© 2020 by Marton Ribera Schumann & Chang LLP

  • LinkedIn Social Icon

REPRESENTATIVE ENGAGEMENTS

Below are some representative matters we are currently handling or have handled for our clients:

  • Versata Software, Inc. v. Zoho Corporation, Case No. A-13-CA-00371-SS (W.D. Texas) 

    • Represented Zoho in patent litigation involving mobile enterprise software for network monitoring.  Obtained summary judgment of invalidity.

 

  • Affinity Labs of Texas LLC v. Netflix, Inc., Case No. 1:2015cv00849 (W.D. Texas)

    • Represented Netflix in patent litigation involving MPEG-DASH video streaming standard. 

  • Meraloc, LLC v. Lowe's Companies, Inc., Case No. 2:16-cv-00904 (E.D. Texas)

    • Represented Lowes, Nordstrom, and Safeway in patent litigation involving point-of-sale devices. 

  •  

  • Blackbird Tech LLC v. Verifone Systems Inc., Case No. 1:16-cv-00588 (D. Delaware)

    • Represented Verifone in patent litigation involving GPS-enabled devices.  

  •  

  • Doczy v. Verifone Systems, Inc. et al, Case No. 0:16-cv-62370 (S.D. Florida)

    • Represented Verifone in patent litigation involving hand held communication devices.  Obtained summary judgment of non-infringement.

  • Millennium Commerce, LLC v. Whole Foods Market, Inc., Case No. 2:16-cv-01120 (E.D. Texas)

    • Represented Whole Foods in patent litigation involving transactions at point-of-sale terminals. 

  • Grecia v. Target Corporation., Case No. 1:16-cv-10267 (N.D. Illinois)

    • Represented Target in patent litigation involving tokenized payment transactions.  

  • Netflix, Inc. v. Affinity Labs of Texas, LLC, Case IPR2016-01701 (PTAB)

    • Requested Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 9,094,802.  All instituted claims cancelled.

  •  

  • Netflix, Inc. v. Affinity Labs of Texas, LLC, Case IPR2017-00122 (PTAB)

    • Requested Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 9,444,868.  All claims cancelled.

  •  

  • Blue Sky Networks, LLC v. VeriFone Systems, Inc., Case No. 5:17-cv-06567 (N.D. California)

    • Represented Verifone in patent litigation involving Bluetooth terminals.  

  •  

  • Redfin Corporation v. iPayOne, LLC, Case No. 2:17-cv-01217 (W.D. Washington)

    • Represented Redfin in trade secrets litigation regarding real estate business. 

  • Semicaps PTE Ltd v. Hamamatsu Corporation et al, Case No. 3:17-cv-03440 (N.D. California)

    • Represented SEMICAPS in patent litigation involving semiconductor testing equipment.  

  • Orostream LLC v. Zoho Corporation, Case No. 2:17-cv-00415 (E.D. Texas)

    • Represented Zoho in patent litigation involving software for targeting information to users. 

  •  

  • MMG IP Management LLC v. Zoho Corporation, Case No. 2:17-cv-00227 (E.D. Texas)

    • Represented Zoho in patent litigation involving software for contacts management.  

  • Finnavations, LLC v. Zoho Corporation, Case No. 2:17-cv-00240 (E.D. Texas)

    • Represented Zoho in patent litigation involving electronic payment systems.  

  • Curtis International Ltd v. Pacific Logistics Corp, Case No. 2:17-cv-01968 (C.D. California)

    • Represented Curtis in contract dispute litigation involving warehouse logistics.  

  • Fitbit, Inc. v. AliphCom et al, Case No. 3:17-cv-01139 (N.D. California)

    • Represented AliphCom (Jawbone) in patent litigation involving wearables.  

  • Cumberland Systems LLC v. VMware Inc., Case No. 3:18-cv-00592 (N.D. Texas)

    • Represented various defendants in patent litigation involving encryption.