|
Dale C. Hogue, Sr.’s particular expertise is in software, algorithms, telecom e-commerce and electronics, as well as the protection of financial service inventions and human interfaces. He has litigated patent, trademark, trade dress and trade secret matters and has managed international patent prosecution and litigation matters.
"Dale stands out among IP lawyers for several reasons. In addition to being more technically savvy and experienced than most, he has the unique ability to provide relevant strategic advice in plain English," said Kathy Worthington, former Vice President and Senior Counsel for Citibank. "Dale applies the intricacies of patent and other areas of intellectual property law to help support the client's business objectives. His strategic insights are what really set him apart from all other IP attorneys."
"Dale Hogue has the rare combination of being both a high-level business lawyer and a deep technical advisor for his clients on patent issues," said Womble Carlyle's Dan Mackesey.
Some of Dale’s representative cases include:
Tenneco Automotive, Inc. v. Visteon, (United States District Court, Delaware) Patent, Settled Favorably while jury was deliberating.
Conopco v. May et al. (CAFC) Appeal - Patent, TM, Trade Dress, Unfair Trade - Reversal (Name omitted from Report).
Henry Huang v. Caltech, Applera et al., (United Sates District Court, CD of California). Dismissed-Adverse. (Assisted as Patent Advisor)
Trilogy Comm., Inc. v. Times Fiber Comm, Inc., (United States District Court, NJ, Newark Division). Settled - Favorably.
Trilogy Comm, Inc. V. Comm Scope, Inc. (United Sates District Court for North Carolina -Charlotte). Patent - Adverse (Did not participate in Trial - Only post trial proceedings on Damages).
Moore v. Barmag, (W.D.N.C.) - Patent - Adverse. Assisted post trial motions. Not trial counsel.
Loreal v. Matsushita, (United States District Court of Virginia) transferred to NY.
Wells American, Inc. v. Phillips et al., (United States District Court South Carolina-Columbia) - Trademark, Trade Dress - Settled Favorably.
Dr. Pepper v. Coca Cola, (United States District Court - Dallas). TM, Trade Dress cases, etc. Settled Favorably.
Transaction Technology, Inc., Citibank F.S.B. v. Online Resources and Communications, Inc.,
(United States District Court, Eastern District of Virginia -- Patent Infringement) Settled after Favorably Summary Judgment Motion.
Shelby Elastics, Inc. v. Medical Textiles, Inc. et al.,
(United States District Court, Western District of North Carolina -- Patent Infringement) Settled Favorably.
Wyatt B. Durrette, Jr. successfully defended against a preliminary injunction and motion for summary judgment in a patent case in the Western District.
In a two week trial in Minneapolis in May 2007 Mr. Durrette and his team ultimately won on all of the patent issues even though he lost some of them to the jury. Mr. Durrette and his team represented a client who did not look good at all to the jury and the jury fit the prototype from the focus group that would be favorably inclined to the other side. But ultimately won all patent issues with the judge.
Mr. Durrette won the first age discrimination case against an American airline both in the Federal District Court and upheld in the 4th Circuit and is the only Virginia attorney to have successfully represented a plaintiff and a defendant in conspiracy cases in successful jury trials and the results upheld by the Virginia Supreme Court.
Mr. Durrette is named in Virginia's Legal Elite as one of the top fifty commercial litigators in Virginia and is named in Best Lawyers of America in the Litigation Section. He is also a member of the John Marshall Inn of Courts, rated as an AV lawyer by his peers in Martindale Hubbell and is a member of the Boyd-Graves Conference.
In the intellectual property field, he won a partial reversal in the 4th Circuit of a trial court decision that he did not handle in the trial court.
Citizens United v. Citizens United Not Timid, et al. (Southern District of Florida - Miami Division). Trademark Infringement. Settled Favorably.
Advanced Biological Laboratories, SA v. Ameripath Inc. and SmartGene, Inc. (Eastern District of Texas - Marshall Division). Patent Infringement. Motion to dismiss our client for lack of personal jurisdiction granted.
SmartGene, Inc. v. Advanced Biological Laboratories, SA (District Court for District of Columbia). Declaratory Judgment (Non-infringement, Invalidity, etc.). Pending.
Nova Ranger, Inc. v. Patterson Dental Supply, Inc., et al. (Southern District of California). Patent Infringement. Settled Favorable.
Cao Group, Inc. v. SDI Limited and SDI (North America), Inc. (District of Utah - Central Division). Patent Infringement. Pending.
James R. Creekmore is named in the Virginia Legal Elite in the Intellectual Property area. He has handled five patent infringement cases as one of the 2 or 3 principal attorneys on the case. None made it to trial.
The first was in Boston, and was arbitrated instead of tried and was a split decision - won on issue of infringement (he represented the patent holder) but lost on unfair comp claim related to how the license was handled. The case settled thereafter.
Second and third were same client/patent holder against two competitors for infringement. Won preliminary injunction against both after the first defendant caved and settled with an admission of infringement and license agreement. Second defendant had rug pulled out from under it because it was defending, remarkably, on copying the first defendant, not Mr. Creekmore and his client, and did not know of suit v. first defendant, admission of infringement or of settlement. When confronted with information, Mr. Creekmore mediated a settlement that put that defendant out of business a year later.
Fourth was handled through Markman hearing, Mr. Creekmore prevailed on that and then obtained summary judgment plus sanctions.
Fifth was handled through Markman and was preparing for trial when Mr. Creekmore left the representing firm.
Mr. Creekmore has handled almost exclusively trademark and copyright infringement cases in last 2 1/2 years.
Katherine F. Horvath’s practice focuses on patent, trademark, copyright and unfair competition litigation, as well as patent and portfolio management, patent analysis and patent prosecution.
Katie is an instructor for The National Institute for Trial Advocacy and created Microsoft’s Advocacy Academy for outside counsel.
Here are some of Ms. Horvath’s sample cases:
CAO v. SDI; SDI v. Philips Lumileds and Future Electronics (D. Utah) – pending 11 patent case involving dental curing technology
ABL v. Smartgene (E.D. Tex. and D.C.) – successfully dismissed patent infringement case on jurisdictional grounds in Texas, sent 2 HIV treatment regimen software patents-in-suit into reexamination and stayed DJ case pending reexamination.
FNI v. Brown (Or. Circuit Ct.) – obtained permanent injunction and stipulated judgment in trade secret misappropriation, breach of contract and unfair business practices case.
Nash v. Microsoft (S.D. Tex.) – successfully dismissed patent infringement claims on summary judgment for product activation technology, affirmed by Federal Circuit.
Rackman v. Microsoft (E.D.N.Y.) – defeated summary judgment motions on invalidity, inequitable conduct and sanctions motions, encryption patent sent into reexamination at USPTO (all claims of patent rejected by USPTO on reexamination – on appeal).
Alacritech v. Microsoft (N.D. Cal.) – obtained favorable settlement in server offloading technology patent case.
BTG v. Microsoft (N.D. Cal.) – obtained favorable settlement in 5 patent case regarding software technologies.
Thompson v. Microsoft (E.D. Mich.) – successfully dismissed case on summary judgment for computer software case with unfair competition claims related to patent technology.
Magnequench v. Microsoft (N.D. Ind.) – obtained favorable settlement prior to case discovery for hardware technology patent matter.
TV Interactive v. Fujitsu (N.D. Cal.) – obtained favorable settlement for defendant computer PC makers in four patent operating system and device driver case.
z4 v. Microsoft (E.D. Tex.) – jury trial resulted in verdict for plaintiff.
Korinsky v. Microsoft (S.D.N.Y.) - successfully dismissed patent case by motion on the pleadings.
Lucent v. Microsoft (S.D. Cal.) – managed 15 patent case; led audio and speech compression teams in preparing Markman and technology tutorial presentations and briefs.
Synopsys v. Nassda (N.D. Cal. and Cal. Superior Ct.) - successfully sent circulation simulation software patent into reexamination; defeated preliminary injunction; defeated terminating sanctions motions; defeated summary judgment motions on infringement, validity, inequitable conduct; managed patent and antitrust case as well as companion state trade secret case. Case resulted in favorable settlement and acquisition for client.
NEC v. eMachines (E.D. Cal.) – obtained favorable settlement in four patent computer hardware case.
Xicor v. Catalyst (D. Del.) – obtained favorable settlement after bringing patent infringement suit on digital potentiometer technology.
Decopac v. Vivid Image Technology (S.D. Ohio and S.D. Ca.) – case resulted in case dismissal for client for scanner patent and trade dress case.
Illinois Tool Works v. Exair (S.D. Ohio) – case resulted in favorable settlement for client in air knife patent case.
AK Steel v. Sollac (S.D. Ohio) – case resulted in favorable settlement for series of aluminized stainless patent cases; jury verdict against plaintiff, affirmed by Federal Circuit.
Masco v. United States (ITC) – case resulted in favorable settlement in electronic lock patent case.
Natmar v. Skinner (E.D. Ky.) – case resulted in favorable settlement in conveyor patent case.
Warner-Jenkinson v. Quimica (S.D. Ohio) – obtained favorable settlement after strong invalidity case in red food dye patent case.
Warner-Jenkinson v. Hilton Davis (S.D. Ohio) – case resulted in favorable settlement on remand after U.S. Supreme Court decision in red food dye patent case.
Richard L. Coffman is a business trial and appellate lawyer. From his home base in Beaumont, Texas, Mr. Coffman represents individuals and businesses both plaintiffs and defendants—throughout Texas and the United States in a wide variety of commercial cases involving antitrust, securities, RICO, ERISA, theft of trade secrets, overtime pay and professional liability matters.
For example, Mr. Coffman recently represented the directors of a small national bank in a federal court case in which he secured a $3.3 million RICO bank fraud verdict (before trebling) against a local automobile dealer who ran a check kiting scheme against the bank, and then successfully defended the directors in a parallel state court case.
Mr. Coffman also successfully represented a start-up telecommunications manufacturer against one of its joint venture partner Baby Bells for stealing trade secrets on which the telephone company surreptitiously secured a patent. He currently occupies leadership positions in several class actions in state and national cases involving employee benefits and identity theft.
Mr. Coffman is AV peer review rated, the highest rating possible, by the Martindale-Hubbell Law Directory. He also is a Certified Public Accountant.
Charles M. Allen is a registered patent attorney and intellectual property litigator who is named as one of the Virginia Legal Elite in the intellectual property area. In the last four years, Chuck has served as litigation counsel on the following patent infringement matters.
Dixon v. Belkin (E.D. Va.) (the case was settled before trial by the principal defendants – Chuck’s client was dismissed.
Dynaflex v. Orbyxx Electronics, LLC, (C.D. Cal.) (the case settled after the successful defense of the client at a PI hearing)
F&G Research v. Circuit City Stores, Inc. (S.D. Fla.) (Plaintiff dismissed the case before substantial discovery undertaken)
Ware v. Circuit City Stores, Inc. (N.G. Ga.) (case in progress – stayed pending re-exam)
JVW Enterprises v. Amazon.com, Inc. (W.D. N.Y.) (case was settled)
Kernius v. International Electronics, Inc (D. Maryland) (case dismissed by plaintiff after Chuck filed a summary judgment motion)
Commissariat l’Energie Atomique v. Best Buy Co. of Minn. (D. Del) (case in litigation – case stayed pending litigation of companion case)
Orion IP, LLC v. Costco Wholesale Corp. (E.D. Tex.) (case settled)
Realsource, Inc. v. Best Buy (W.D. Tex.) (client tendered defense of case and it was accepted– summary judgment granted- appeal likely)
Speedtrack, Inc. v. Office Depot, Inc. (N.D. Cal.) (client tendered defense of case and it was accepted – case is pending but is expected to be stayed pending litigation of companion case.)
Mr. Allen has tried numerous cases to verdict – both bench and jury trials, including criminal prosecution matters, criminal defense matters, professional negligence cases, product liability cases and commercial matters.
|
