menu filler

Exemplary Cases Title


Exemplary cases content

Attorneys at Caldwell Cassady & Curry have litigated and tried cases involving a broad range of intellectual property and business disputes. The firm’s patent infringement cases have covered a variety of technologies, including electronics, computer science and architecture, signal processing, telecommunications, medical devices, and oilfield technology. In preparing these cases for claim construction and trial, our attorneys not only work closely with leading experts but also draw upon their own science and engineering backgrounds.


The current engagements of Caldwell Cassady & Curry—as well as prior, representative cases handled by the attorneys while at their previous law firms—include:

VirnetX Inc. v. Apple Inc.
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.

Morley v. Square Inc.
The firm represented Washington University in St. Louis professor Dr. Robert Morley in his lawsuit against Square Inc., Jack Dorsey, and Jim McKelvey seeking to restore Dr. Morley’s co-ownership of Square Inc. The litigation in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri included claims for patent infringement, 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 parties reached a mutually agreeable settlement in 2016.

SAS Institute Inc. v. World Programming Limited, et al.
The firm 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 infringes 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 Fall 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 continue to represent World Programming in SAS Institute’s appeal to the Federal Circuit.

Grace, et al. v. Apple Inc.
Firm attorneys represented 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.

Match Group, LLC v. Bumble Trading, Inc.
The firm 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
Caldwell Cassady & Curry successfully represented 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 the firm’s client.

Texas Instruments, Inc.
The firm represents Texas Instruments in a number of patent infringement matters throughout Texas. One of those cases in the Eastern District of Texas, Vantage Micro LLC v. Texas Instruments, involved allegations of infringement related to TI’s fabrication processes. After moving for early summary judgment and to dismiss certain claims for lack of standing, the case settled on favorable terms to TI before the claim construction hearing.

Cellular Communications Equipment LLC v. Apple Inc.
Caldwell Cassady & Curry represented 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 March 2016.

Virnetx Inc. v. Microsoft Corp.
Attorneys at the firm represented VirnetX in its patent infringement action against Microsoft involving virtual private network technology. In 2011, a jury awarded VirnetX a $105 million verdict after finding that Microsoft’s infringement was willful. The case settled after VirnetX moved for a permanent injunction. Caldwell Cassady & Curry later represented VirnetX in subsequent litigation over additional infringement by Microsoft, and Microsoft settled before trial in 2014.

Smartflash LLC v. Apple Inc., et al. and Smartflash LLC v. Samsung
The firm represented Smartflash in its patent infringement actions involving the company’s data storage and access system patents against Apple’s iTunes store and the Google Play feature in Samsung and HTC products.

Summit 6 LLC v. Samsung Electronics Co. Ltd, Facebook Inc., et al.
Mr. Caldwell represented Summit 6 in its patent infringement action in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Texas involving the company’s patents that cover the compression of images prior to uploading. All parties other than Samsung settled before a 2013 trial that ended with a Dallas jury awarding $15 million to Summit 6 in its verdict against Samsung.

Metronic Inc. v. Boston Scientific Corp.
Mr. Caldwell and Mr. Cassady have 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., Mr. Caldwell represented Medtronic in a jury trial which resulted in a $250 million verdict in Medtronic’s favor. This lawsuit settled after judgment was entered by the district court.

i4i Limited Partnership v. Microsoft Corp.
Mr. Curry represented 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.

Varel International Independent LP
Attorneys at the firm have represented and continue to represent Varel in various patent and commercial litigation matters, including defending Varel against ReedHycalog’s allegations of patent infringement.

Opti Inc. v. Apple Inc.
Mr. Cassady represented Opti in a patent infringement suit against Apple regarding its patent regarding a computer operation that enables a “pre-snooping” function designed to allow for the more efficient transfer of data. A jury found that Apple willfully infringed Opti’s patent and awarded $19 million in its verdict. The case settled shortly before completion of the appeal to the Federal Circuit.

Wyeth and Cordis Corp. v. Medtronic Inc., et al.
Mr. Caldwell 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.

Halliburton Energy Services Inc. v. BJ Services Corp.
Mr. Caldwell and Mr. Cassady 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 infringement of three Halliburton patents in the field of hydraulic fracturing. Mr. Caldwell tried the case before the American Arbitration Association.

Continental Circuits LLC v. Intel Corporation, et al.
The firm 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.

ReedHycalog LP v. US Synthetics Corp.
Mr. Cassady represented US Synthetics in defending ReedHycalog’s allegations of patent infringement litigation regarding diamond cutter technology.

Bedrock Computer Techs v. Google Inc.
Mr. Curry and Mr. Cassady represented 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.

TGIP Inc. v. AT&T Corp.
Mr. Caldwell represented TGIP in a patent-infringement action against AT&T, MCI/Verizon, and others pertaining to point-of-sale activated calling cards. AT&T remained in the lawsuit through a jury trial, and verdict in favor of TGIP was awarded by that jury. The case settled favorably for TGIP while an appeal was pending.

Anascape Ltd. v. Nintendo of America Inc. and Microsoft Corp.
Mr. Cassady represented Anascape in its patent infringement lawsuit against Microsoft and Nintendo involving video game controller technology. After a two week trial in the Eastern District of Texas, Anascape obtained a jury verdict against Nintendo. Microsoft and Anascape reached a confidential settlement on the eve of trial.

i2 Technologies Inc. (now JDA Software Group) v. Oracle Corp.
Mr. Caldwell represented i2 in a patent infringement action involving supply chain planning and application management patents. The parties reached a settlement agreement following the pretrial conference.

JP Morgan Chase & Co. v. Affiliated Computer Services Inc.
Mr. Caldwell 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 of those patents from the lawsuit in the face of compelling noninfringement, invalidity, and inequitable conduct defenses.