Tim Shannon: Representative Matters in Intellectual Property Litigation

  • Uniloc USA Inc. and Uniloc Luxembourg S.A. v. VeriSilicon, Inc., 6:14-cv-486 (E.D. Tex.) (patent dispute concerning server-based licensing technology, representing a computer chip manufacturer)
  • iBio, Inc. v. Plantform Corp. et al., C.A. No. 10256 (Del. Ch. Ct.) (trade secret dispute concerning plant-based biopharmaceuticals)
  • Allegro Software Development Co. v. Calix, Inc., 14-cv-12031 (D. Mass.) (contract dispute concerning software development license)
  • Brandywine Communications Technologies, LLC v. G4 Communications Corp., 1:13-cv-17 (D. N.H.) (patent dispute concerning digital subscriber loop (DSL) technology in both customer modems and central office DSL access multiplexers)
  • The Hilsinger Co. v. Eyeego, LLC, 1:13-cv-10594 (D. Mass.) (patent dispute concerning eyeglass screw design)
  • Brandywine Communications Technologies, LLC v. Coastal Telco Svcs. Inc.,2:12-cv-401 (D. Me.) (patent dispute concerning digital subscriber loop (DSL) technology in both customer modems and central office DSL access multiplexers)
  • Uniloc USA Inc. and Uniloc Luxembourg S.A. v. SlickEdit Inc., 6:12-cv-814 (E.D. Tex.) (patent dispute concerning server-based licensing technology and software)
  • Ergo Licensing LLP v. Carefusion 303, Inc., 2:08-cv-259-GZS (D. Maine) (patent dispute concerning multi-channel fluid-infusion medical device)
  • Teradyne Inc. v. Xyratex Technology Ltd., 2:09-cv-02580-MMM-CW (C.D. Cal.) (patent dispute concerning high-speed automated semiconductor testing equipment)
  • Medtronic Sofamor Danek USA, Inc. et al. v. Blackstone Medical, Inc., 3:06-cv-30165-MAP (D. Mass.) (patent dispute concerning cervical spinal fixation medical devices and methods)
  • Medtronic Sofamor Danek USA, Inc. et al. v. Globus Medical, Inc., 06-cv-04248-NS (E.D. Pa.) (patent dispute involving nearly a dozen accused devices and six patents concerning thoraco-lumbar spinal fixation medical devices and methods)
  • DePuy Spine, Inc. v. Medtronic Sofamor Danek, Inc., 567 F.3d 1314 (Fed. Cir. 2009) (appeal of $250 million jury verdict in patent dispute re: variable-angle pedicle bone screws, on grounds of ensnarement, lost profits under Panduit analysis, entire market value rule, and the “reverse doctrine of equivalents”)
  • HSBC Bank USA NA et al. v. Decisioning.com, 3:04-cv-01200-CMC (D. S. C.), aff’d in part, 527 F.3d 1300 (Fed. Cir. 2008) (representation, at both trial level and on appeal, of an international bank in a patent dispute concerning computer-based banking transactions)
  • Cytyc Corp. v. TriPath Imaging, Inc., 03-cv-11142 (D. Mass.) (patent dispute re: computer-assisted pap smear screening equipment).