With decades of experience, RuyakCherian lawyers have managed and tried literally hundreds of patent cases in a wide variety of technologies and business sectors. We team our technology-savvy lawyers with sector-specific experts, technologists and engineers, to place you in the best position to win at every stage of a case whether an IPR, a Markman or jury trial. We are focused on the technologies transforming our world. And we are focused on you, the innovators and disruptors, whom we are privileged to represent.
Team Worldwide Corporation v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. et al. (E.D. Texas)
Represented Team Worldwide Corporation (“TWW”), an inflatable products manufacturer, against Walmart and the largest airbed suppliers in the U.S. (a multi-billion-dollar industry). The firm secured a favorable settlement before trial in the underlying litigation.
Luminati Networks Ltd. v. UAB Tesonet and UAB Metacluster LT (E.D. Texas). Represent Luminati Networks Ltd. In a patent infringement action against Lithuanian companies. Case is in discovery.
Apple Computer, Inc. v. Articulate Sys. (N.D. California). Represented Plaintiff Apple in an infringement suit brought against Articulate patent infringement of portions of an Apple patented operating system.
Chrimar Systems, Incorporated v. Foundry Networks, Incorporated. (E.D. Michigan). Represented Brocade Communications (acquired Foundry Networks, Inc.) against Chrimar Systems. The matter involved allegations of patent infringement by Foundry’s incorporation of the “Power-Over-Ethernet” industry standard. (Chrimar had also separately sued all of the other major players in the router and switch industry, including Cisco Systems and D-Link, and had successfully extracted settlements from each of them.) Foundry fought to invalidate the asserted claims and after seven years of protracted litigation, we won summary judgment of patent invalidity based upon obviousness of the asserted claim, and the case was dismissed. Chrimar appealed, but the Federal Circuit summarily affirmed the lower court.
Lucent Technologies, Inc., v. Foundry Networks, Inc. (D. Delaware) and Foundry Networks, Inc., v. Lucent Technologies, Inc. (E.D. Texas). Represented Foundry Networks, Inc., in a four patent litigation matter involving networking patents. Represented Foundry in a separate matter against Lucent in Texas asserting a patent against Lucent VOIP platforms. Lucent agreed to settle the matter on highly favorable
terms to Foundry.
Allflex USA, Inc. v. Avid Identification Systems, Inc. (C.D. California). Successfully represented a client in the Radio Frequency Identification technology field in defending against five patents. The patent holder paid our client $6.5M to settle.
BridgeLux, Inc. v. Cree, Inc. and Cree, Inc. and Trustees (E.D. Texas). Successfully represented BridgeLux, Inc., a leading Silicon Valley high power light emitting diode (LED) company, in a series of patent infringement cases against competitor Cree, Inc., involving five LED patents. Obtained favorable confidential settlement as a result of successful strategy involving declaratory judgment actions and Markman claim construction of patents-in-suit.
Boston Scientific Corp. v. Medtronic AVE, Inc. (Arbitration). Represented Boston Scientific in a patent infringement claim concerning catheters used in coronary angioplasty.
Cook Inc. v. Boston Sci. Corp. (N.D. Illinois). Represented Defendant Boston Scientific in a patent infringement case related to cardiovascular stents.
Dean v. Simmons (D. Vermont). Represented Plaintiff Dean on claims of patent infringement case against Richard Simmons for copying of Dean’s patented mechanical exercise device.
Digital Satellite System Receivers and Components Thereof (International Trade Commission, Washington, DC). Patent Bench Trial. Represented patent holder Personalized Mass Media, Inc. in a trial before the International Trade Commission seeking to exclude the importation of digital television cable boxes based on their infringement of Personalized Mass Media patents.
General Electric v. Sonosite (W.D. Wisconsin). Represented Plaintiff GE in a patent infringement case against Sonosite related to ultrasound medical diagnostic equipment.
GTE Wireless, Inc. v. Qualcomm, Inc. (E.D. Virginia). Represented Plaintiff GTE against Defendant Qualcom for patent infringement alleging that Qualcomm infringed a GTE patent related to cellular wireless carrier signal acquisition devices.
Hologic, Inc. v. SenoRx, Inc. (N.D. California). Represented Plaintiff Hologic in a patent infringement case related to interstitial breast tumor balloon brachytherapy devices.
Micron Semiconductor, Inc. v. Hyundai, et al. Represented a respondent in a patent infringement action involving anisotropic plasma etching of semiconductors. The trial spanned four weeks, during which officials from many Silicon Valley companies appeared to testify in Hyundai’s case-in-chief. The matter was settled prior to a written decision from the administrative law judge.
Network-1 Security Solutions Inc. v. Cisco Systems, Inc., et al. (E.D. Texas). Successfully represented Brocade Communication in a patent case brought by Network One. Case settled on favorable terms during trial.
NuVasive v. Globus Medical, Inc. (D. Delaware). Patent Jury Trial. Defended Globus in a patent litigation involving spinal implants and surgical instruments. Resulted in a favorable settlement for Globus while case was on an appeal.
SciMed Life Sys. v. Advanced Cardiovascular Sys. (N.D. California). Represented Plaintiff SciMed on claims of patent infringement against defendant ACS of SciMed’s patents on angioplasty catheter products.
Sun Microsystems, Inc. v. Kingston Tech. Co. (N.D. California). Represented Plaintiff Sun Micro on patent infringement claims against Defendant Kingston for infringement of Sun Micro memory module patents.
Tinkers & Chance v. LeapFrog Enterprises, Inc. (E.D. Texas). Represented defendant in a suit for patent infringement related to electronic educational toys. Achieved settlement extremely favorable to client.
Wang Laboratories, Inc. v. MA Labs, Inc. (N.D. California). Represented Plaintiff Wang Labs in a patent licensing dispute with Defendant MA Labs related to memory modules.
Wang Laboratories, Inc. v. Mitsubishi Electronics America, Inc. (S.D. California). Patent Jury Trial. Represented plaintiff Wang Laboratories on claims of patent infringement by Mitsubishi of Want Laboratories’ semiconductor patents.
Wang Laboratories, Inc. v. Toshiba and NEC (E. D. of Virginia). Patent Jury Trial. Represented Wang Laboratories on claims of patent infringement by Toshiba and NEC of Wang Laboratories seminal patents covering memory modules used in mini and desktop