Authentication and notification

Verifying that a person is who they say they are

  • Twilio v. TeleSign, Patent Trial and Appeal Board. U.S. Patent 7,945,034. Obviousness assertions against a fraud detection process based on a user's telephone number were rejected by the Board.
  • TeleSign v. Twilio, Central District of California. U.S. Patents 7,945,034; 8,462,920; 8,687,038; 9,300,792, with three inter partes reviews defended.
  • StrikeForce v. PhoneFactor and StrikeForce v. Microsoft, District of Delaware. U.S. Patents 7,870,599; 8,484,698; 8,713,701, concerning out of band authentication.
  • SimpleAir v. Microsoft, Eastern District of Texas. U.S. Patents 7,035,914; 6,021,433.

Cryptography, encoding and security

Keeping data unreadable to the wrong reader

  • Princeton Digital v. Microsoft, District of Delaware. U.S. Patent 4,813,056.
  • Tallgrass v. Microsoft, Eastern District of Texas. The Addison Fischer patents, U.S. Patents 5,346,972; 6,141,423; 6,216,229.
  • Pantaurus v. Microsoft, Eastern District of Texas. U.S. Patent 6,272,533.

Communications, email and imaging

Moving a message or a picture from one place to another

  • Comcast v. Sprint, Eastern District of Pennsylvania. U.S. Patent 5,991,271.
  • InNova v. Cinemark, Eastern District of Texas. U.S. Patent 6,018,761.
  • E-contact v. Microsoft, Eastern District of Texas. U.S. Patent 5,347,579.
  • Skyline v. Microsoft, Eastern District of Virginia. U.S. Patent 7,551,172.

Chemical

Chemistry and materials rather than software

  • Buckman v. Solenis, Western District of Tennessee. U.S. Patents 8,841,469; 8,962,059. Argued at the Federal Circuit, and the argument is in the court's public recordings.
  • Buckman v. Nalco, Northern District of Illinois. U.S. Patents 7,949,432; 8,012,758; 7,981,679.

Trademark

Names and marks rather than inventions

  • Defended a fashion company against a cancellation proceeding.
  • Pursued an opposition on behalf of a non-profit.

About this list

These are public matters listed by the firm. Every case turns on its own record, its own court and its own facts, and past results do not guarantee a similar outcome.