Direct Line: (214) 888-4842
2101 Cedar Springs Rd.
Dallas, Texas 75201
- EducationUniversity of Virginia School of Law
Southern Methodist University
BS Electrical Engineering and BS Mathematics, 2004 summa cum laude.
John Austin Curry is a principal at Caldwell Cassady & Curry who focuses on patent infringement disputes and cases involving advanced technologies, including various technologies in the fields of electrical engineering, computer science, oil field services, and medical devices. Mr. Curry has helped clients win verdicts at trial totaling more than $2 billion.
Mr. Curry’s work is consistently recognized by his peers in the legal community, including his selection to the 2017 edition of The Best Lawyers in America and the 2016 Best Lawyers in Dallas list published by D Magazine. He also has been recognized on the annual Texas Super Lawyers Rising Stars list of the state’s top young attorneys since 2014, including being ranked among the state’s Top 100 in 2017.
Prior to founding Caldwell Cassady & Curry, Mr. Curry worked in industry at a semiconductor manufacturer where he developed a software application for secure near-range consumer transactions to demonstrate the potential of a reduced instruction set chipset.
Mr. Curry earned his law degree from the University of Virginia School of Law after graduating valedictorian in his engineering and mathematics class at Southern Methodist University. He now serves as a member of SMU’s Lyle School of Engineering Executive Board.
- Texas Intellectual Property Litigation Department of the Year (2017) – Texas Lawyer
- #1 U.S. Plaintiffs’ Patent Firm – IAM Patent 1000 – The World’s Leading Patent Professionals
- Top 100 U.S. Verdicts of 2016 (3 verdicts) – The National Law Journal/VerdictSearch
- #1 Texas Intellectual Property Verdict (2016) – The National Law Journal/VerdictSearch
- Top 50 Recoveries (2015-2016) – The National Law Journal
- Best Law Firms (2017) – The Best Lawyers in America/U.S. News & World Report
- Top Patent Damage Awards Won Since 2000 (2015) – Law360
- Top 100 U.S. Verdicts of 2015 – The National Law Journal/VerdictSearch
- #1 Texas Intellectual Property Verdict (2015) – The National Law Journal/VerdictSearch
- Cellular Communications Equipment LLC v. Apple Inc.Mr. Curry served trial counsel alongside fellow name principal Brad Caldwell on behalf of Cellular Communications Equipment LLC in a patent infringement lawsuit against Apple Inc. over a network technology patent. Following a trial heard in September 2016 in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Texas, jurors found Apple to be a willful infringer and awarded a $22 million verdict in favor of CCE. The award represented a running royalty on Apple’s infringement through trial.
- Smartflash LitigationMr. Curry represents Smartflash in its litigation against Apple, Samsung, Google, and other device manufacturers for infringement of Smartflash’s patents that cover data storage and access systems used by Apple’s iTunes and App Stores and Google Play. At trial against Apple, Mr. Curry presented Smartflash’s technical expert to prove infringement and validity. The jury returned a verdict of $532,900,000 and found Apple’s infringement to be willful.
- VirnetX Inc. v. Apple Inc.Mr. Curry represents VirnetX in the company’s ongoing litigation against Apple for infringement of VirnetX’s network security patents by Apple’s FaceTime, iMessage, and VPN On Demand features. In the first trial against Apple in 2012, a jury in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Texas found VirnetX’s patents valid and awarded a $368 million verdict based on Apple’s infringement. After the case was sent back for a new trial on damages, Mr. Curry and other attorneys at Caldwell Cassady & Curry won again; securing a $625 million verdict for VirnetX in February 2016 after another Eastern District jury found that Apple continued to infringe VirnetX’s patents following the first trial so the company could produce the FaceTime, iMessage and re-designed VPN On Demand features. The jury also found that Apple’s infringement was willful regarding FaceTime and VPN on Demand. The court later vacated its order to consolidate the matters and set the cases for two separate jury trials. In the first new trial heard in October 2016, Mr. Curry helped VirnetX win a $302 million verdict against Apple.
- Dr. Robert Morley v. Square Inc.Mr. Curry represents Dr. Morley in his suit against Square, Inc., Jack Dorsey, and Jim McKelvey for patent infringement and breach of joint-venture and fiduciary duty, misappropriation of trade secrets, and for exclusion of Dr. Morley from Square. Dr. Morley revolutionized the mobile payment industry with his invention of the Square card reader. A trial in the Eastern District of Missouri is scheduled for mid-2016.
- VirnetX Inc. v. Microsoft Corp.Mr. Curry was a member of the trial team representing VirnetX in its patent infringement action against Microsoft involving virtual private network technology. In 2011, a jury awarded VirnetX $105,000,000 in its verdict and found that Microsoft’s infringement had been willful. That case settled after VirnetX moved for a permanent injunction. In subsequent litigation involving additional infringement assertions, Microsoft settled before trial.
- Bedrock Computer Techs. v. Google Inc.Mr. Curry was a member of the trial team representing Bedrock in a suit filed against Google for patent infringement involving methods for efficiently removing expired data from information storage and retrieval systems. The case settled shortly after the jury awarded $5 million in favor of Bedrock.
- i4i Limited Partnership v. Microsoft Corp.Mr. Curry was a member of the trial team representing i4i in a suit filed against Microsoft Corporation for patent infringement involving methods for compiling and maintaining the architecture and content of a document separate from each other. The jury awarded i4i $200 million in its verdict, and i4i successfully defeated all of Microsoft’s appeals—including Microsoft’s appeal to the Supreme Court of the United States, in which the Supreme Court affirmed the clear and convincing burden for challenging the validity of a patent.