Safe Driving Technologies, LLC v. Ford Motor Company (Patent Trial and Appeal Board): Led the team who served as Ford Motor Company’s litigation and Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) counsel, recently defended Ford in a patent infringement case filed by Safe Driving Technologies, LLC, which alleged Ford infringed four patents related to telematic safety features. Under Brooks Kushman’s direction, Ford filed Inter Partes Reviews (IPRs) against the four asserted patents. The PTAB ultimately held 43 claims unpatentable, with the plaintiff dedicating an additional 10 claims to the public. Brooks Kushman also represented Ford in the appeal, in which Chris successfully argued for an affirmance of the PTAB’s decisions. Case No. 1:21-cv-00064
Versata Software v. Ford Motor Company (E.D. Michigan and E.D. Texas): Brooks Kushman served as lead counsel for Ford in lawsuits involving over 30 alleged trade secrets, 16 patents, 5 copyrights and 3 breach of contract claims relating to complex enterprise software for product configuration. Versata originally sought over $1.4 Billion in damages from Ford. After more than 8 years of litigation in federal courts in Michigan and Texas, more than 20 IPRs/CBMRs, over 60 depositions, over 1000 docket entries including multiple rounds of claim construction, summary judgment and Daubert challenges, and a three-week jury trial, our team held Versata to just $3 in nominal damages. Case No. 2:15-cv-10628.
Kar Enterprises v. Ford Motor Company (Settlement – D. Massachusetts): Counsel for defendant Ford Motor Company in patent infringement lawsuit involving speed limiting system for a vehicle. Chris was involved in all facets of the case including claim construction, inventor depositions and preparation of expert reports. The case concluded in a favorable settlement for Ford. Case No. 4:11-cv-11200
Omega Patents, LLC v. General Motors LLC et al. (Settlement – N.D. Georgia): Counsel for defendants General Motors and Onstar in a patent infringement lawsuit involving vehicle remote systems. The case concluded in a favorable settlement for defendants. Case No. 1:12-cv-01192
Omega Patents, LLC v. Lear Corp. (Settlement – M.D. Florida): Counsel for defendant Lear Corporation in patent infringement lawsuit involving vehicle remote start technology. The case concluded in a favorable settlement. Case No. 6:07-CV-1422
Mallinckrodt, Inc. et al. v. E-Z-EM, Inc. (E.D. Texas): Counsel for plaintiffs Mallinckrodt, Inc. and Libel-Flarsheim Company in a patent infringement lawsuit involving contrast injector systems for CT scans and MRIs. Case No. 2:07-cv-00262
Rembrandt Data Techs., LP v. DirecTV, Inc. et al. (Summary Judgment – E.D. Virginia): Counsel for defendant DirecTV in a patent infringement lawsuit involving modems used in satellite TVboxes. Summary judgment was granted in favor of DirecTV. Case No. 1:08-cv-01009
Level 3 Comms., LLC v. Limelight Networks, Inc. (Jury Trial – E.D. Virginia): Counsel for defendant Limelight Networks in patent infringement lawsuit involving content delivery networks. Chris was an integral member of the trial team that obtained a jury verdict of non-infringement for defendant Limelight Networks. The jury verdict was affirmed on appeal. Case No. 2:07-cv-00589
Akamai Techs., Inc. et al. v. Limelight Networks, Inc. (D. Massachusetts): Counsel for defendant Limelight Networks in patent infringement lawsuit involving content delivery networks. Chris was an integral member of trial team for defendant Limelight Networks. Chris worked on all facets of the case including discovery, trial and the preparation of post-trial briefing, which included preparation of a motion for reconsideration that was granted and resulted in overturning the jury verdict to find no infringement by Limelight. Case No. 1:06-cv-11109
Foremost In Packaging Sys. v. Cold Chain Techs. (Summary Judgment – C.D. California): Counsel for defendant Cold Chain Technologies in a patent infringement lawsuit involving transportation coolers for pharmaceuticals. Chris was an integral part of team that prepared successful motions for summary judgment in favor of Cold Chain Technologies. Case No. 8:05-cv-00024; 2:06-cv-01156