Direct Line: (214) 888-4853
2101 Cedar Springs Rd.
Dallas, Texas 75201
- EducationIllinois Institute of Technology, Chicago-Kent College of Law
Seventh Circuit Review
University of Texas at Austin
B.S. Mathematics, 2005
Justin Nemunaitis is a principal at Caldwell Cassady & Curry. His practice focuses on patent infringement disputes and complex commercial litigation, for both plaintiffs and defendants. He has litigated cases involving a variety of technologies including: digital content distribution and protection, fiber optic networking, physical layer RF signaling, ARQ protocols, digital video compression algorithms, and techniques employed by various wireless communications standards.
As a member of various trial teams, Mr. Nemunaitis has helped secure multiple multimillion-dollar verdicts and successfully defend against similar high-value assertions. He has experience in all aspects of litigation, from pre-suit investigation to developing case strategy, securing evidence for claims, working with expert witnesses, taking adverse depositions of key witnesses (both fact and expert), trial and appeal. He has also represented companies in non-litigation licensing disputes, and advised clients regarding antitrust and FRAND issues that may accompany standards-based patent disputes.
Mr. Nemunaitis has been recognized since 2016 as one of the top young lawyers in the state for his work in intellectual property cases on the annual Texas Super Lawyers Rising Stars list published by Thomson Reuters legal division.
He is licensed to practice before all Texas state courts, the U.S. District Courts for the Northern and Eastern Districts of Texas, and the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit.
Prior to joining Caldwell Cassady & Curry, Mr. Nemunaitis was an associate at McKool Smith P.C. where he participated in multiple patent infringement trials, and successfully briefed and argued critical motions including summary judgment and Daubert motions. Prior to that, he served as a Judicial Clerk for the Honorable John Love, United States Magistrate Judge for the Eastern District of Texas.
Mr. Nemunaitis graduated from Chicago-Kent College of Law where he served as a Senior Editor on Law Review and as the Executive Editor of the Seventh Circuit Review. He received a Bachelor of Science in Mathematics from the University of Texas at Austin.
- Smartflash Litigation.Mr. Nemunaitis was a member of the trial team that secured one of the largest patent infringement jury verdicts in recent history—$532,900,000. He has also assisted Smartflash in fending off dozens of attempts to invalidate Smartflash’s patents through various post grant proceedings filed before the PTAB.
- VirnetX v. Apple.Mr. Nemunaitis represents VirnetX in the company’s patent infringement litigation against Apple over the 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. Nemunaitis and other attorneys at Caldwell Cassady & Curry won again; securing a $625 million verdict for VirnetX in February 2016 after jurors in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Texas found that Apple continued to infringe VirnetX’s patents following the first trial in order to 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. Nemunaitis helped VirnetX win a $302 million verdict against Apple. The verdict was entered as a $439.7 million judgment in September 2017.
- VirnetX v. Microsoft.Mr. Nemunaitis represented 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. The case settled after VirnetX moved for a permanent injunction. In subsequent litigation involving additional infringement assertions, Microsoft settled before trial.
- Ericsson v. Intel.Mr. Nemunaitis represented Ericsson in a jury trial against various providers of 802.11-compliant products. The jury returned a verdict of infringement in favor of Ericsson on three patents and awarded a royalty. Following the jury trial, the Court held a bench trial to adjudicate defendants’ assertions of FRAND violations, after which it ruled in favor of Ericsson finding no FRAND violation.
- Halliburton v. BJ Services Company.Mr. Nemunaitis represented Halliburton as trial counsel in an arbitration against Baker Hughes and BJ Services alleging infringement of several patents covering hydrajet fracturing of oil and gas wells. The arbitration resulted in favorable terms for Halliburton.
- Weatherford v. Halliburton.Mr. Nemunaitis defended Halliburton against Weatherford’s assertion of patents relating to downhole tools for oil and gas wells, such as frac plugs, bridge plugs, and packers. The case settled on favorable terms.
- Red River Fiber Litigation.Mr.Nemunaitis successfully enforced a patent against various providers for fiber optic networks. After hard fought litigation against Verizon and other major telecommunications providers, all of the defendants settled shortly before trial.
- i2 Technologies (now JDA Software) v. Oracle.Mr. Nemunaitis represented i2 as a plaintiff and counterclaim defendant in patent litigation against Oracle. i2 asserted a number of patents related to supply chain planning and application management, and Oracle asserted patents relating to database management. The case involved highly complex computer software and ultimately settled shortly before trial.
- Zenith, et al. v. Craig Electronics.Mr. Nemunaitis represented defendants in a patent infringement lawsuit involving patents that were alleged to be essential to the ATSC HDTV standard. The case settled on favorable terms.