 |
 |
 |
|
|
|
Veritas Operating Corp. v. Microsoft Corp. (W.D. Wash)
Klarquist Sparkman helped our client Microsoft Corporation win two summary judgment motions in a patent litigation in the Western District of Washington involving the deployment and restoration of certain Microsoft Windows® operating systems. The case against Microsoft was filed by Veritas Operating Corporation, a subsidiary of Symantec Corporation. On behalf of Microsoft, Klarquist Sparkman brought both a Motion for Summary Judgment that Veritas' deployment and restoration patent was invalid over prior art products and publications, and a Motion for Summary Judgment that Veritas' patent was not indirectly infringed by Microsoft. On February 20, 2008, U.S. District Judge John C. Coughenour granted both Motions. These decisions represent the 14th and 15th summary judgment wins Klarquist Sparkman has obtained for Microsoft.
|
|
Anascape Ltd. v. Microsoft Corp. (E.D. Tex.)
In a case in which Anascape alleged that Microsoft infringed twelve patents regarding video game controllers, Klarquist Sparkman strategically employed both litigation and reexamination as tools to achieve a successful outcome for our client Microsoft. The Firm filed reexamination requests for all twelve asserted patents, which caused the Court to stay the litigation on six of the twelve patents, effectively cutting the case in half. Klarquist Sparkman then helped Microsoft win its proposed claim construction on most of the remaining six patents. After the Court also granted Microsoft’s partial summary judgment motions on both non-infringement and no willful infringement, the case settled before trial.
|
|
International Automated Systems, Inc. v Microsoft Corp. (D. Utah)
Klarquist Sparkman helped our client Microsoft win summary judgment in the District of Utah that the patent asserted against it by International Automated Systems, Inc. was invalid. In an Order dated January 3, 2008, the district court held that the patent, which relates to fingerprint identification technology, was invalid for failure to comply with three patentability requirements: enablement, written description, and regards as the invention. This represents the 13th case in which Klarquist Sparkman has won summary judgment for our longstanding client Microsoft.
|
|
Aristocrat Technologies, et. al. v. International Game Technology and IGT (N.D. Cal.)
On June 13, 2007, the Honorable Martin J. Jenkins of the Northern District of California found U.S. Patent Nos. 7,056,215 and 7,108,603 invalid under 35 U.S.C. § 371, § 133 and § 102(b). The District Court ruled that IGT proved by “clear and convincing evidence” that the two patents in suit are invalid, because the ‘215 patent improperly issued from an abandoned patent application that was not lawfully revived, and the ‘603 patent was barred by the prior published ‘215 patent application. Aristocrat’s two asserted patents related to electronic gaming machine technology.
|
|
Motionless Keyboard Co. v. Microsoft Corp. (D. Or.; Fed. Cir.)
Klarquist Sparkman successfully obtained summary judgment in the District of Oregon that Microsoft’s Sidewinder joysticks and game controllers did not infringe two patents owned by Motionless Keyboard Company ("MKC"). The district court further ordered that the two MKC patents were invalid. MKC appealed the case to the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit. On appeal, Klarquist Sparkman successfully defended the District Court's decision which the Federal Circuit affirmed in a decision published on May 29, 2007. (See 486 F.3d 1376(Fed. Cir. 2007)).
|
|
Frank T. Buckley, Jr. v. Freightliner LLC (D. Md.)
On September 25, 2006, the District of Maryland granted summary judgment of patent invalidity and entered final judgment of dismissal of Dr. Frank T. Buckley, Jr.’s patent infringement suit against Klarquist Sparkman’s client Freightliner LLC. Dr. Buckley subsequently agreed to surrender his right to appeal. Dr. Buckley claimed the invention of a drag-reducing fairing for highway use on heavy duty trucks (U.S. Patent No. 4,245,862). Dr. Buckley’s patent, which issued in 1981 and expired in 1998, had been the subject of six different lawsuits against a dozen different defendants over the last 25 years. Represented by Klarquist Sparkman, Freightliner was the first to prove that the Dr. Buckley’s patent was invalid.
|
|
Research Corporation Technologies v. Microsoft Corp. (D. Ariz.)
On November 23, 2005, the District of Arizona, the Honorable Manuel L. Real, presiding, ruled that three of the six patents asserted by Research Corporation Technologies (RCT) are unenforceable due to inequitable conduct by the patent applicants. The Court had previously ruled in April 2005 that each of the asserted claims of the other three patents is invalid. The six asserted patents are directed to an alleged invention of a blue noise mask for use in halftoning digital images. RCT alleged that multiple versions of Microsoft Windows®, Microsoft Office®, and numerous other Microsoft products infringed the six patents. Finding the case to be exceptional, the Court also awarded attorneys’ fees to Microsoft in the amount of $8,612,000. An opinion has been issued vacating these rulings, but the case currently remains on appeal.
|
|
|
|
Shakespeare Company, LLC v. Silstar Corporation of America, Inc., et al (W.D. Wash.)
Klarquist Sparkman helped its client Shakespeare Company, LLC obtain a permanent injunction against Silstar Corporation of America and LFS, Inc. Shakespeare alleged trademark infringement, trade dress infringement, unfair competition, and false advertising against Silstar relating to Shakespeare’s famous trademark of a “clear tip” on its Ugly Stik® fishing rods. In March 2006, Silstar and its distributor LFS agreed to a consent judgment that permanently enjoined them from using Shakespeare’s trademark and trade dress.
|
|
CollegeNET, Inc. v. ApplyYourself, Inc. (D. Or.)
Klarquist Sparkman helped its client CollegeNET win a jury verdict of infringement against a principal competitor, ApplyYourself, in 2003. The jury found that ApplyYourself infringed two of CollegeNET’s patents for online college application systems and awarded damages to CollegeNET. Part of the jury verdict was set aside by the district court. Represented by Klarquist Sparkman, CollegeNET prevailed on appeal with the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit reinstating the full jury verdict. The case has returned to the District Court, where additional proceedings are pending.
|
|
Network Commerce v. Microsoft Corp. (W.D. Wash.)
Klarquist Sparkman obtained summary judgment that Microsoft did not infringe a patent asserted by Network Commerce against Microsoft’s Windows Media® software. See 260 F. Supp. 2d 1042 (W.D. Wash. 2003); 260 F. Supp. 2d 1034 (W.D. Wash. 2002). Network Commerce appealed. Klarquist Sparkman argued the appeal on behalf of Microsoft, and the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit affirmed Microsoft’s summary judgment victory. See 422 F.3d 1353 (Fed. Cir. 2005).
|
|
Shaw v. Microsoft Corp. (N.D. Tex.)
Klarquist Sparkman successfully obtained summary judgment of non-infringement that Microsoft’s Windows Media® NetShow, and NetMeeting software did not infringe a patent owned by Venson and Stephen Shaw. See 2005 WL 2095770 (N.D. Tex. August 30, 2005).
|
|
Kassab Jewelers, Inc. v. C Kassab Designs, LLC (D. Or.)
Klarquist Sparkman helped its client, Kassab Jewelers, obtain a permanent injunction against a local competitor to prevent it from using the name “C Kassab Designs.” Kassab Jewelers alleged that C Kassab Designs, LLC was infringing Kassab Jewelers’ KASSAB and KASSAB JEWELERS trademarks and brought a motion for a preliminary injunction. After a hearing on Kassab Jewelers’ motion, the Court ordered that a preliminary injunction be entered against C Kassab Designs. The case then settled with a consent judgment and permanent injunction entered against C Kassab Designs.
|
|
TransLogic Technologies, Inc. v. Hitachi Corp. (D. Or.)
In this case regarding semiconductor technology, Klarquist Sparkman, LLP aided its client, TransLogic, in obtaining a jury verdict in 2003 that TransLogic's patent is valid over the prior art cited by Hitachi. The Firm then obtained summary judgment of infringement. In a separate trial on damages, the jury returned a verdict of $86.5 million dollars in TransLogic's favor. The trial court entered a permanent injunction and final judgment, with prejudgment interest, awarding TransLogic over $106 million. On appeal, the Federal Circuit affirmed a Patent Office reexamination decision that the patent is invalid, and vacated the trial court judgment in light of that.
|
|
Slocum Enterprises v. New Generation Devices (D. Or.)
Klarquist Sparkman succeeded in having an Oregon patent infringement case brought against out-of-state client New Generation Devices dismissed for lack of personal jurisdiction. See 2004 WL 1879886 (D. Or. 2004). The Federal Circuit affirmed the dismissal a mere three days after the oral argument in the Federal Circuit.
|
|
Barenbrug USA Inc. v. Agrono-Tec Seed Co., et al (Oregon Circuit Court)
In this case involving a trademark dispute in the grass seed industry, Klarquist Sparkman, LLP aided its client Barenbrug USA in obtaining summary judgment based on the Statute of Frauds on counterclaims asserted by Barenbrug's former distributer, Agrono-Tec, alleging an oral trademark agreement. The case was settled shortly hereafter.
|
|
Reiffin v. Microsoft Corp. (N.D. Cal.; Fed. Cir.)
Klarquist Sparkman successfully obtained summary judgment of patent invalidity in 2003 as to one of Plaintiff’s patents on preemptive multithreading software. The invalidity ruling also eliminated Plaintiff’s claimed patent priority date on a second asserted patent—resulting in the Patent Office granting a reexamination request regarding the validity of the second patent. Presently, all claims of the second patent stand rejected in the Patent Office. The case is currently stayed in the Northern District of California pending the results of the reexamination proceedings.
|
|
Palo Alto Software, Inc. v. Nova Development Corp. (D. Or.)
Klarquist Sparkman helped its client Palo Alto Software obtain a preliminary injunction against competitor Nova in 2003. Palo Alto Software alleged that Nova was engaging in false advertising in its packaging of business plan software. At the preliminary injunction hearing, the Court ordered that an injunction be entered against Nova, after which the case settled.
|
|
Netscape and Microsoft Corp. v. Konrad (N.D. Cal.; Fed. Cir.)
In this declaratory judgment action involving WWW database searching, Klarquist Sparkman helped prevent the case from being transferred and consolidated with a previously pending suit naming 39 “customers.” After succeeding in bifurcating and limiting discovery to the issue of patent invalidity, Klarquist Sparkman took the lead in obtaining partial summary judgment that the named inventor’s own system was on sale and in public use prior to the critical date. The Federal Circuit affirmed on appeal. See 295 F.3d 1315 (Fed. Cir. 2002).
|
|
Innovad v. Microsoft Corp., et al. (N.D. Tex.; Fed. Cir.)
Klarquist Sparkman obtained summary judgment that Microsoft did not infringe a patent asserted against Microsoft’s software See 99 F. Supp. 2d 767 (N.D. Tex. 2000). The Federal Circuit affirmed on appeal. See 260 F.3d 1326 (Fed. Cir. 2001).
|
|
|
| | | |