SVV Technology Innovations v. ASUSTek
Brad led the Caldwell Cassady & Curry trial team that won a $22.4 million patent infringement verdict for SVV Technology Innovations Inc. against Taiwan’s ASUSTeK Computer Inc. The jury’s September 2024 decision in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Texas found ASUSTeK liable for willfully infringing four SVV patents used in optics and lighting technology.
Midwest Energy Emissions v. Arthur J. Gallagher & Co., et al.
Brad served as lead trial counsel for Midwest Energy Emissions Corp. to win a $57 million verdict in March 2024 as part of the firm’s continuing patent enforcement efforts on the company’s behalf. A jury in the U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware assessed liability against a group of coal industry companies for infringing Midwest Energy’s patents for technology used to capture mercury emissions from coal-fired power plants.
Texas Instruments
Brad serves as lead trial counsel to TI in numerous patent infringement disputes in the Eastern and Western Districts of Texas.
VirnetX Inc. v. Apple Inc.
Brad represented VirnetX in the company’s patent infringement litigation against technology giant Apple in a dispute that the Eastern District of Texas trial court said has attained Dickensian proportions. Overall, he has helped VirnetX win favorable verdicts in five separate trials where each jury awarded over $300 million in damages.
In late 2012, Brad helped VirnetX win a $368 million verdict when a federal jury determined that Apple had infringed four VirnetX patents to produce the VPN On Demand and FaceTime features in the popular iPhone and other Apple products. After the case was sent back for a new trial on damages, we won again with 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 to produce the FaceTime and re-designed VPN On Demand features. The jury also found 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 focusing on different versions of Apple features.
In the first new trial heard in September 2016 pertaining to the earlier generations of products, Brad helped VirnetX win a $302 million verdict against Apple before a new Eastern District jury. The verdict was entered as a $439.7 million judgment in September 2017 and affirmed on appeal by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit.
In the second new trial heard in April 2018 addressing the newer generations of products, a different Eastern District jury awarded a unanimous verdict of $502.6 million in favor of VirnetX after finding Apple’s infringement was willful. After that verdict was sent back for a new trial on damages, a final trial was held in the Eastern District in 2020, with jurors awarding a $502.8 million verdict to VirnetX following the Federal Circuit’s affirmance of the 2018 finding that Apple’s VPN On Demand in iOS versions 7.0 and later infringed VirnetX’s patents. The district court later denied Apple’s request for a new trial and entered the jury’s verdict in favor of VirnetX as a final judgment.
Nanoco Technologies Ltd. v. Samsung Electronics Co.
Brad helped UK-based Nanoco Technologies Ltd. secure a $150 million settlement in a patent infringement lawsuit against technology giant Samsung Electronics Co. Nanoco, a company born from a university research group, is a leading innovator in nanoparticle and quantum dot technology. The company’s heavy metal-free quantum dots mitigate health risks presented by using toxic materials like cadmium in commercial products such as televisions and other displays. Nanoco filed suit in 2020 based on infringement of a series of patents covering the company’s quantum dot technology, which Samsung was accused of incorporating into its high-end “QLED” televisions. Samsung agreed to the settlement on the eve of jury selection for a long-awaited trial scheduled in the Marshall division of the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Texas before the Hon. Chief District Judge Rodney Gilstrap.
SAS Institute Inc. v. World Programming Limited, et al.
Brad defended World Programming Limited, YUM! Brands, Inc., Luminex Software, Inc., Pizza Hut, Inc., and Shaw Industries Group, Inc., in a high-profile copyright and patent case filed by SAS Institute in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Texas. The lawsuit alleged that World Programming’s analytics software infringed intellectual property owned by SAS Institute. This was the latest in a decade-long string of lawsuits that SAS Institute has brought against its direct competitor, World Programming. In the Fall of 2020, the firm obtained a complete defense victory. On the eve of trial, the district court sided with World Programming and dismissed SAS Institute’s case with prejudice. Firm attorneys then represented World Programming in the SAS Institute’s appeal to the Federal Circuit.
Continental Circuits LLC v. Intel Corporation, et al.
Brad represented plaintiff Continental Circuits in its patent infringement case against Intel Corporation and its Japanese supplier, Ibiden. The lawsuit filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of Arizona involved Intel’s semiconductor packaging products. Midway through the litigation, the firm successfully appealed a claim construction to the Federal Circuit, which reversed the district court’s decision and found in favor of Continental Circuits. On remand, the parties resolved the dispute prior to trial.
Match Group, LLC v. Bumble Trading, Inc.
Brad represented Match Group, LLC, owner of numerous online dating brands, including the iconic Tinder application, in a highly publicized intellectual property and business dispute with competitor Bumble Trading Inc. in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Texas.
Acantha LLC v. DePuy Synthes
Brad served as lead trial counsel for Acantha LLP in a patent infringement lawsuit against medical device manufacturer DePuy Synthes, a subsidiary of healthcare giant Johnson & Johnson. DePuy was sued based on its infringement of an Acantha patent that covers an orthopedic implant assembly used in surgical procedures. Following the August 2018 trial in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Wisconsin, a jury of five women and three men delivered a unanimous $8.2 million verdict in favor of Brad’s client.
Grace, et al. v. Apple Inc.
Brad was lead trial counsel of a class of plaintiffs in a high-profile consumer class action case in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California based on allegations that Apple Inc. intentionally broke the popular FaceTime video chat feature for millions of customers. The firm successfully defended the affected customers against Apple’s multiple attempts to dismiss the case and helped secure class certification for all California class plaintiffs in 2018. After the District Court denied Apple’s pre-trial Motion for Summary Judgment, the case settled on favorable terms.
Dr. Robert Morley v. Square Inc.
Brad represented Washington University in St. Louis Professor Robert Morley in his suit against Square, Inc., Jack Dorsey, and Jim McKelvey for patent infringement and breach of fiduciary duty, misappropriation of trade secrets, exclusion of Dr. Morley from Square, and related business torts after Dr. Morley invented the famous Square credit card reader and helped create the company. The court case was pending in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri. Brad also represented Dr. Morley in related inter partes review (IPR) proceedings before the Patent Trial and Appeal Board.
Smartflash LLC matters against Apple, Samsung, HTC, Google, and Amazon
Brad served as lead trial lawyer for Smartflash in its patent infringement actions involving Smartflash’s data storage and access system patents, which were asserted against various devices and functionality involved in the operation of Apple’s iTunes Store and App Store, Google Play, and the Amazon App Store. In February 2015, a jury found that Apple willfully infringed Smartflash’s patents with its iPhone, iPad, and iPod Touch products, found that the patents were not invalid, and awarded Smartflash $532,900,000 in compensatory damages for Apple’s infringement.
VirnetX, Inc. v. Microsoft Corp.
Brad represented VirnetX as trial counsel in two patent infringement actions against Microsoft involving VirnetX’s network security patents. Brad and the others on the team inherited the first Microsoft case from another law firm after the close of discovery and had relatively little time to prepare for trial, but they were nevertheless successful. The jury found Microsoft infringed willfully, found the patents were valid, and awarded $105,750,000 to VirnetX. The case was then settled while VirnetX’s request for a permanent injunction was pending. In a subsequent matter involving additional allegations of infringement by Microsoft, Microsoft settled with VirnetX before trial.
Summit 6 LLC v. Samsung Electronics Co. Ltd., Facebook Inc., et al.
Brad represented Summit 6 in a patent infringement action in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Texas involving the company’s patents that cover the processing (e.g., compression or resizing) of images before transmission. Facebook, Blackberry, and Photobucket settled before trial. Samsung did not, and the dispute between Summit 6 and Samsung went to trial. In early 2013, a jury in Dallas found in favor of Summit 6 on infringement and validity and awarded $15,000,000 to Summit 6 to compensate it for Samsung’s infringement.
Constellation Designs v. LG Electronics
Brad won a $1.7 million patent infringement verdict in July 2023 for Constellation Designs against LG Electronics Inc. The jury in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Texas affirmed Constellation Designs’ patented technology covering crucial elements for the emerging ATSC 3.0 (NextGen TV) standard for television broadcasts. The award was based on $6.72 per unit for each infringing LG Electronics product the company had sold.
Cellular Communications Equipment LLC v. Apple Inc.
Brad served as lead trial counsel on behalf of Cellular Communications Equipment LLC in a patent infringement lawsuit against Apple Inc. over a network technology patent. Following a trial in September 2016 in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Texas, jurors awarded a $22 million verdict in favor of CCE. The award represented a running royalty on Apple’s infringement through March 2016.
Medtronic, Inc. v. Boston Scientific Corp.
Brad, while at his former firm, represented Medtronic in multiple patent infringement actions involving coronary catheterization, stent design, and drug-eluting stent technology pending in the Eastern District of Texas and elsewhere. In Medtronic, Inc. v. Boston Scientific Corp., Brad represented Medtronic in a jury trial that resulted in a $250,000,000 verdict in Medtronic’s favor. The lawsuit was settled after judgment was entered by the district court.
Wyeth and Cordis Corp. v. Medtronic, Inc., et al.
While at his previous law firm, Brad represented Medtronic in defense of a patent infringement lawsuit pending in the District of New Jersey, where local companies Wyeth and Cordis accused Medtronic of infringing patents pertaining to the use of the drug rapamycin (now commercially known as sirolimus) to treat restenosis—re-narrowing of an artery following an angioplasty procedure. The district court granted Medtronic’s motion for summary judgment invalidating the asserted patents, resulting in a complete victory for Brad’s client.
Halliburton Energy Services, Inc. v. BJ Services Corp.
Brad successfully represented Halliburton as trial counsel in an arbitration proceeding against BJ Services Corporation (now a part of Baker Hughes, Inc.) in a case pertaining to the infringement of three Halliburton patents in the field of hydraulic fracturing. While at his previous firm, Brad tried the case before a three-judge panel from the American Arbitration Association.
i2 Technologies, Inc. (now JDA Software Group) v. Oracle Corp.
At his previous firm, Brad represented i2 in a patent infringement action involving supply chain planning and application management patents. The parties reached a settlement agreement after the pretrial conference and before the beginning of trial.
JP Morgan Chase & Co. v. Affiliated Computer Services Inc.
Brad, while at his previous firm, defended ACS in a patent infringement lawsuit brought by JPMorgan Chase in the District of Delaware, focusing on three stored-value card patents asserted by JPMorgan. Before the close of discovery, JPMorgan unilaterally dropped all three patents from the lawsuit in the face of compelling noninfringement, invalidity, and inequitable conduct defenses developed by Brad and the team.
ZitoVault v Amazon
Brad represented ZitoVault in its patent infringement lawsuit against e-commerce giant Amazon. The firm helped ZitoVault resolve the case with a confidential settlement in 2016 after Apple unsuccessfully challenged the client’s cybersecurity patent before the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit and a prior challenge before the Patent Trial and Appeal Board.
ZitoVault v International Business Machines (IBM)
Brad successfully represented ZitoVault in its patent infringement lawsuit against the technology corporation IBM. The case was resolved in 2018 in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Texas, shortly before IBM signed a licensing agreement covering ZitoVault’s patent for computer network encryption and decryption software.
