Collision Communications v. Samsung
Brad served as lead trial counsel for Collision Communications Inc., securing a $445.5 million patent infringement verdict against Samsung Electronics Co. Ltd. and Samsung Electronics America Inc. in October 2025. The jury’s unanimous decision in favor of Brad’s clients followed a five-day trial in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Texas.
VidStream v. Twitter
Brad served as lead trial counsel for VidStream, LLC, on the Caldwell Cassady & Curry team that won a $105 million patent infringement verdict against social media giant Twitter, Inc., now as X Corp., in April 2025.
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 counsel for Texas Instruments in numerous patent infringement disputes in the Eastern and Western Districts of Texas.
VirnetX Inc. v. Apple Inc.
Brad successfully represented VirnetX in the company’s patent infringement litigation against technology giant Apple, which the Eastern District of Texas trial court described as having attained Dickensian proportions. Brad has been lead trial counsel in five separate cases where each jury awarded VirnetX over $300 million in damages.
Nanoco Technologies Ltd. v. Samsung Electronics Co.
Brad served as lead trial counsel for UK-based Nanoco Technologies Ltd. in the lead-up to the company’s $150 million settlement with technology giant Samsung Electronics Co. to resolve patent infringement claims. 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 the scheduled jury selection in the Marshall division of the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Texas before the Hon. Judge Rodney Gilstrap.
SAS Institute Inc. v. World Programming Limited, et al.
Brad served as lead counsel in the firm’s successful defense of 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 brought by SAS Institute against its direct competitor. In Fall 2020, the firm obtained a complete defense victory on the eve of trial when the district court sided with World Programming and dismissed SAS Institute’s case with prejudice. The firm then represented World Programming in SAS Institute’s appeal before the Federal Circuit.f
Continental Circuits LLC v. Intel Corporation, et al.
Brad successfully represented Continental Circuits as lead counsel in its patent infringement case against Intel Corporation and its Japanese supplier, Ibiden. The lawsuit 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 served as lead counsel for Match Group, LLC, in the company’s highly publicized intellectual property and business lawsuit against competitor Bumble Trading Inc. The parties reached a confidential settlement in the case pending before 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.
