Representative Litigations

 

A.V. Imports v. Spirits International, N.V.

A.V. Imports v. Spirits International N.V., No. 92043340 (Trademark Trial and Appeal Board (TTAB) May 19, 2004). Representation of plaintiff A.V. Imports, Inc., and its successor A.V Brands, Inc. which sought cancellation of the trademark registration RUSSKAYA for vodka on the grounds of abandonment.

 

A.V. Imports, Inc. v. Col De Fratta, S.P.A., DuFour Ltd. and Cielo S.P.A.

A.V. Imports, Inc. v. Col De Fratta, S.P.A., DuFour Ltd. and Cielo S.P.A., No. 3:2001-CV-01955 (D. N.J. Apr. 20, 2001). Representation of plaintiff A.V. Imports, Inc. in action involving a Lanham Act and trade dress infringement claim relating to wine bottles.

 

Advanced Processor Technologies LLC Litigation 2011

Advanced Processor Technologies LLC v. Advanced Micro Devices, Inc., No. 2:12-CV-00264 (E.D. Tex. May 1, 2012); Advanced Processor Technologies LLC v. Altera Corp., No. 2:2012-CV-00602 (E.D. Tex. Sep. 18, 2012); Advanced Processor Technologies LLC v. Atmel Corp., No. 2:12-CV-00152 (E.D. Tex. Mar. 23, 2012); Advanced Processor Technologies LLC v. Conexant Systems, Inc., No. 2:12-CV-00153 (E.D. Tex. Mar. 23, 2012); Advanced Processor Technologies LLC v. Creative Technology Ltd., ZiiLabs Pte Ltd and Creative Labs Inc., No. 2:12-CV-00154 (E.D. Tex. Mar. 23, 2012); Advanced Processor Technologies LLC v. Marvell Semiconductor, Inc., No. 2:12-CV-00155 (E.D. Tex. Mar. 23, 2012); Advanced Processor Technologies LLC v. Mindspeed Technologies, Inc., No. 2:12-CV-00156 (E.D. Tex. Mar. 23, 2012); Advanced Processor Technologies LLC v. NVIDIA Corporation, No. 2:12-CV-00157 (E.D. Tex. Mar. 23, 2012); Advanced Processor Technologies LLC v. PMC-Sierra, Inc., No. 2:12-CV-00603 (E.D. Tex. Sep. 18, 2012); Advanced Processor Technologies LLC v. Xilinx, Inc., No. 2:12-CV-00158 (E.D. Tex. Mar. 23, 2012); Advanced Processor Technologies LLC v. Analog Devices, Inc. , Conexant Systems, Inc. , Digi International Inc. , Marvell Semiconductor, Inc. , Micrel, Inc., Mindspeed Technologies, Inc. and Zoran Corp., No. 2:11-CV-00019 (E.D. Tex. Jan. 18, 2011). Representation of plaintiff Advanced Processor Technologies in asserting seminal semiconductor technology patents directed to memory management used through the semiconductor industry.

 

Agere Systems Guardian Corp. v. Proxim, Inc.

Agere Systems Guardian Corp. v. Proxim, Inc., No. 1:01-CV-00339 (D. Del. May 23, 2001). Representation of plaintiff in infringement action concerning patents related to wireless technology under IEEE 802.11 standard.

 

Agio International v. Numark Industries Canada

Agio International Co., Ltd. v. Numark Industries Canada Ltd. et al. 2:2008-cv-00456 (E.D. Va. Sep. 23, 2008). Represented defendant in a patent infringement matter concerning multiple patents in the furniture industry.

 

AIM IP, LLC v. Media5 Corporation

AIM IP, LLC v. Media5 Corporation, No. 8:2013-CV-00187 (C.D. Cal. Feb. 4, 2013). Represent defendant in a patent infringement matter alleging violation of a telecommunications standard.

 

Alameda Films, S.A. de C.V., et al. v. H. Jackson Shirley, III, et al.

Alameda Films, S.A. de C.V., et al. v. H. Jackson Shirley, III, et al., No. 01-20869 (D.D.C. May 19, 2003). Representation in copyright infringement litigation involving rights in restored term of copyright in hundreds of motion picture films owned by 24 Mexican film producers. Representation concerned obtaining a transfer of venue to the U.S. District Court in Houston, Texas.

 

Apollo Biomedicals, et al v. Meridian Diagnostics, et al.

Apollo Biomedicals, et al v. Meridian Diagnostics, et al., No. 1:2000-CV-00949 (S.D. Ohio Nov. 13, 2000). Representation of Apollo and individual employees in a matter regarding trade secrets involving a diagnostic test for H. pylori and a covenant not to compete.

 

Arrowhead Industrial Water, Inc. v. Ecolochem, Inc.

Arrowhead Industrial Water, Inc. v. Ecolochem, Inc., No. 1:1993-CV-05430 (N.D. Ill. Sep. 3, 1993). Represented Ecolochem and served as co-counsel, in a patent infringement litigation matter upon reverse and remand by the Federal Circuit.

 

Arrowhead Industrial Water, Inc. v. Ecolochem, Inc.

Arrowhead Industrial Water, Inc. v. Ecolochem, Inc., 846 F.2d 731 (Fed. Cir. 1988). Represented Ecolochem and served as co-counsel, in a patent infringement appellate matter.

 

Arrowhead Industrial Water, Inc. v. Ecolochem, Inc.

Arrowhead Industrial Water, Inc. v. Ecolochem, Inc., No. 87-C-3839 (N.D. Ill. Aug. 24, 1987), 1995 WL 515519. Represented Ecolochem and served as co-counsel, in a patent infringement litigation matter involving Ecolochem’s U.S. Patents 4,556,492 and 4,818,411 for a deoxygenation process.

 

Asia Vital Components v.  Asetek Danmark.

Asia Vital Components Co., Ltd. v.  Asetek Danmark A/S., 1:2014-cv-01293 (E.D. Va. Sep. 30, 2014). Representation of plaintiff Asia Vital Components Co., Ltd. (“AVC”) in a declaratory judgment action concerning alleged patent infringement.

 

Atwater Partners of Texas LLC Litigation 2010

Atwater Partners of Texas LLC v. AT&T, Inc., Actiontec Electronics, Inc., ADTRAN, Inc., Allied Telesis, Inc., Billion Electric Co. Ltd., BEC Technologies, Inc., Broadcom Corporation, Cisco Systems, Inc., Cisco Systems (USA) Pte. Ltd., Cisco Systems International BV, Comtrend Corporation, Consolidated Communications Holdings, Inc., Enablence Technologies, Inc., Mindspeed Technologies, Inc., Motorola, Inc., Netopia Inc., Netgear Inc., Occam Networks, Inc., Rad Data Communications, Ltd., Rad Communications, Inc., Shareband Technologies, LLC, Tellabs, Inc., Wintegra, Inc., Zhone Technologies, Inc. and ZyXEL Communications, Inc., No. 2:10-CV-00175 (E.D. Tex. May 27, 2010). Representation of defendants Comtrend Corporation and Consolidated Communications Holdings in a patent infringement suit involving alleged infringement of modem related telecommunications technologies.

 

Bally Gaming, Inc. v. Kappos

Bally Gaming, Inc. v. Kappos, 789 F. Supp.2d 41, No. 1:2010-CV-01906 (D.D.C. Nov. 5, 2010). Representation of patentees Pearson and Ringo in a matter relating to gaming technologies.

 

Benchmark Entertainment, L.L.C. v. Seidel Amusement Co.

Benchmark Entertainment, L.L.C. v. Seidel Amusement Co., No. 0:97-CV-06390 (S.D. Fla. Apr. 11, 1997). Representation of plaintiff Benchmark Entertainment in patent infringement litigation involving Benchmark’s U.S. patent covering an arcade amusement game.

 

Billco International, Inc. v. Charles Products Inc.

Billco International, Inc. v. Charles Products Inc., No. 8:2009-CV-02692 (D. Md. Oct. 16, 2009). Representation of defendant Charles Products in a copyright case relating to private label souvenirs.

 

C.R. Daniels v. Naztec International

C.R. Daniels v. Naztec International, No. 1:2011-CV-01624 (D. Md. June 13, 2011). Mr. Aitken represents Defendant Naztec International in a patent dispute relating to voting booths.

 

Cathy Waltz v. Safco Products Co. et al.

Waltz v. Safco Products Co. et al., No. 1168327 (Super. Ct. of Ca., Santa Barbara Co. Jul. 15, 2005). Represented indemnified party Safco Products Co. for client Thaler International Co. Ltd. Cathy Waltz v. Safco Products Co. et al., No. 1168327 (Super. Ct. of Ca., Santa Barbara Co. Jul. 15, 2005). Represented indemnified party Safco Products Co. for client Thaler International Co. Ltd.

 

Confidential (Pharmaceutical patent matter)

Confidential (Pharmaceutical patent matter). Representation of client, Fortune 100 pharmaceutical company, in a confidential pre-filing investigation with respect to patent infringement claims.

 

Diagnostic Devices, Inc. v. TaiDoc Technology Corp.

Diagnostic Devices, Inc. v. TaiDoc Technology Corp., No. 3:2012-CV-00636 (W.D.N.C. Sep. 25, 2012). Represented medical products manufacturer TaiDoc Technology Corp. in its patent infringement action.

 

Diagnostic Devices, Inc., et al. v. TaiDoc Technology Corp.

Diagnostic Devices, Inc., et al. v. TaiDoc Technology Corp., No. 3:2012-CV-00296 (W.D.N.C. May 10, 2012). Represented medical products manufacturer TaiDoc Technology Corp. in a declaratory judgment action regarding breach of contract, alleged non-infringement and unenforceability of a patent, abuse of process, unfair and deceptive trade practices and libel per se.

 

Ecolochem, Inc. v. Mobile Water Technology Co.

Ecolochem, Inc. v. Mobile Water Technology Co., No. 4:1985-CV-00834 (E.D. Ark. Dec. 6, 1985), slip op. 690 F.Supp 778 (E.D. Ark. 1988), aff’d, Fed. Cir. Appeal No. 88-1550 (February 24, 1989), etc. Patent infringement litigation brought by Ecolochem regarding its U.S. Patent 4,556,492. Following a bench trial, Senior Circuit Judge Henley found the patent valid and infringed. After Federal Circuit affirmance, Judge Henley denied Mobile’s motion to set aside the verdict (again affirmed on appeal). Judge Henley awarded $500,000 in damages to Ecolochem after a five-day damages trial in 1991. Mr. Aitken assisted with the representation of Ecolochem.

 

Ecolochem, Inc. v. Southern California Edison Company

Ecolochem, Inc. v. Southern California Edison Company, No. 99-1043 (C.D. Cal. Sep. 7, 2000). Representation of plaintiff Ecolochem in a patent infringement litigation involving two of Ecolochem’s U.S. patents.

 

Elite Materials Co., Ltd. v. Isola USA Corporation

Elite Materials Co., Ltd. v. Isola USA Corp., 2:2014-cv-01518 (E.D. Cal. Jun. 26, 2014). Representation of plaintiff Elite Materials Co., Ltd. (“EMC”) in a declaratory judgment action concerning alleged patent infringement.

 

Gemtek Technology v. 3Com Corp

Gemtek Technology Co., Ltd v. 3Com Corp., 2:2014-cv-01518 (N.D. Cal. Aug. 10, 2009). Representation of plaintiff Gemtek Technology in claims for breach of contract, unjust enrichment and indemnification.

 

Hearthware, Inc. v. E. Mishan & Sons, Inc. (Emson)

Hearthware, Inc. v. E. Mishan & Sons, Inc. (Emson), No. 1:2011-CV-05233 (N.D. Ill. Aug. 2, 2011). Representation of plaintiff in action involving federal copyright infringement under 17 U.S.C. §§ 101 et seq., federal trademark infringement under 15 U.S.C. § 1114 and common law, false association/designation of origin and unfair competition under § 43(a) of the Lanham Act, 15 U.S.C. § 1125(a), deceptive trade practices under Illinois law, 815 I.L.C.S. § 510, and unfair competition and deceptive trade practices under the Illinois Consumer Fraud Act, 815, I.L.C.S. § 505/2.

 

In re Certain Flash Memory Chips and Products Containing The Same

In re Certain Flash Memory Chips and Products Containing The Same (I), Inv. No. 337-TA-685 (Sep. 2, 2009), 74 Fed. Reg. 45468; In re Certain Flash Memory Chips and Products Containing The Same (II), Inv. No. 337-TA-664 (Dec. 18, 2008), 73 Fed. Reg. 77059; In re Certain Flash Memory Chips and Products Containing The Same (IV), Inv. No. 337-TA-664 (Sep. 13, 2010), 73 Fed. Reg. 55604-05. Represented Transcend Information Inc. as second opinion counsel in an International Trade Commission investigation commenced by Spansion, Inc.

 

In re Certain Semiconductor Chips Having Synchronous Dynamic Random Access Memory Controllers and Products Containing Same

In re Certain Semiconductor Chips Having Synchronous Dynamic Random Access Memory Controllers and Products Containing Same (I), Inv. No. 337-TA-661 (Dec. 10, 2008), 73 Fed. Reg. 75131. Represented Gigabyte as second opinion counsel in an International Trade Commission investigation commenced by Rambus Inc.

 

In re Certain Semiconductor Chips with Minimized Chip Package Size and Products Containing Same

In re Certain Semiconductor Chips with Minimized Chip Package Size and Products Containing Same (III), Inv. No. 337-TA-630 (Jan. 14, 2008), 73 Fed. Reg. 2276; In re Certain Semiconductor Chips with Minimized Chip Package Size and Products Containing Same (IV), Inv. No. 337-TA-649 (May 28, 2008), 73 Fed. Reg. 30628. Represented respondent Powerchip Semiconductor Corp. in an International Trade Commission investigation commenced by Complainant Tessera, Inc.

 

In re Katz Interactive Call Processing Patent Litigation

In re Katz Interactive Call Processing Patent Litigation, No. 2:2007-ML-01816 (C.D. Cal. Mar. 30, 2007). Representation of defendants in a multi-district case alleging infringement of several patents related to telephony and call processing operations.

 

In the Matter of Certain Light Emitting Diode Chips and Products Containing Same

In the Matter of Certain Light Emitting Diode Chips and Products Containing Same, Inv. No. 337-TA-674 (Apr. 6, 2009), 74 Fed. Reg. 66993. Represented respondent in an International Trade Commission investigation.

 

Intelligent Computer Solutions, Inc. v. Kanguru Solutions and An Chen Computer Co., Ltd.

Intelligent Computer Solutions, Inc. v. Kanguru Solutions and An Chen Computer Co., Ltd., No. 2:05-CV-06474 (C.D. Cal. Aug 31, 2005). Representation of defendant An Chen Computer Co., Ltd. in a patent infringement matter relating improvements for duplicating data on computer hard drives.

 

Karolewicz v. Drummond Press, Inc.

Karolewicz v. Drummond Press, Inc., No. 3:06-CV-00641 (C.D. Fla. Jul. 14, 2006). Representation of defendant, Drummond Press, Inc., in patent infringement matter.

 

L & K Precision Technology Co., Ltd. v. L & K Nevada and Craig Li

L & K Precision Technology Co., Ltd. v. L & K Nevada and Craig Li, No. 30-2008-00104535 (Super. Ct. of Ca., Orange Co. Mar. 26, 2008). Represented plaintiff in a fraud civil action.

 

Linex Technologies, Inc. v. Belkin International, Inc. et al.

Linex Technologies, Inc. v. Belkin International, Inc. et al., No. 2:2007-CV-00222 (E.D. Tex. June 1, 2007). Representation of defendant, accused infringer Phoebe Micro, Inc., in patent infringement case relating to wireless technology that implements the 802.11n standard.

 

Mattox v. Infotopia, Inc., TriStar Products Co., Lenco Corp., Total Tiger, Inc., Levine and Richmond

Mattox v. Infotopia, Inc., TriStar Products Co., Lenco Corp., Total Tiger, Inc., Levine and Richmond, No. 1:2001-CV-00798 (E.D. Mich. Dec. 11, 2001) Representation of defendant Tristar Products Co. in a patent infringement case regarding an exercise device.

 

Morningware, Inc. v. Hearthware Home Products, Inc.

Morningware, Inc. v. Hearthware Home Products, Inc., No. 1:2009-CV-04348 (N.D. Ill. July 20, 2009). Representation of defendant/counterclaimant in action involving infringement of patent directed to cookware technology, trade dress infringement, unfair competition and product disparagement under § 43(a) of the Lanham Act, deceptive trade practices under Illinois state law, common law unfair competition and commercial disparagement.

 

Network Gateway Solutions, LLC Litigation 2009

Network Gateway Solutions, LLC v. Adtran, Inc., Audiocodes Ltd., Audiocodes Inc., Avaya Inc., Cisco Systems Inc., Genband Inc., Juniper Networks,Inc., Alcatel-Lucent, Alcatel-Lucent USA Inc., Media5 Corporation, Mediatrix Telecom Inc., Metaswitch Inc., Mitel Networks Corporation, Mitel Networks Inc., Multi-Tech Systems Inc., Patton Electronics Co., Quintum Technologies LLC, Siemens AG, Siemens Corporation, Sonus Networks Inc. and Zhone Technologies Inc., No. 1:2009-CV-00667 (D. Del. Sep. 4, 2009). Representation of defendants Media5 Corporation and Mediatrix Telecom, Inc., pioneering Voice-over-IP (VoIP) telecommunications equipment manufacturers, in a matter alleging infringement of plaintiff’s digital network access server patent.

 

Ortho-McNeil Pharmaceutical Inc. and Johnson & Johnson Pharmaceutical Research and Development, LLC v. Barr Laboratories, Inc.

Ortho-McNeil Pharmaceutical Inc. and Johnson & Johnson Pharmaceutical Research and Development, LLC v. Barr Laboratories, Inc., No. 3:99-CV-01073 (D. N.J. Mar. 5, 1999) In a Waxman Hatch paragraph IV matter, plaintiff Ortho-McNeil brought suit against Barr Laboratories, asserting a series of patents covering the contraceptive Ortho Tri-Cyclen, following Barr’s filing an Abbreviated New Drug Application (ANDA) for Ortho Tri-Cyclen Lo.

 

Pete’s Brewing Company v. Beverage Brands (UK) Limited, and East Coast Beverage Corp., d/b/a Collins International

Pete’s Brewing Company v. Beverage Brands (UK) Limited, and East Coast Beverage Corp., d/b/a Collins International, No. 1:2002-CV-12394 (D. Mass. Dec. 13, 2002), transferred from No. 5:2002-CV-00558 (W.D. Tex. Jun. 11, 2002). Representation of defendant Beverage Brands Ltd. in a trademark infringement action regarding Pete’s Brewing Company’s Wicked Ale trademarks.

 

PlaSmart Inc. v. Wincell International, Inc. et al.

PlaSmart Inc. v. Wincell International, Inc. et al., No. 1:2011-CV-02260 (S.D.N.Y. Apr. 1, 2011). Representation of defendant Wincell International, Inc. in connection with a claim of patent infringement relating to an award-winning children’s toy.

 

Porex Technologies Corp. and Porex Scientific, Inc. v. Labcon, North American, Inc.

Porex Technologies Corp. and Porex Scientific, Inc. v. Labcon, North American, Inc., No. 1:96-CV-00157 (N.D. Ga. Jan. 22, 1996). Representation of plaintiff Porex Technologies in a patent infringement litigation.

 

Real Bonus v. Pier 1 Imports

Real Bonus Ltd. v. Pier 1 Imports, Inc., 6:2014-cv-00878 (E.D. Tex. Nov. 19, 2014). Represent plaintiff in a patent infringement matter concerning light emitting technologies.

 

Real Bonus v. Target Brands

Real Bonus Ltd. v. Target Brands Inc.

Real Bonus Ltd. v. Target Brands Inc., 6:2015-cv-00054 (E.D. Tex. Jan. 16, 2015). Represent plaintiff in a patent infringement matter concerning light emitting technologies.

 

Sashco, Inc. v. Red Devil, Inc.

Sashco, Inc. v. Red Devil, Inc., No. 1:88-CV-01639 (D. Colo. Oct. 11, 1988). This was a Patent infringement litigation involving Sashco’s U.S. Patents 4,776,458 and 4,863,014, for clear caulk cartridges and tubes. Mr. Aitken participated in an evidentiary hearing where the Colorado court found that Red Devil had not violated a previous consent decree. Subsequently, on Red Devil’s summary judgment motion for non-infringement, the court found that Red Devil did not infringe Sashco’s patents. Mr. Aitken represented Red Devil as co-counsel.

 

Starlite Creations Inc. v. Shen

Starlite Creations Inc. v. Shen, 1:2009-cv-01827 (D.D.C. Sep. 25, 2009). Representation of plaintiff in a declaratory judgment action for alleged patent infringement.

 

Telarix v. Vero Systems/TEOCO

Telarix v. Vero Systems/TEOCO, No. 1:08-CV-00587 (E.D. Va. June 5, 2008). Representation of defendant computer software maker in a patent suit involving software relating to optimal cost routing in telecommunication networks.

 

Telebrands Corp. v. Hearthware, Inc.

Telebrands Corp. v. Hearthware, Inc., No. 2:2012-CV-02455 (D. N.J. Apr. 25, 2012). Representation of defendant in action involving trademark infringement under §§ 32 and 43(a) of the Lanham Act, Common Law Trademark Infringement, Common Law Unfair Competition and Unfair Competition under N.J State statute.

 

Texas Instruments Inc. v. PowerChip Semiconductor Corp.

Texas Instruments Inc. v. PowerChip Semiconductor Corp., No. 1:2006-CV-02305 (S.D. N.Y. Mar. 24, 2006). Representation of PowerChip Semiconductor in an alleged breach of a contractual matter and a claim for over $150 million dollars in damages.

 

Trident Products and Services, LLC. v. Canadian Soiless Wholesale, Ltd. and Advanced Nutrients, Ltd. No.

Trident Products and Services, LLC. v. Canadian Soiless Wholesale, Ltd. and Advanced Nutrients, Ltd. No., 3:10-CV-877 (E.D. Va. July 19, 2011). Representation of plaintiff Trident in an action relating to trade secrets and false advertising in a matter involving beneficial bacteria used as soil amendments to increase plant growth.

 

UTStarcom, Inc. v. Starent Networks Corp.

UTStarcom, Inc. v. Starent Networks Corp., No. 1:07-CV-02582 (N.D. Ill. May 8, 2007). Representation of plaintiff UTStarcom, a global leader in the manufacture of IP-based solutions and end-to-end telecommunications networking in misappropriation of trade secrets, copyright infringement, and patent infringement relating to geographically mapped telephone routing methods and systems.

 

Vanmoor v. Walmart Stores, Inc., Builders Square, Inc., Home Depot U.S.A., Inc., and Red Devil, Inc.

Vanmoor v. Walmart Stores, Inc., Builders Square, Inc., Home Depot U.S.A., Inc., and Red Devil, Inc., No. 0:1997-CV-06907 (S.D. Fla. July 28, 1997). Represented Red Devil and Red Devil’s customer, Home Depot, in a patent infringement litigation involving Vanmoor’s U.S. Patent No. 5,582,331 for a caulk cartridge.

 

Velodyne Acoustics, Inc. v. Paradigm Electronics, Inc.

Velodyne Acoustics, Inc. v. Paradigm Electronics, Inc., No. 3:1998-CV-03553 (N.D. Cal. Sep. 16, 1998). Representation of accused infringer Paradigm Electronics, Inc. in a patent infringement litigation involving two U.S. patents owned by plaintiff for high-end loudspeakers.

 

Voss of Norway v. Enoitalia S.p.a., Platinum Brands, LLC and A.V. Imports, Inc.

Voss of Norway v. Enoitalia S.p.a., Platinum Brands, LLC and A.V. Imports, Inc., No. 1:05-CV-08061 (S.D. N.Y. Sep. 16, 2005). Representation of defendants, importer A.V. Imports and trademark owner Platinum Brands, in a trade dress and trademark infringement matter involving Voss’ bottle container shape.

 

Ward v. McDonald

Ward v. McDonald, No. 1:1997-CV-01224 (D. Md. Apr. 4, 1997). Represented copyright owner Pamela Ward in a copyright infringement action involving a short story adapted by defendant as a screenplay and performed on Broadway, with Kevin Bacon as leading actor in the show.

 

Wireless Recognition Technologies LLC Litigation 2010

Wireless Recognition Technologies LLC v. A9.com, Amazon.com, Inc., Google, Inc., Nokia, Inc. and Ricoh Innovations, Inc., No. 3:12-CV-01217 (N.D. Cal. Mar. 12, 2012), transferred from No. 2:10-CV-00364 (E.D. Tex. Sep. 14, 2010); Wireless Recognition Technologies LLC v. Nokia Corporation and Ricoh Company, Ltd., No. 5:12-CV-01218 (N.D. Cal. Mar. 12, 2012), transferred from No. 2:10-CV-00365 (E.D. Tex. Sep. 14, 2010); Wireless Recognition Technologies LLC v. A9.com, Amazon.com, Inc., Google, Inc., Nokia, Inc. and Ricoh Innovations, Inc., No. 4:12-CV-01219 (N.D. Cal. Mar. 12, 2012), transferred from No. 2:10-CV-00577 (E.D. Tex. Dec. 21, 2010); Wireless Recognition Technologies LLC v. Nokia Corporation and Ricoh Company, Ltd., No. 5:12-CV-01220 (N.D. Cal. Mar. 12, 2012), transferred from No. 2:10-CV-00578 (E.D. Tex. Dec. 21, 2010). Representation of plaintiff in multiple infringement actions against leading defendants in a matter regarding infringement of patents directed to mobile recognition of objects and documents.