- O’Melveny secured a victory for Samsung Electronics and US-based subsidiaries in two consolidated patent infringement lawsuits brought by Virginia Innovation Sciences (VIS) in the Eastern District of Virginia. VIS accused dozens of Samsung’s flagship products including the Galaxy S series smartphones, Galaxy Tab, and Galaxy Note products of infringing six patents purportedly covering the transmission of downloaded video content from a mobile device onto an alternative display such as a television. VIS sought over US$100 million in past damages and a royalty on future sales through expiration of the patents in 2025. First, O’Melveny won a motion that removed willful infringement from the case and invalidated certain claims. Next, on the eve of trial, Samsung won summary judgment of non-infringement on most of the remaining claims which severely limited potential damages. These rulings, combined with other key victories at the pretrial conference, signaled the death knell for the cases. VIS stipulated to a judgment of non-infringement in order to create a final appealable judgment, resulting in a complete district court victory for Samsung and saving it the cost of completing trial.
- O’Melveny defeated class certification on a multibillion-dollar price-fixing claim against Samsung, Toshiba, Panasonic, Sony, Philips, BenQ, Hitachi, LG, and several joint ventures owned by combinations of these companies. The Northern District of California denied class certification as to both direct purchasers and indirect purchasers in an antitrust MDL in which major manufacturers of Optical Disk Drives (ODD) and products containing ODDs were alleged over a six year period (2004-2010) to have conspired to fix prices and to have engaged in bid rigging. O’Melveny argued the motion on behalf of the direct purchaser defendants and drafted the winning brief on class certification. This is only the second time that a court has denied class certification in the civil setting even though certain defendants and their executives pleaded guilty on the criminal side. The Ninth Circuit subsequently denied the plaintiffs’ petition for permission to appeal."