology Inc., TCL Moka, Int’l Ltd., et al. in a two-patent case brought by Koninklijke Philips N.V. et al. related to secure authentication and distance measurement allegedly employed by MediaTek and Realtek chips incorporated in TCL television and monitor products; Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) Cameron Elliot issued an initial determination of no violation favorable to TCL. In the Matter of Certain Digital Video-Capable Devices and Components Thereof, U.S. International Trade Commission Investigation No. 337-TA-1224.*
• Counsel for TCL respondents in a multi-patent case concerning remote control technology against Universal Electronics Inc. (UEI); terminated by UEI. In the Matter of Certain Electronic Devices, Including Streaming Players, Televisions, Set Top Boxes, Remote Controllers, And Components Thereof, U.S. International Trade Commission Investigation No. 337-TA-1200.*
• Counsel for non-parties Fortress Investment Group LLC and AND34 Funding LLC in a five-patent investigation before ALJ Thomas Pender concerning processing audio signals to avoid interference in tablets, desktops, and laptops; the commission selected the investigation for the second ever 100-Day Pilot Program to determine within 100 days whether complainant has standing to sue or if the investigation should be immediately terminated for failure to include Fortress Investment Group LLC or AND34 Funding LLC as additional complainants; the ALJ found that complainant has standing to sue, and the commission denied respondents’ motion for oral argument and determined not to review the ALJ’s initial determination; settled by the parties before the hearing. In the Matter of Certain Audio Processing Hardware and Software and Products Containing Same, U.S. International Trade Commission Investigation No. 337-TA-949.*
• Counsel for respondents TCL Communication Inc. and TCT Mobile (US) Inc. in multi-patent case brought by Innovative Foundries related to semiconductor process technologies allegedly employed by Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Company’s manufacture of Qualcomm chips incorporated in TCL mobile products. Case settled. In the Matter of Certain Semiconductor Devices, Integrated Circuits, and Consumer Products Containing the Same, U.S. International Trade Commission Investigation No. 337-TA-1149.*
• Counsel for respondents HTC Corporation and HTC America in a four-patent case before ALJ Theodore Essex concerning various camera functionality and image processing systems in smart phones; prior to trial one patent was dismissed and obtained final determination finding noninfringement, and none of the domestic industry licensees practiced two of the remaining three asserted patents. FlashPoint Technology Inc. v. HTC Corporation, HTC America Inc., et al.S. International Trade Commission.*
• Counsel for respondents ASUSTeK Computer Inc. and ASUS Computer International in a five-patent case before ALJ James Gildea concerning teleconferencing technologies, e.g., Google Talk, in ASUS tablets; settled favorably. ITC proceeding 337-TA-839. Pragmatus AV, LCC v. ASUSTeK Computer Inc. and ASUS Computer International, U.S. International Trade Commission.*
• Counsel for HTC in a five-patent case before ALJ Gildea concerning haptics functionality in smartphones. Immersion moved to terminate the investigation two weeks before trial; terminated. ITC proceeding 337-TA-834. Immersion Corporation v. HTC Corporation, HTC America Inc., et al., U.S. International Trade Commission.*
• Counsel for ASUS in patent litigation concerning products implementing power supplies, variable speed fans, and Network Address Port Translation; win at trial and initial ID, commission decided not to review initial ID which became the final ID, and case subsequently settled favorably. ITC proceeding 337-TA-628. IBM Corporation v. ASUSTeK Computer Inc. and ASUS Computer International, U.S. International Trade Commission.*

Patent Litigation

• Counseled TCL in multiple patent litigations involving mobile devices, smart TVs, wireless technologies, and chip packaging. Key cases included: a three-patent case concerning secure authentication and LCD backlight modules before Judge Cormac Carney (Koninklijke Philips N.V. v. TCL, U.S. District Court for the Central District of California, stayed pending parallel ITC investigation); an 11-patent declaratory judgment case related to Android, 802.11, LTE, and chip packaging before Judge Cathy Ann Bencivengo (TCL v. Bell Northern Research, U.S. District Court for the Southern District of California, pending); a 10-patent case related to similar technologies before Judge Andre Birotte (Bell Northern Research v. TCL, U.S. District Court for the Central District of California, pending); a three-patent case concerning 4G LTE standards before Judge Selna (Wi-Lan Inc. v. TCT Mobile, U.S. District Court for the Central District of California, stayed pending ex parte reexaminations); a case involving wireless technologies for spread spectrum signals before Judge Ed Kinkeade, which settled favorably (Aperture Net v. TCT Mobile, U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Texas); and a case involving software update technology, which also settled favorably (Ancora Technologies v. TCT Mobile, U.S. District Court for the Central District of California, Case No. 8:19-cv-02192-GW).*
• Counsel for defendant Coolpad Technologies in a multiple patent case before Judge Bencivengo related to mobile devices implicating Android, 802.11, and LTE. Case favorably settled. Bell Northern Research, LLC v. Coolpad Technologies, Inc., U.S. District Court for the Southern District of California.*
• Counsel for plaintiffs in business litigation before Judge Robert Conrad involving claims of fraud, conversion, breach of contract, and other business claims. Case pending. Vanguard Pai Lung, LLC and Pai Lung Machinery Mill Co., Ltd v. William Moody et al., State of California, County of Mecklenburg, Superior Court.*
• Counsel for Lucent Trans Electronic Co., Inc. in breach of contract action relating to power charging devices; settled favorably. Lucent Trans Electronic Co., Inc. v. Foreign Trade Corporation, et al., U.S. District Court for the Central District of California, Case No. 2:18-cv-08638.*
• Counsel for U.D. Electronic Corp. in three-patent case relating to RJ-45 Integrated Connector Modules; Judge Benetiz granted summary judgment finding no infringement of all counts; pending appeal. Pulse Electronics, Inc. v. U.D. Electronic Corp., U.S. District Court for the Southern District of California, Case No. 3:18-cv-00373.*
• Counsel for Cellco Partnership (d/b/a Verizon Wireless Inc.), TeleCommunication Systems Inc., and Networks In Motion Inc. in a one-patent case before Judge Leonard Stark concerning systems for determining estimated times of arrival of vehicles; stipulated entry of final judgment of noninfringement after favorable claim construction order shortly before trial; appeal pending. Vehicle IP LLC v. AT&T Mobility LLC, U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware.*
• Counsel for defendant Miracle Babies in litigation including claims for trademark infringement, unfair competition, cybersquatting, and false designation of origin related to plaintiff’s purported “Miracle”-related trademarks. The dispute also included an opposition proceeding filed by Children’s Miracle Network related to the Miracle Babies & Design trademark. Settled both proceedings favorably. Children’s Miracle Network v. Miracle Babies, U.S. District Court for the Southern District of California, Trademark Trial and Appeal Board.*
• Counseled HTC in patent litigation involving user interfaces, audio processing and streaming, data compression, device data entry, content delivery, and payment systems. This included a 10-patent case before Judge Gregory Sleet (Koninklijke Philips N.V. v. HTC, S. District Court for the District of Delaware, settled) and a case concerning content delivery and payment systems (Smartflash LLC v. HTC, U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Texas).*
• Counseled Largan in a six-patent case concerning optical lenses in smartphones, tablets, and other products. Largan Precision, Company Ltd. v. Samsung Electronics, et al., U.S. District Court for the Southern District of California.*
• Counseled Starbucks in patent litigation related to online menu generation and mobile payment. Ameranth, Inc. v. Starbucks Corp., U.S. District Court for the Southern District of California.*
• Counseled ASUS in numerous multi-patent cases across various technologies, including DDR DRAM memory, SSD NAND flash memory, LCD, Bluetooth, USB 3.0, BIOS, CMOS image sensors, flash memory, SDRAM memory, floating point rasterization, framebuffering, removable backlighting, and teleconferencing technologies, as well as ASUS PC-related products, tablets, and flat panel displays.*
• Counseled Cal-Comp in a five-patent case concerning single wire technology as used in set top box devices. Global Communications, Inc. v. Cal-Comp Electronics (Thailand), U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Florida.*
• Counseled Imation in patent litigation involving digital data recording and processing. Digital Corporation v. Imation, U.S. District Court for the District of Colorado.*
• Counseled Kaneka in patent litigation involving reduced coenzyme Q10. Kaneka Corporation v. Xiamen Kingdomway Vitamin, Inc. and Pacific Rainbow International, Inc., U.S. District Court for the Central District of California.*
• Counseled in patent and trade dress litigation involving a stretching device for back pain relief. Back in Five, LLC; Backlife Ltd. v. Infinite International Inc., U.S. District Court for the Central District of California.*
• Counseled Nano-Second Technology Company, Ltd. in patent litigation involving a wrist exercising gyroscope. Nano-Second Technology Co., Ltd. v. Dynaflex International; GForce, U.S. District Court for the Central District of California.*
• Counseled in patent litigation involving a whistle snorkel device. QBAS Company, Ltd.; QDS Injection Molding LLC; Chapman-Walters Intercoastal Corporation; Body Glove International LLC, U.S. District Court for the Central District of California.*

* Matters handled prior to joining Foley.