Case Profiles

Wireless Ink v. Facebook, et. al.

Mr. Pitcock is lead counsel for plaintiff Wireless Ink in two patent infringement cases pending against Facebook, Google, YouTube and MySpace involving Wireless Ink's multiple mobile website technology patents. The case is pending in Federal court in New York City.

Intergen v. GoIP Global, et. al.

Mr. Pitcock is lead counsel for defendants in patent infringement and trade secret case involving text and Internet technology with counterclaims. The case is pending in Federal court in New York City.

Authenex v. Vasco.

Mr. Pitcock was lead counsel for plaintiff Authenex in a patent infringement case involving strong authentication devices. The case settled and was pending in Federal Court in Los Angeles.

JDSU v. Metconnex

Mr. Pitcock was lead counsel for plaintiff JDSU in a patent infringement case pending in Federal court in Los Angeles. The case involved tiny movable mirrors created with MEMS technology for routing laser beams. The case settled with Metconnex agreeing to cease its production of the infringing device, which put that company out of business.| Read more about the Metconnex case

3Com v. Realtek

Mr. Pitcock was counsel for plaintiff 3Com in a patent infringement case in Federal court in San Francisco concerning Ethernet chip technology. Prior counsel had been sanctioned for failing to provide the detail required for preliminary infringement contentions under the Patent Local Rules. Mr. Pitcock put together preliminary infringement contentions using publicly available materials that not only withstood scrutiny, but together with key testimony and claims constructions by Mr. Pitcock helped obtain a 45 million dollar verdict for 3Com. The case recently settled for $70 million.

Daiichi Pharmaceutical v. Mylan

Mr. Pitcock was counsel for plaintiff Daiichi in a patent infringement case in Federal court in West Virginia concerning the fluoroquinolone antibiotic Levaquin. Chief Judge Irene M. Keeley ruled in favor of Daiichi on all claims in their patent infringement action stemming from Mylan's filing of an ANDA. The 116-page decision followed a two-month bench trial and rejected each of Mylan's five separate invalidity and unenforceability defenses. Mr. Pitcock prepared the inventors and key technical fact and experts witnesses for their trial testimony, including the lead inventor, Dr. Hayakawa, who had been accused of inequitable conduct. The Federal Circuit affirmed Judge Keeley’s decision.

CPI (Avistar) v. Polycom

Mr. Pitcock was counsel for plaintiff CPI in a patent infringement case in Federal court in San Francisco concerning videoconferencing technology. The case was settled successfully shortly after motions for summary judgment were filed on the four patents at issue. The motions for summary judgment were made possible after a successful Markman hearing argued by Mr. Pitcock, when District Judge Chesney ruled in CPI’s favor on the construction of ten claim terms at issue in the four CPI patents at issue in the case.

JDSU v. Northrop Grumman

Mr. Pitcock was counsel for plaintiff JDSU in a patent infringement case in Federal court in New York City in a case involving light sources for fiber optic gyroscopes. Mr. Pitcock argued successfully against summary judgment early in the case, and took and defended all of the key fact and expert witnesses. The case settled on favorable terms.

Pumatech v. Synchrologic

Mr. Pitcock was counsel for defendant Synchrologic in patent infringement case in Federal court in Oakland concerning software used to synchronize databases. Case settled on favorable terms after the preliminary infringement contentions for the six patents at issue were largely thrown out of Court under a strategy developed by Mr. Pitcock.

Modern Creative Solutions v. Dell

Mr. Pitcock was lead counsel for plaintiff MCS in a trade secret misappropriation, fraud and breach of contract case pending in Federal court in New Jersey. The case involves product advisor software used to increase sales over the Internet. The case settled on favorable terms.

Euro RSCG v. Tarzian

Mr. Pitcock was lead counsel for plaintiff Euro RSCG in a copyright infringement case pending in Federal court in Connecticut. This case involves the creation of derivative works in copyrighted software used in marketing applications. The case settled on favorable terms.

Bridge Associates v. Bridge Finance Group

Mr. Pitcock was lead counsel for Plaintiff Bridge Associates in trademark infringement case. Argued for a preliminary injunction in Federal court in Connecticut.

Intel v. Amberwave

Mr. Pitcock was counsel for declaratory judgment plaintiff Intel in a patent infringement case in Delaware. Mr. Pitcock determined the strategy to have the case removed from the Eastern District of Texas. Mr. Pitcock also developed the noninfringement, invalidity and unenforceability arguments used in litigation. The case settled on favorable terms.

Patriot Scientific v. Intel

Mr. Pitcock was counsel for defendant Intel against patent infringement claims pending in Federal court in California. Mr. Pitcock developed the invalidity and noninfringement arguments, and the case was settled thereafter on favorable terms.

Maurice Mitchell v. NEC

Mr. Pitcock was counsel for defendant NEC in patent infringement case in Federal court in San Francisco concerning microprocessor and supercomputer architecture. After proposing constructions of the claims drafted by Mr. Pitcock and after allegations arose of inequitable conduct developed by Mr. Pitcock, the case settled on favorable terms.

United Microelectronics Corp. v. Silicon Integrated Systems Corp

Mr. Pitcock was counsel for plaintiff UMC in patent infringement and trade secret misappropriation action in Federal court in Oakland concerning processes for manufacturing semiconductors. Case settled on favorable terms.

USA-Kaifa Technology v. New Focus

Mr. Pitcock was counsel for plaintiff USA-Kaifa in patent and trade secret infringement action in Federal court in San Francisco concerning optical circulators. Case settled on favorable terms after successful Markman hearing on construction of terms developed by Mr. Pitcock.

VISX v. Nidek

Mr. Pitcock was counsel for defendant Nidek in patent infringement action (and antitrust counterclaim) in Federal court in San Francisco and U.S. International Trade Commission concerning excimer laser refractive correction surgery. Nidek prevailed before the ITC on multiple grounds related to VISX’s initial infringement claims. Case in San Francisco settled on favorable terms with respect to both patent and antitrust claims.

E-Tek v. Oplink

Mr. Pitcock was counsel for plaintiff E-Tek in patent infringement action in Federal court in San Francisco concerning WDM technology. The case settled on favorable terms using a strategy developed by Mr. Pitcock.