Leslie Payne

Partner
1111 Bagby, Suite 2100 | Houston, TX 77002
Phone: (713) 221-2003
Download vCard
Home > Attorneys > Leslie Payne

About Leslie Payne

For more than 25 years, Leslie Payne’s practice has focused on the prosecution and defense of actions in Federal and State courts at the trial and appellate levels in the areas of patent infringement, unfair competition, trademark infringement, trade secret misappropriation, breach of contract, tortious interference and other areas. He has extensive experience in these areas, from the filing of a case through discovery, trial, verdict, and appeal.

In addition, Les has represented clients in many reexamination and inter partes review proceedings at the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office. He has represented clients in many different engineering and science disciplines, including the mechanical, electrical, computer and chemical arts.

Trials and Appeals in 2015
  • Dataquill Limited v. ZTE USA, Inc.(E.D. Tex): On June 18, 2015, a jury in Marshall returned a verdict in favor of Dataquill Limited on patent claims asserted against ZTE USA (the fourth largest smartphone manufacturer in the U.S.). (Other cases against Apple and Huawei were resolved before trial.) The Dataquill patents concern smartphone technology, and were asserted against ZTE’s Android smartphones. The jury found that all asserted claims were valid and infringed, and awarded a significant amount. This was the twelveth largest verdict in Texas for 2015 and the fifty-ninth largest nationally, according to VerdictSearch. The HPC team representing Dataquill included Les Payne, Nate Davis, and Blaine Larson. HPC’s team worked with attorneys from Susman Godfrey, including Parker C. Folse and Joseph S. Grinstein, as well as Johnny Ward of Ward & Smith Law Firm.
  • Commil USA, LLC v. Cisco Systems, Inc.(Supreme Court of the United States): On May 26, 2015, the Supreme Court issued a 6-2 decision in favor of Commil. The trial is described further below under Trials in 2011. In this landmark decision, the Supreme Court held that an accused infringer’s good faith belief in patent invalidity is not a defense to inducing infringement. Click Here To See The Supreme Court Opinion.
Appeals in 2014
  • Two-Way Media, LLC v. AT&T Inc., et. al.(Federal Circuit Court of Appeals): On March 19, 2015, the Federal Circuit affirmed a significant judgment in favor of Two-Way Media against AT&T, which is described further below under Trials in 2013. Mr. Payne argued for Two-Way Media before the Federal Circuit in December 2014. Click Here To See The Federal Circuit Opinion.
Trials in 2013
  • Two-Way Media LLC v. AT&T Inc. et al.(W.D. Tex.): On March 20, 2013, a jury in San Antonio 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). The jury found that AT&T infringed the patent claims under the doctrine of equivalents. The jury further found that AT&T had not proven the patent claims invalid, and awarded a substantial amount in damages. This was the seventh largest verdict in Texas for 2013, according to VerdictSearch. The Court entered a Final Judgment in favor of Two-Way Media. The HPC team representing Two-Way Media included Mike Heim, Les Payne, and Micah Howe. The HPC team worked with attorneys from Susman Godfrey (including Parker Folse and Max Tribble).
Trials in 2012
  • PACT XPP technologies, AG v. Xilinx, Inc. and Avnet, Inc.(E.D. Tex.): On May 18, 2012, a jury in the Eastern District of Texas, Marshall Division, returned a verdict finding that two patents held by PACT were valid and were infringed by Xilinx and Avnet. The jury further found that Xilinx’s infringement was willful, and it awarded a significant amount in damages to PACT. This was the 18th largest verdict in Texas for 2012, according to VerdictSearch.
Trials in 2011
  • Fractus, S.A. v. Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al.(E.D. Tex.): On May 23, 2011, a jury in Tyler 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. The jury found that Samsung infringed the claims literally and under the doctrine of equivalents, as well as finding Samsung’s infringement willful. After finding that Samsung had not proven the patent claims invalid, the jury awarded a significant verdict in favor of Fractus, S.A. This was the tenth largest jury verdict in Texas for 2011, according to VerdictSearch. The HPC team representing Fractus included Michael Heim, Les Payne, and Micah Howe. The HPC team worked seamlessly with attorneys from Susman Godfrey (including Max Tribble, Justin Nelson, and Victoria Cook) and Ward & Smith (Johnny Ward) to produce this result. Prior to trial, the Fractus legal team also assisted in licensing the Fractus patent portfolio to other third parties.
  • Commil, USA v. Cisco Systems, Inc.(E.D. Tex.): On April 8, 2011, a jury in Marshall, Texas returned a verdict in favor of Commil USA, LLC on all infringement claims asserted against Cisco Systems, Inc. The jury, which deliberated less than two hours, decided Cisco induced infringement on a patent for wireless technology developed by three Israeli engineers and awarded Commil a significant amount. This was the seventh largest jury verdict in Texas for 2011, according to VerdictSearch. Commil had purchased the infringed patent in 2006 for $400,000.00. Mr. Payne represented Commil at trial and worked with trial counsel from Sayles Werbner (Mark Werbner & Dick Sayles) to achieve this result.
Other Representative Cases
  • MicroUnity Systems Engineering, Inc. v. Intel & Dell: MicroUnity filed suit against Intel Corporation, alleging that Intel’s Pentium III, Pentium 4, and Pentium M processors infringed MicroUnity’s patents covering its “mediaprocessor” technology. MicroUnity also sued Dell, Inc. for Dell’s use of allegedly infringing Intel processors. In October 2005, one month before trial was to commence, MicroUnity, Intel, and Dell reached a settlement. Intel publicly disclosed the financial terms of the settlement as $300 million in its Third Quarter 2005 10-Q.
  • Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation v. Lenovo (United States) Inc. et al: In 2011 and 2012, Mr. Payne and other attorneys from HPC represented the Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation, Australia’s national science agency, in a series of patent litigation suits involving wireless local area networking technology. These cases were settled shortly before trial on terms that were very favorable to CSIRO.
  • Rock Bit International, Inc. v. Smith International, Inc.: Mr. Payne represented Smith International in its defense of Plaintiff’s claims of patent infringement. Plaintiff sought over $100 million in damages. After a Markmanhearing, the court granted Smith’s summary judgment motion for patent invalidity. See Rock Bit Intern., Inc. v. Smith Intern., Inc., 82 F.Supp. 2d 667 (S.D. Tex. 1999). The court then granted Smith’s motion for attorney’s fees, awarding Smith a substantial amount in attorneys fees and costs. See Rock Bit Intern., Inc. v. Smith Intern., Inc., 82 F.Supp. 2d 677 (S.D. Tex. 1999). The case was favorably settled while on appeal to the Federal Circuit.
  • Two-Way Media vs. AOL(S.D. Tex.): Mr. Payne and other attorneys from HPC as well as attorneys from Susman Godfrey represented Two-Way Media in a patent suit against AOL on audio and video streaming patents. The case settled during trial, and after a successful Markman
  • Vasudevan Software, Inc. vs. IBM Corp. and Oracle Corp.(N.D. Cal.): Plaintiff Vasudevan Software Inc. (“VSi”) owns the rights to several database patents: U.S. Patent No. 6,877,006 B1(“the ‘006 Patent”), U.S. Patent No. 7,167,864 B1 (“the ‘864 Patent”) and U.S. Patent 7,720,861 (“the ‘861 Patent”). VSi alleged that IBM infringed the ‘006, ‘864 and ‘861 Patents by making, using, selling or importing InfoSphere Warehouse and Cognos Software products. VSi also alleged that Oracle infringed the ‘006, ‘864 and ‘861 Patents by making , using, selling or importing the Oracle Business Intelligence Enterprise Edition Plus, among other products. The case settled in the fall of 2011 after a Markman
Awards & Honors
  • H Texas Magazine, Best Lawyers in Houston, 2006, 2010-2011, 2013-2017
  • Texas Super Lawyers by Thomson Reuters, 2012-2018
  • Texas Rising Stars by Thomson Reuters/Super Lawyers, as published in Texas Monthly, 2004-2006
  • Preeminent AV Rated by Martindale Hubble
  • Best Lawyers in America (U.S. News & World Report), 2018-2019

 

 

 

We welcome your email, but please understand that communications via email or through this website do not constitute or create an attorney-client relationship between you and Heim, Payne & Chorush LLP or any of its lawyers. Unless we reach an agreement with regard to representation, the information you provide will not be treated as confidential or privileged, and any such information may be used adversely to you and for the benefit of current or future clients of the law firm.

CancelI Agree