Caldwell Cassady & Curry 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.

Caldwell Cassady & Curry 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.

Caldwell Cassady & Cury won a $57 million verdict in March 2024 as part of the firm’s continuing patent enforcement efforts for Midwest Energy Emissions Corp. 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.

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.

Caldwell Cassady & Curry represents VirnetX in the company’s patent infringement litigation against technology giant Apple Inc. In a dispute that the Eastern District of Texas trial court said has attained Dickensian proportions, Caldwell Cassady & Curry has helped VirnetX win favorable verdicts in five separate trials where each jury awarded over $300 million in damages. In late 2012, we 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 by 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 to produce the FaceTime 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 focusing on different versions of Apple features. In the first new trial heard in September 2016 pertaining to the earlier generations of products, we 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 Fall 2020, again in the Eastern District of Texas. In that trial, we secured a $502.8 million jury verdict 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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.