Munger, Tolles & Olson's lawyers clarify the complicated to help clients achieve strategic business goals. The firm represents clients across a wide range of technologies, including semiconductors, telecommunications, pharmaceuticals and biotech. Our lawyers practice in the most active patent litigation venues in the country, from the Northern District of California to the Eastern District of Texas to the District of Delaware.
The firm’s patent trial experience spans decades of precedent-setting work for companies such as Rambus Inc., Abbott Laboratories and Microsoft. Our most significant cases and trials include representing:
- Abbott Laboratories in:
- a case that marked a major change in patent litigation, Munger Tolles, acting as co-counsel, won an en banc Federal Circuit ruling that fundamentally altered the national standards for determining inequitable conduct before the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office.
- defeating a bid by Bayer AG in the District of Massachusetts to recover royalties from Abbott for U.S. sales of the arthritis drug Humira.
- Tessera Technologies in numerous cases in the Eastern District of Texas, the Northern District of California and the Federal Circuit involving patents relating to semiconductor packaging technology.
- Microsoft, Dell and Hewlett-Packard in winning summary judgment on behalf of all three defendants in a patent infringement suit filed by Walker Digital in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California. We also successfully defended the judgment before the Federal Circuit.
- Rambus — against the world’s largest DRAM manufacturers, Hynix, Samsung, Micron Technology Inc. and Nanya — in the closely watched battle for rights to the fundamental design of memory chips used in nearly all major computing devices. Some of those cases include:
- prevailing in a bench trial on Hynix’s allegations that Rambus had spoliated evidence (Recently remanded for further proceedings).
- trying and winning a three-month trial before the Federal Trade Commission’s chief administrative law judge on charges of unfair business practices. After further FTC proceedings, the D.C. Circuit unanimously upheld the ruling for Rambus.
- obtaining a $306 million jury verdict in a patent trial against Hynix (later reduced to $133 million); in the final judgment award totaled $396.8 million.
- obtaining a successful verdict after an eight-week jury trial for Rambus on monopolization and unfair competition claims brought by three of the largest chip makers in the world (Hynix, Micron and Nanya).
- defeating Samsung’s effort to obtain a $400 million patent damages offset through breach of contract counterclaims after a bench trial.
- Cisco Systems in obtaining summary judgment in a patent infringement case brought by Autocell Laboratories Inc. in the District of Delaware. Autocell claimed that its patents covered technologies that limit interference between transmitters and receivers used in a large number of Cisco’s wireless networks.
- Alien Technology in a now-stayed declaratory judgment action in the District of North Dakota involving 14 patents covering different aspects of Radio Frequency Identification technology.
- Hewlett-Packard in a patent case in the Central District of California involving web-commerce and automation of business processes with database management systems.
In addition, the firm’s patent experience also includes representing:
- Verizon Communications as defendant in a patent infringement action in the Eastern District of Virginia alleging infringement of five patents pertaining to fiber optic network components.
- Verizon Wireless in two patent infringement actions in the Eastern District of Texas.
- Applied Materials in a successful bench trial before the Northern District of California.
- Creative Labs in pursuing its claims of patent infringement in the Northern District of California involving cache memory and 3D audio technology. We tried the case to a jury verdict, after which the parties settled the matter on favorable terms for Creative.
- Southern California Edison Company in defending claims of patent infringement in the Central District of California relating to a chemical deoxygenating process used in a nuclear power facility. Following two bench trials and federal circuit appeals, the parties reached a settlement of the matter.
Ted Dane (213) 683-9288
Gregory P. Stone (213) 683-9255
Jeffrey I. Weinberger (213) 683-9127