Significant Success as Lead IP Trial Counsel
Kasowitz's Intellectual Property Litigation group has extensive experience in all aspects of patent, trademark, trade secret, false advertising, copyright, right of publicity, and related antitrust and unfair competition litigation. Our lawyers handle matters for some of the world’s largest technology and pharmaceuticals companies as both plaintiff and defendant.
We represent both patent holders and accused infringers in matters involving technologies ranging from interactive web technologies and video-on-demand telecommunications to medical devices and computer-assisted sales processes. Our lawyers’ technical background in and experience with computer science and business information systems has resulted in many favorable verdicts for some of the world’s largest technology companies, including Google, Adobe, LG, Verizon, ASUS, Uber, Reddit and Motorola.
Our Hatch-Waxman team handles complex Hatch-Waxman Act and other patent infringement matters for major U.S. and international pharmaceutical companies. We counsel some of the largest pharmaceutical companies in the world on product launches, and defend them against suits from brand-name manufacturers. Many of our intellectual property lawyers have advanced scientific degrees, including in biochemistry, molecular biology, chemical engineering and biotechnology.
The Kasowitz Approach to Intellectual Property
Unlike many other intellectual property teams, we have extensive experience trying intellectual property cases as lead trial counsel and proven success in front of juries. We are able to counsel our clients strategically on how best to avoid litigation, while at the same time positioning our clients for success at trial should litigation become necessary. Our intellectual property lawyers have been consistently recognized as leading attorneys by Legal 500, Best Lawyers in America, Managing Intellectual Property, LMG Life Sciences, and Super Lawyers. We regularly represent clients in all the major federal patent and trademark venues throughout the country.
Our team prides itself on having an incredibly diverse roster of lawyers of both national and international origins. We continually strive to present opportunities to lawyers of diverse backgrounds with the belief that a diverse team is the best team.
Uber in securing dismissal of a patent infringement case alleging that Uber’s user application infringed Halio Technologies’ automated dispatch and payment system patent.
Google in securing summary judgment based on non-infringement, and further granting Google’s motion for monetary sanctions in a patent infringement suit brought in the Southern District of Texas by SuperSpeed Software, alleging that “Google Docs” and “Google Drive” infringed two data access patents that SuperSpeed incorporated into software used to accelerate the performance of computers linked to a shared-disk network.
MV3 Partners in securing a victory in a claim construction hearing against streaming media company Roku for patent infringement in the Western District of Texas. As alleged in the complaint, Roku earns hundreds of millions of dollars in revenue and profit selling streaming media players and smart TVs nationwide that incorporate MV3’s patented invention.
Google, Motorola, LG and ASUS in successfully securing a complete dismissal on behalf of all clients in a patent infringement case alleging Android-based smartphones and wearables infringed a device security patent. Prior to the dismissal, Kasowitz secured a critical and rarely achieved motion to transfer venue, from the Eastern District of Texas to the Northern District of California, following a one-day evidentiary hearing on behalf of all clients.
Fintiv in defeating Apple’s motion to transfer venue of Fintiv, Inc. v. Apple Inc. from the Western District of Texas to the Northern District of California. The complaint in the action alleges that Apple Wallet and the Apple Watch infringe Fintiv’s patent relating to the management of virtual cards stored on mobile devices.
Google in 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. 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.
ASUS in various patent infringement cases involving a voice-based digital assistant for electronic devices, adaptive antennas, beam switching technologies, and a Multi-Input Multi-Output Orthogonal Frequency Division Multiplexing system.
Google in a patent infringement case in California federal court in which Google seeks a declaration that it has not infringed Eolas Technologies’ patent covering interactive web browser functions. 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 allowed Google to transfer the case to the Northern District of California. This is the third case involving Google and Eolas in which Kasowitz has served as trial counsel for Google.
- Kasowitz served as trial counsel for Google and YouTube in the Eastern District of Texas in a patent infringement action brought by Eolas and the University of California. Kasowitz secured a jury verdict of patent invalidity, defeating claims for hundreds of millions in damages and injunctive relief. The verdict was hailed in the media, including “Texas Jury Strikes Down Patent Troll’s Claim to Own the Interactive Web,” by Wired.com.
- Kasowitz represented Google in a patent infringement case brought in California federal court in which Google and J.C. Penney sought declarations that they have not infringed two Eolas patents covering interactive web browser functions. The case ultimately settled favorably.
Google in a patent infringement case alleging that Google Drive infringed Hall Data’s database synchronization patent. Kasowitz won a motion to transfer venue, 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 is asserting infringement against several high-profile companies, including Samsung, Huawei and ZTE.
Adobe customers (e.g. Bed Bath & Beyond, QVC, J.C. Penney, Kohl’s Corporation and Dillard’s) in a patent infringement case alleging infringement of Tejas’s image file formatting patent. By utilizing the customer-suit exception, Kasowitz filed a declaratory judgment action in the Northern District of California against Tejas. This rarely utilized exception allowed Kasowitz to secure a victory on behalf of Adobe and its customers.
Reddit in a patent infringement case that alleges Reddit, as well as 50 other Amazon customers including Airbnb and Square, use Ruby on Rails software implementing the HTTP web protocol, as well as Amazon Simple Storage Service.
Verizon 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.
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 (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. The case settled favorably.
Zydus and Cadila Healthcare in a Hatch-Waxman patent infringement action involving a generic version of IMBRUVICA®.
Zydus in two Hatch-Waxman patent infringement actions involving a generic version of INVOKANA® and INVOKAMET®.
Watson Pharmaceuticals (now Teva) in Hatch-Waxman patent litigations relating to a number of drugs, including Ultracet®, Aplenzin®, Renvela®, Intuniv®, and WelChol® in the District of Delaware, the District of New Jersey, the Southern District of Florida and the Northern District of California.
Cambridge Security Seals in trade secret litigation. Successfully obtained full dismissal of claims for false advertising and false designation of origin under the Lanham Act and state law claims for unfair and deceptive business practices, intentional interference with business relations, and conspiracy to misappropriate trade secrets. Successfully convinced the jury that plaintiff’s purported damages were overstated and persuaded the Second Circuit Court of Appeals that plaintiff was pursuing damages that have never been recognized under New York law.
Purolite in its action for trade secret misappropriation against competitor Thermax, relating to stolen manufacturing formulae. We successfully obtained $38 million for Purolite.