• Ben represents a global consumer electronics company in a long-running dispute. The plaintiff filed two different litigations asserting a combined 10 patents. Ben represented our client in the District Court litigations, as well as in filing 10 IPR petitions. In one case, Ben litigated through Markman, which resulted in one of the asserted patents being ruled invalid as indefinite. Concurrently, Ben prepared and filed 10 IPR petitions, which were all instituted. Both cases were stayed after the IPRs were instituted, and they remain stayed. The IPRs resulted in invalidation of most of the challenged patents in IPR FWDs. After the IPRs, our client retained Ben to prepare and argue the associated appeals. To date, three of four IPRs have been decided, resulting in complete victories with the Federal Circuit affirming all of the unpatentability determinations and reversing and/or remanding the Board’s patentability findings after agreeing with our claim construction positions. The final appeal remains pending at the Federal Circuit.
• Represented a global consumer electronics company before the PTAB when the firm was hired to defend ITC and multiple E.D. Tex. patent cases that asserted patents that generally relate to integrated circuits, systems-on-a-chip, and processors. Ben successfully instituted multiple IPRs, and the matter ramped up quickly until our team successfully settled all the matters prior to the ITC hearing.
• Ben successfully instituted 15 IPRs in O’Melveny’s defense of a global consumer electronics company in a series of high-stakes cases that included three District Court cases and two ITC investigations. Our client was accused of infringing 15 patents relating to touchscreen technology. The parties were just days away from trial in the first ITC investigation when O’Melveny successfully negotiated a global settlement.
• Ben secured institution of multiple related inter partes review proceedings related to three patent infringement suits filed against our client, a large semiconductor manufacturer. In the first case, the District Court stayed the case pending the final outcome of the IPRs. These IPRs concluded with FWDs that cancelled all challenged claims. In response, the plaintiff filed two new cases against our client. After vigorous discovery and early motion practice, the parties reached a favorable resolution to all three matters.
• Ben was hired to defend a global consumer electronics company and its indemnifier in a four-patent litigation involving interactive voice messaging, user interface, and networking technologies. After the four petitions were filed, the plaintiff agreed to a District Court stay, the PTAB instituted IPRs on all four of the asserted patents, and the case settled soon thereafter.
• Ben is representing a global media company against assertions that it infringes a patent related to the distribution of television content. Ben was retained to file an IPR petition against the asserted patent. Shortly after the IPR was instituted, the plaintiff agreed to stay the case, pausing claim construction proceedings mid-stream and taking an imminent Markman hearing off calendar.
• Ben was retained by a prominent automotive company to defend in District Court and file IPR petitions against six asserted patents. We successfully obtained a transfer of the District Court action to the N. D. Cal., where the plaintiff dropped two of the patents. Ben filed three IPRs and joined a fourth IPR, and the District Court stayed the case pending the outcome of the IPRs. We prevailed in all four IPRs and two on appeal were recently affirmed by the Federal Circuit resulting in a complete win for our client.
• Ben defended three patents related to power injectable vascular pumps against a PTAB challenge. Ben was successful in getting all three PTAB petitions denied, which helped bring years of complex patent litigation to a close. This settlement represents a significant milestone in protecting our client’s patent rights and demonstrates our commitment to defending our clients' innovations.
• Ben defended a well-known automotive company in a pair of related four-patent cases relating to mapping and navigation, and in a related IPR. We took aggressive steps from the outset of the case, including: (1) filing Rule 12 motions to dismiss based on improper venue and no direct infringement; (2) forcing patent owner to stipulate to dismissal of two of four patents based on a lack of any viable infringement theory; (3) filing a motion to transfer the action to California; and (4) filing an IPR. These early actions drove the plaintiff to a nuisance settlement.
• The plaintiff asserted a patent related to location-determination techniques against a global consumer electronics company in a District Court action. Ben was retained by the consumer electronics company and its indemnifier to file an IPR petition against the asserted patent. The plaintiff agreed to stay the litigation shortly after the IPR was filed, before claim construction or other substantial discovery commenced. The IPR concluded with an FWD cancelling all challenged claims.
• The plaintiff asserted a patent related to three-dimensional mapping and location determinations against a global technology company. Ben was retained to file an IPR petition against the asserted patent. The plaintiff agreed to stay the litigation shortly after the IPR was filed, before claim construction or other substantial discovery commenced. The IPR concluded with an FWD cancelling all challenged claims.
• A global technology company retained Ben to defend its interests in a second wave of cases filed by the plaintiff in District Court related to voice-controlled web-browsing and home automation. In this second wave of cases, the plaintiff asserted a number of patents that were related to patents previously asserted against our client. We obtained a transfer to the N. D. Cal. District Court. Ben prepared and filed a number of IPR petitions on the asserted patents, resulting in four instituted IPR proceedings. The underlying litigation was stayed pending the result of the IPRs. The Board then issued three Final Written Decisions cancelling all challenged claims. The three FWDs cancelling all challenged claims have now been affirmed by the Federal Circuit, the last appeal remains pending, and the underlying case remains stayed. Of note, one of the IPR proceedings resulted in a rare sanctions order and hearing against the patent owner for advancing frivolous and legally unsupportable positions.
• The plaintiff asserted a patent related to advertisements and video streaming against a global technology company and its subsidiary. Ben was retained to file an IPR petition against the asserted patent. The plaintiff agreed to voluntary terminate the case without any settlement payment shortly after the IPR was instituted. The IPR continued nonetheless and resulted in a final written decision invalidating all of the patent’s claims.
• A driver-based app entity hired Ben to file IPR petitions against four patents. The PTAB instituted two of the petitions and we prevailed on all claims. The case was transferred to the N. D. Cal., where it was stayed pending the outcome of the IPRs. Our client also hired Ben to defend its wins on appeal, which is pending, and the District Court case remains stayed.

While at a previous firm, Ben represented clients in a variety of industries and matters, including the following:

• Represented DVR developer and manufacturer in patent infringement case related to cable television and mobile device hardware and software; argued claim construction in E.D. Tex.; case settled favorably shortly after the claim construction hearing.
• Defended developer and manufacturer of silicon tuner chips for smart TVs and set-top boxes in a series of IPR disputes; argued oral hearing before the PTAB and secured a final written decision rejecting each of the petitioner’s validity challenges.
• Defended a publicly traded medical device company against a competitor in an IPR petition; PTAB denied IPR institution as to all challenged claims on claim construction grounds.
• Represented manufacturer of aircraft passenger cabin interior products in a Federal Circuit appeal that resulted in a unanimous precedential decision affirming a lower court finding of noninfringement.
• Invalidated three patents related to vacuum toilet systems in multiple IPR proceedings representing petitioner in the aerospace industry.
• Secured denial of institution of two IPR petitions on behalf of glass company; preserved claims subsequently found willfully infringed, resulting in a jury verdict of more than $50,000,000 in favor of client.
• Secured triple summary judgments of non-infringement for aerospace company in case related to vacuum toilet systems (C.D. Cal.).
• Represented company that develops and markets networking products as patent owner in two concurrent IPR proceedings; both IPRs terminated by favorable settlement agreement.
• Represented DVR developer and manufacturer as plaintiff in two separate patent infringement actions against competitors; favorably settled on the eve of trial (E.D. Tex.).
• Represented medical device company in bench trial on double patenting relating to vascular closure devices; case settled on favorable terms shortly thereafter.
• Defended DVR developer and manufacturer in a Section 337 ITC patent infringement investigation; case settled on the eve of trial with a walk-away agreement.
• Defended smart-phone manufacturer in a Section 337 ITC investigation relating to mobile web access; plaintiff dropped the case days before trial.