Darcy L. Jones is a member of Kasowitz’s Intellectual Property group, where she practices in the areas of patent and trade secret litigation. She represents clients in diverse and complex matters in all phases of litigation in state and federal courts, from pre-filing investigation through post-trial briefing and appeal.
Darcy has considerable lead counsel and trial experience in patent infringement litigation involving telecommunications, computer hardware and software, medical devices, electrical and mechanical technologies, and pharmaceuticals. She frequently litigates high-stakes matters for some of the largest telecommunications and technology companies in the world, including Verizon, Google, LG, Samsung, ASUS and Motorola. Darcy regularly appears in federal courts around the country, including the Eastern District of Texas, Delaware, and the Northern and Central Districts of California.
- Verizon as lead trial counsel in numerous patent infringement matters involving cellular communication hand-offs, cellular phone hotspot technology, data transmission protocols, network extender products, audio communication systems for computer networks and interactive media guides.
- Google in a significant and rarely achieved victory for patent action defendants involving a motion to transfer venue of Ryujin Fujinomaki vs. Google Inc., et al. from the Eastern District of Texas to the Northern District of California. The decision also permitted Kasowitz clients Motorola, LG, ASUS and Samsung to join in the motion. The complaint in the action alleges that certain lock features, including Google’s Smart Lock feature, in defendants’ Android-based smartphones and wearables infringed Fujinomaki’s patent. It is very rare for defendants like Google to win motions to transfer venue from Texas to California.
- Google in successfully securing a complete dismissal in a patent infringement challenge brought by Data Engine Technologies in the District of Delaware. Data Engine alleged that Google Sheets infringed patents which purportedly covered the Quattro Pro for Windows® spreadsheet program sold by Borland Software Corporation in the 1990s. Chief Judge Leonard P. Stark found that the asserted claims were directed to patent-ineligible subject matter and thus invalid, and granted Google’s motion to dismiss. This matter originally began as a six-patent case against Google, which Kasowitz successfully reduced to three patents.
- Google in a patent infringement matter brought by Eolas alleging that Google infringed a patent covering methods that enable internet users to interact with online video, music or audio clips, and other browser-embedded features. The Federal Circuit granted Google a rare writ of mandamus, confirming that the judge in the initial ruling by the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Texas had unfairly committed a “patently erroneous error” against Google. The Federal Circuit’s decision allows Google to transfer the case from the Eastern District of Texas to the Northern District of California.
- LG in a seven-patent infringement case involving USB chargers in the Eastern District of Texas. Plaintiff Fundamental Innovation Systems licensed the patents-in-suit from Blackberry, and asserts infringement against several high-profile companies, including Samsung, Huawei and ZTE.
- ASUS in numerous patent infringement cases involving various technologies, including adaptive antennas, beam switching, and a voice-based digital assistant for electronic devices.
- Adobe in a patent infringement matter alleging numerous high-profile companies, including technology giants Apple and Hewlett Packard, violated PanTaurus patent describing a secure computer system.
- Recreational Equipment, Inc. (REI) in a patent infringement action as part of a joint defense group that included Staples, L.L. Bean, Dillard’s, Drugstore.com, HSN, J.C. Penney, and Rhapsody involving website personalization technology.
- Dr. G. David Jang, plaintiff in Jang v. Boston Scientific Corp. et al., in successfully securing a jury verdict in favor of Dr. Jang against Boston Scientific for infringing Dr. Jang's patents directed to coronary stent design and breaching its contractual obligations to pay him royalties.
- Watson Pharmaceuticals (now Teva Pharmaceuticals) in a Hatch-Waxman trial case relating to Aplenzin®.
- Teva Pharmaceuticals in two trials of Hatch-Waxman cases relating to Prevacid® products.
- United Promotions in trade secret litigation and arbitration involving quaternary ammonium products.
- Teva Pharmaceuticals in summary judgment in a case involving Crestor®.
- Bains Ultra in litigation involving trademark counterfeiting and patent and copyright infringement relating to jetted bathtub products.