While many firms claim technical expertise as the defining characteristic of their patent litigation practice, we consider our defining characteristic to be our skill as litigators. To be sure, Townsend has a level of technical and industry expertise that is virtually unmatched – but it is our understanding of the complexities of patent law that provides our clients with a strategic advantage.
Townsend’s approach to patent infringement cases focuses on winning cases by pursuing substantive issues aggressively. To that end, we staff our cases with attorneys with appropriate backgrounds and skill sets for each particular case. This allows us to focus early in the case on issues of substance. Townsend develops its strategy so that we reach the goals of the client in a professional and efficient manner, while steadfastly protecting the client’s best interests.
Townsend is recognized annually by publishers such as the American Lawyer, IP Law & Business and IP Law360 as one of the predominant American law firms in the field of patent litigation. With approximately 75 attorneys trained in the science and art of patent litigation, we provide our clients with specialized litigation teams that provide not only intricate legal and technical analysis, but also a global strategic plan that is essential for doing business in the 21st Century.
Recent representative matters include:
Agere Systems Inc. v. Samsung Electronics Corp. Townsend represents Agere Systems Inc and LSI in a number of patent infringement and contractual disputes concerning semiconductor processing, circuit design, modem and wireless technology. Townsend presently represents Agere in the Eastern District of Texas and the District of Delaware, as well as in private arbitration.
American Video Graphics, LP v. Hewlett-Packard Co., et al. Co-trial counsel representing nVidia Corporation and Sony Computer Entertainment in multi-patent infringement case related to personal computer graphics hardware and software.
Aventis v. Baxter International, U.S. District Court of Delaware. Townsend attorneys represented Baxter against claims of alleged infringement of a formulation patent relating to a blood clotting factor. Case resolved through confidential arbitration.
Dressel, et al. v. Visa U.S.A. Inc. Townsend acted as lead counsel for Visa in defense of patent infringement action involving check presenters.
Fairchild v. Alpha and Omega Semiconductor Incorporated et al. Townsend represented Fairchild Semiconductor in a patent infringement dispute in U.S. District Court, Northern District of California, related to Fairchild's patents on power transistors and methods of manufacture for power transistors.
Harris Corporation v. Ixys Corporation. Represented defendant Ixys Corporation in patent infringement litigation involving high power IGBT's; decision of trial court in favor of Harris was reversed by the Federal Circuit on appeal and the Harris patent was found invalid for non-enablement.
In re Certain Rubber Antidegradants, Components Thereof, And Products Containing Same, ITC Investigation No. 337-TA-533. Represented Korea Kumho Petrochemical Co., Ltd. ("KKPC") in defense of patent infringement action involving the manufacture and importation of antiozonant chemical compounds and tires containing same into the United States. In March 2006, the ITC found KKPC not in violation of section 337 of the ITC’s unfair trade practice laws, thus preserving KKPC’s ability to import tire chemicals and tires made with KKPC tire chemicals into the U.S.
Intergraph Hardware v. Intel. Represented Intergraph in patent infringement dispute in U.S. district courts in Alabama and Texas. Following a successful appeal to the Federal Circuit Court of Appeals, a court-ordered mediation resulted in a settlement of $300 million paid by Intel to Intergraph on one set of patents involved in the Alabama litigation. Following a successful trial in Texas and another Federal Circuit appeal, Intergraph obtained another settlement with Intel for approximately $225 million on another set of patents. The total recovery of $525 million is among the five largest patent infringement settlements of all time. Subsequently, Intergraph has proceeded against other infringers of its patents, including Dell, HP, Gateway, IBM, Fujitsu, Texas Instruments and AMD, resulting in additional recoveries totaling more than $800 million.
Johnson v. Visa U.S.A., Inc. Lead trial counsel defending Visa International and Visa U.S.A. in patent infringement and trade secret misappropriation action involving mainframe computer management software; obtained dismissal with no damages for Visa.
MicroStrategy v. Business Objects. U.S. District Court of Delaware. Patent infringement case involving three patents for software related to business intelligence (BI) reporting, query analysis and performance management. In January 2006, The Delaware court granted Business Objects' motions for summary judgment as to non-infringement of one of MicroStrategy's patents and for summary judgment as to the invalidity of the remaining two patents.
Valyd, Inc. v. Communication Intelligence Corp. Lead counsel in defense of patent declaratory relief action and infringement counterclaims involving electronic signature software.
WebEx Communications, Inc. v. Raindance. Lead counsel for WebEx in prosecution of a patent infringement action involving web conferencing and related software systems.
Winston and Katz v. Ask Jeeves, Inc. District of Massachusetts. Counsel for defendant in this patent infringement action involving patents for natural language searching of databases.