Representative Cases


GE Lighting Solutions, LLC v. Agilight, Inc.

Case No. 2013-1267, in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (representing GE Lighting Solutions, LLC) - At issue in the appeal were three of the district court's claim constructions affecting four of GE Lighting Solutions' asserted patents. Based on these claim constructions, the district court had granted summary judgment of no infringement on the four GE patents, in favor of the defendant. On review, the Federal Circuit rejected the district court's construction of one term, adopted GE's construction, and reversed the grant of summary judgment on two of the four asserted patents. On a second claim term, the Federal Circuit rejected the district court's application of a claim construction agreed by the parties and remanded the case for further proceedings on the genuine issue of fact that was created with regard to the third patent. The Federal Circuit affirmed the third claim construction, which only affected the fourth asserted patent.


Legends, Inc. v. The Upper Deck Co. LLC

Case No. 4:09-cv-3463, in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Texas (representing The Upper Deck Co., LLC)-Taking over Upper Deck's defense just two months before trial, SMD obtained a jury verdict of no infringement and no willful infringement. Legends alleged that Upper Deck infringed a patent concerning a method for authenticating signatures on sports memorabilia, and sought actual damages of over $4 million and enhanced damages.


Fotolia_4498799_Subscription_Monthly_M (1).jpg

ION Geophysical Corp. v. Sercel, Inc.

Case No. 5:06-cv-236, in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Texas (representing ION Geophysical Corp.)-SMD's attorneys represented ION in this patent infringement suit involving a micro-electro-mechanical sensor ("MEMS") used for seismic exploration applications. At trial, the jury found that Sercel infringed ION's patent and awarded ION all of its requested compensatory damages.


Baker Hughes Incorporated v. Varel Holdings Inc.

Case No. 2009-75553, in the 269th District Court, Harris County, Texas (representing Baker Hughes Incorporated)-In this trade secret misappropriation suit concerning design of tri-cone drill bits, SMD's lawyers obtained a jury verdict with Baker Hughes being awarded $25.2 million in both actual and punitive damages. The case then settled.


Fotolia_70774379_Subscription_Monthly_M.jpg

Frank's Casing Crew and Rental Tools, Inc. and Frank's International, Inc. v. Tesco Corporation and Tesco Corporation (US) v. Robert P. Appleton

Cases Nos. 2:07-cv-15 and 2:08-cv-239, in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Texas (representing Robert P. Appleton)-SMD's attorneys represented the alleged actual inventor of patents directed to a drill tubing running tool granted to Frank's Casing Crew. When Frank's Casing Crew sued Tesco for infringement of these patents, Mr. Appleton filed suit to claim his inventorship rights. The cases were consolidated, and settled only weeks before trial.


iSymphony Holding Enterprises LLC v. Steverson & Co., Inc. d/b/a iSymphony

Case No. 4:07-cv-870, in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Texas (representing iSymphony Holding Enterprises LLC)-SMD's attorneys represented the plaintiff in this declaratory action suit seeking declaration of no infringement of trademark rights. SMD's attorneys defeated a motion for a preliminary injunction and then obtained a jury verdict of no trademark infringement, no dilution, and no unfair competition.


Fotolia_2201708_Subscription_Monthly_M.jpg

Haberman v. Gerber Products Company

Case No. 3:05-cv-224, in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Wisconsin (representing Gerber Products Company)-SMD's attorneys defended Gerber in this patent infringement suit relating to children's sippy cups. At trial, the jury found both patents not infringed and one patent invalid. SMD's attorneys also represented Gerber in the appeal to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, where the appellate court upheld the jury verdict of no liability.


Fotolia_78291142_Subscription_Monthly_M.jpg

Power-One, Inc. v. Artesyn Technologies, Inc.

Case No. 2:05-cv-463, in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Texas (representing Artesyn Technologies, Inc.)-SMD's attorneys defended Artesyn in this patent infringement suit concerning digital control of board-level power regulators. Artesyn was accused of infringing four patents. The first two patents were taken to trial, where the jury returned a verdict of no infringement on one patent, and Power-One obtained an award of only $100 in damages for infringement of the second patent. After trial, Power-One dismissed its allegations on the remaining two patents with prejudice.


DP Wagner.png

DP Wagner Mfg. Inc. v. Pro Patch Systems, Inc.

Case No. 4:04-cv-4610, in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Texas (representing DP Wagner Mfg. Inc.)-SMD's attorneys represented DP Wagner in this patent false marking, unfair competition, and anti-trust case involving wall patching technologies. SMD's attorneys won summary judgment on the false marking claims, leading to the issuance of one of the earliest and most widely-cited patent false marking opinions to date.


Iron Grip Barbell Co., et al. v. USA Sports, Inc.

Case No. 8:02-cv-498, in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California (representing USA Sports, Inc.)-SMD's attorneys represented USA Sports against allegations of infringement of one design and two utility patents. USA Sports won a dismissal with prejudice with respect to the design patent, summary judgment of invalidity with respect to one utility patent, and summary judgment of non-infringement with respect to the second utility patent.


Fotolia_76342724_Subscription_Monthly_M.jpg

Compaq Computer Corporation v. Ergonome Inc.

Case No. H-97-1026, in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Texas (representing Compaq Computer Corporation)-SMD's attorneys represented Compaq in this declaratory judgment suit for determination of no copyright infringement. The defendant Ergonome asserted claims for hundreds of millions of dollars for fraud and copyright infringement. The district court granted Compaq's motion to dismiss the fraud claim on summary judgment. After an eight-day trial, the jury found that Compaq had actually copied from the copyrighted work at issue, but found in favor of Compaq on two affirmative defenses, de minimis and fair use. The Court entered judgment that Ergonome take nothing, holding that Compaq was entitled to the laches and equitable estoppel defenses, awarding $2,760,000 in attorney's fees to Compaq against Ergonome (the largest award ever of attorney's fees in a copyright case) and awarding $101,000 in attorney's fees against Ergonome's former counsel for unnecessarily multiplying the proceedings. The Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed the case, including the award of attorney's fees.