IP Licensing Litigation
Our Intellectual Property (IP) Licensing Litigation Practice Group has extensive experience and a proven track record of achieving exceptional results for our clients in a cost-effective and efficient manner. We have successfully represented clients in IP licensing litigation matters involving hundreds of millions of dollars, achieving extremely favorable results in a variety of jurisdictions, both throughout the United States and in international arbitration forums.
Representative Matters of Note
- Successfully represented the world's leading administrator of patent pools, which relate to the technologies used in various consumer electronic products, in a multi-year licensing litigation against one of the world's largest PC manufacturers, arising out of the company's method of calculating the number of products on which it was obligated to pay royalties, in which in excess of one hundred million dollars was at issue.
- Obtained the dismissal of nearly a dozen antitrust counterclaims asserted against a leading patent pool administrator.
- Successfully represented a global patent pool administrator in a licensing dispute against one of the world's largest consumer electronics manufacturers, based in Korea, arising out of the company's failure to report and pay royalties, in which in excess of one hundred million dollars was it issue.
- Successfully represented a leading software developer in a multi-million dollar licensing dispute against a group of Chinese national corporations, which involved the interpretation of a minimum royalty provision and which was tried to completion before the London Court of International Arbitration.
Attorneys in the IP Licensing and Litigation Practice Group work closely with colleagues in the Firm's other Practice groups, including Intellectual Property, Technology & e-Commerce and Litigation & Alternative Dispute Resolution, providing clients with comprehensive representation.
IP Licensing Litigation Team Defends Dismissal of Patent Pool Antitrust Complaint in 5th Circuit - Apr 29, 2021