On March 20, 2013, a jury returned a verdict in favor of Two-Way Media LLC, a company based in Colorado, on patent claims asserted against several AT&T entities and its related regional carriers. The TWM patents concern audio and video streaming, and were asserted against AT&T’s U-verse television service (which employs Microsoft’s Mediaroom software). HPC tried the case with its co-counsel at Susman Godfrey.

The jury found that AT&T infringed the claims in two patents under the doctrine of equivalents. The jury further found that AT&T had not proven the patent claims invalid, and awarded significant damages that represented the seventh largest verdict in Texas and 71^st largest verdict nationally for 2013, according to VerdictSearch. It also ranked first in Texas for the largest Intellectual Property verdict of 2015, according to VerdictSearch. After adding a significant sum of pre-judgment interest, the court entered a Final Judgment in favor of Two-Way Media.

On March 19, 2015, the Federal Circuit affirmed the Final Judgment in favor of Two-Way Media. Leslie Payne of HPC argued for Two-Way Media before the Federal Circuit in December 2014. Click Here To See The Federal Circuit Opinion. A settlement was announced in 2015, after the Federal Circuit affirmance.

Prior to the lawsuit against AT&T, HPC also represented Two-Way Media in a case against America Online. The AOL settled during trial, after a favorable Markman ruling. That settlement is confidential.

On May 26, 2011, a jury returned a verdict in favor of Fractus, S.A, an antenna company based in Barcelona, Spain, on all trial claims asserted against Samsung. The claims were spread across four related patents in Fractus’ Multilevel Patent family, generally covering multiband antennas used in portable communication devices, such as cell phones. HPC tried the case with its co-counsel at Susman Godfrey.

The jury found that Samsung infringed the claims literally and under the doctrine of equivalents, as well as finding that Samsung’s infringement was willful. After finding that Samsung had not proven the patent claims invalid, the jury entered a verdict awarding significant damages that represented the tenth largest verdict in Texas and 69^th largest verdict nationally for 2011, according to VerdictSearch. It was also ranked as the fifth largest Intellectual Property verdict if Texas for 2011, according to VerdictSearch., according to VerdictSearch. After damages were significantly enhanced by the district court judge based on the willful infringement, the court entered a final judgment for a substantial sum. The district court judge also entered an ongoing royalty rate for future infringement in the amount of 60 cents per unit for each infringing phone or tablet sold by Samsung after the date of the jury verdict.

Samsung appealed the judgment to the US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, where HPC took the lead on the appellate briefing, working closely with its co-counsel Susman Godfrey.  After oral argument at the Federal Circuit, a settlement was announced in2014.

Prior to trial, the HPC Fractus legal team also assisted in licensing the Fractus patent portfolio to several other parties, resulting in significant licensing fees. Most of those parties, including LG Electronics, Blackberry, HTC, and Kyocera, were the subject of lawsuits brought by HPC and Susman Godfrey that settled before trial.

On April 8, 2011, a jury returned a verdict in favor of Commil USA, LLC on all infringement claims asserted against Cisco Systems, Inc. HPC tried the case with Sayles Werbner.

The jury, which deliberated less than two hours, found the patent valid and decided that Cisco induced infringement on a patent for wireless technology developed by three Israeli engineers. The jury awarded significant damages that represented the seventh largest verdict in Texas and 35^th largest verdict nationally for 2011, according to VerdictSearch. It was also ranked as the fourth largest Intellectual Property verdict if Texas for 2011, according to VerdictSearch., according to VerdictSearch.

After awarding significant pre-judgment interest, the court entered a final judgment in favor of Commil.

After trial, the case went up on appeal before the Federal Circuit.  Based on the jury charge concerning inducing infringement, the Federal Circuit ordered a new trial. In its opinion, the Federal Circuit held (for the first time) that a defendant’s good faith belief in invalidity is a defense to inducement and should have been included in the jury charge.

HPC and its co-counsel then appealed the case to the US Supreme Court, arguing that the Federal Circuit had wrongly recognized this defense to inducement. HPC attorneys, including Miranda Jones, took the lead on the briefing to the Supreme Court.  On May 26, 2015, the Supreme Court issued a 6-2 decision in favor of Commil. In this landmark decision, the Supreme Court held that an accused infringer’s good faith belief regarding patent invalidity is not a defense to inducing infringement. Click Here To See The Supreme Court Opinion. Although the Federal Circuit ultimately vacated the infringement verdict on remand from the Supreme Court, the ruling that HPC obtained from the Supreme Court will have a lasting impact on patent litigation, making it easier for a patent owner to prove inducing infringement.

Rembrandt Wireless retained HPC and its co-counsel Ahmad, Zavitsanos and Anaipakos (AZA) to enforce US Patent Nos. 8,023,580 and 8,457,228 against Samsung.  The ‘580 and ‘228 patents cover technology developed at Paradyne Corporation which allows modems that communicate using different modulation types to coexist in the same network.  The ‘580 and ‘228 patents were asserted against Samsung devices that include Bluetooth Enhanced Data Rate (EDR) capabilities.  The Samsung EDR devices use both a GFSK (Gaussian Frequency Shift Keying) modulation technique and a faster PSK (Phase Shift Keying) modulation technique that allows data rate transmissions 2 or 3 times as fast the original FSK modulation used in the original Bluetooth specifications.

Samsung sought to invalidate the Rembrandt patents through a series of 13 separate IPR filings before the US Patent & Trademark Office.  Certain claims of the ‘580 and ‘228 patents survived these repeated IPR attacks, and HPC and AZA proceeded to trial in the Eastern District of Texas on those claims.  On February 13, 2015, the jury, after deliberating less than one hour, found that the asserted claims were valid and infringed by the accused Samsung products with the Bluetooth EDR functionality, and awarded Rembrandt significant damages that represented the 23^rd largest verdict in Texas in 2015, according to VerdictSearch. It was also ranked as the sixth largest Intellectual Property verdict if Texas for 2015, according to VerdictSearch.

After trial, Samsung appealed the verdict on multiple grounds.  HPC took the lead on the appellate briefing, working closely with its co-counsel at AZA.  Michael Heim at HPC successfully argued the appeal on behalf of Rembrandt, resulting in an affirmance on all liability issues and on the damages methodology used to calculate damages.  In addition to these affirmances, the Federal Circuit remanded for further consideration of a marking issue.