Electrical, Mechanical, and Computer Science Litigation

The complexity of today’s technology systems and the high value of intellectual property make industry disputes inevitable. Successful patent litigation requires broad intellectual resources combined with deep technological knowledge and an understanding of clients’ businesses.

Our more than 60 dedicated Electrical, Mechanical, and Computer Science lawyers work with our clients as advisors, helping maximize the value of patent portfolios through licensing and enforcement efforts carefully designed to monetize our clients’ assets. We further work with our clients to strategically anticipate and reduce infringement risks to product lines and business activities, analyze patent landscapes, provide formal opinions of counsel, and, if necessary, defend our clients in patent litigation cases throughout the country. We offer skilled and tested patent litigation advocacy in courts across the United States, in proceedings before the International Trade Commission, and in private mediations or arbitrations. When litigation becomes unavoidable, our time-tested winning formula joins together experienced patent litigators, accomplished jury-trial lawyers, and registered patent attorneys well-versed in technology and science. To form cost-effective legal teams, we draw from our significant bench depth located across the country, from the East Coast, through the Midwest, to the West Coast.

The Electrical, Mechanical, and Computer Science Litigation team handles actions in courts across the United States, from Delaware to Texas, from Virginia to California, and all places in between. Moreover, our experience has also benefitted clients in the following venues:

  • Inter Partes Review, Post-Grant Review, and Covered Business Method Proceedings in the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office. Spurred by the recent America Invents Act, patent litigation is now increasingly shifting to the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office through proceedings, such as inter partes, post-grant, and covered business method reviews. These new adversarial procedures for invalidating patents differ significantly from the prior inter partes and ex parte reexamination proceedings and include characteristics of a district court bench trial on the issue of validity, albeit before the Patent Office. The new proceedings feature discovery between the parties and culminate in a “trial” before the newly formed Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB). We are widely recognized for our experience and skill in navigating the Patent Office, where members of our prosecution and litigation teams have previously served as patent examiners, including a supervising patent attorney and a member of the Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences.
  • Proceedings before the International Trade Commission (ITC). Patent holders frequently employ ITC actions to prevent product importation by competitors. At BakerHostetler, we bring our ITC experience to bear, whether representing clients who seek relief against infringing competitors or clients who are accused of infringement. We also frequently represent clients in ITC proceedings brought by patent assertion entities. 
More »
Electrical

We help some of the most innovative companies in the world protect their intellectual property in virtually all areas of electrical engineering, including telecommunications, power distribution, consumer electronic products, computer forensic devices, industrial processes, thermal technologies, e-commerce, POS, and internet systems.

Our firm has many attorneys educated and experienced in electrical engineering, systems engineering, physics, and other science and technology fields. In addition, many have previously worked as in-house counsel for innovative companies such as RCA, IBM, Canon, Motorola, BellSouth, AT&T Mobility, Luxottica, and Microsoft, to name a few. This unique business savvy experience allows us to provide highly-specialized electrical engineering services by fitting the right attorney to the task.

We provide a broad array of services to clients in the electrical engineering field. We counsel clients on strategic use of intellectual property. We also represent our clients in patent infringement actions that are needed to generate licensing revenue, protect intellectual property assets, and protect market share.

Mechanical

BakerHostetler works with mechanical engineering clients to develop intellectual property strategies and relationships that survive the test of time. Our experience covers a broad range of products including metal beverage cans, paper packaging, plastic bottles, balloon angioplasty catheters, computer disk drives, computer connectors, single-use cameras, powered wheelchairs, gas turbines, artificial hearts, air pollution control, semiconductor processing, medical testing equipment, medical imaging equipment, dental technology, water treatment, ship building, and nuclear power.

Our substantial industry experience makes us well-versed in the problems facing clients competing in mechanical engineering markets in the United States and worldwide. Our lawyers are active in the American Society of Mechanical Engineers and various nanotechnology groups in addition to legal organizations.

Computer Software

BakerHostetler protects and enforces intellectual property rights in the field of computer science. We represent clients in matters involving a wide-range of computing technologies, including operating systems, database systems, compilers, computer graphics, computer security, cryptography, virtual machines, microprocessor design, storage media, network architecture, web servers, digital rights management, tamper-resistant software and hardware, and more.

Many of our attorneys have advanced degrees in computer science and worked as engineers and software developers. Our attorneys have served as in-house counsel for Microsoft, Unisys, and Motorola, and have first-hand experience building portfolios in computer-related intellectual property. The breadth of our experience and the depth of our knowledge allow us to comprehend the nuances of any technology quickly and thoroughly. We also frequently enforce and defends intellectual property rights through litigation.

Select Experience

Electrical
  • Represented clients in Internet applications case (Civix DDI LLC v. Motorola Inc, et. Al, (N.D. Ill.))
  • Represented client in case regarding electrical instruments (IPCO, LLC v. Elster Electricity LLC, (N.D. Georgia))
  • Represented client in case regarding electrical instrumentation (ABB Automation Inc. v. Schlumberger Resource Management Services, Inc. (D. Del.))
  • Represented client in case regarding speech coding (AT&T Corporation v. Microsoft Corporation (S.D.N.Y.))
Mechanical
  • Bayer Healthcare LLC v. Abbott Labs, Inc. (D. Del.)
  • Anheuser Bush v. Crown Cork & Seal Co., Inc. (Wis.)
  • LifeScan, Inc. v. Home Diagnostics, Inc. (N.D. Cal.)
  • DePuy Mitek, Inc. v. Arthrex, Inc. (D. Mass.)
Computer Software
  • Representing Microsoft in a patent infringement action involving voice encoder-decoder products (AT&T, Inc. v. Microsoft Corp. (S.D. N.Y.))
  • Representing Microsoft Corp., et al. in a patent infringement case involving Internet-based mapping and location systems and methods (Civix-DDI, LLC v. Microsoft Corp. et al. (D. Colo.))
  • Representing Elster Electricity in patent infringement action involving wireless mesh networking (IPCO v. Elster Electricity LLC, (N.D. Ga.))
  • Successfully represented Guidance Software in an International Trade Commission (ITC) trial to determine whether Guidance Software’s manufacture and sale of certain computer forensic devices, used by such federal agencies as the CIA, Department of Homeland Security, Department of Defense, and Federal Bureau of Investigations, violated section 337 of the Tariff Act of 1930 due to the alleged infringement of two patents. Chief Administrative Law Judge Bullock entered an order in favor of Guidance on both patents determining that no 337 violation had occurred.
  • Representing Visual Technology Applications in a patent infringement case involving computer-based vision testing and therapy software (Visual Technology Applications, Inc. v. Gemstone Educational Management, LLC. (E.D. Pa.))
More »

Professionals

Name Title Office Email
Michael E. Anderson Partner Washington, D.C.
Miriam C. Beezy Partner Los Angeles
William C. Bergmann Partner Washington, D.C.
Kevin M. Bovard Partner Philadelphia
Jared A. Brandyberry Associate Denver
Barry E. Bretschneider Partner Washington, D.C.
Derek H. Campbell Associate Chicago
Charles C. Carson Counsel Washington, D.C.
Soonwuk Cheong Ph.D. Patent Agent Washington, D.C.
Lisa N. Collins Associate Atlanta
Gregory J. Commins Jr. Partner Washington, D.C.
John P. Corrado Partner Washington, D.C.
Regina Vogel Culbert Of Counsel Seattle
John P. Donohue Jr. Partner Philadelphia
Sarah C. Dukmen Associate Philadelphia
David A. Einhorn Partner New York
Erich M. Falke Partner Philadelphia
R. Scott Feldmann Partner Costa Mesa
Daniel J. Goettle Partner Philadelphia
Jason P. Grier Associate Atlanta
Gregory A. Grissett Associate Philadelphia
Lesley M. Grossberg Associate Philadelphia
James B. Hatten Associate Atlanta
Dale M. Heist Partner Philadelphia
John S. Hilten Partner Washington, D.C.
Herbert E. Hoffman Associate Philadelphia
Jason F. Hoffman Partner Washington, D.C.
Kevin W. Kirsch Partner Cincinnati
David E. Kitchen Partner Cleveland
Jeffrey W. Lesovitz Partner Philadelphia
John S. Letchinger Partner Chicago
Gary H. Levin Partner Philadelphia
Carrie A. Longstaff Associate New York
Charlie C. Lyu Associate Philadelphia
Kassity L. Mai Associate Washington, D.C.
David A. Mancino Partner Cincinnati
John E. McGlynn Partner Philadelphia
Christina J. Moser Partner Cleveland
John F. Murphy Partner Philadelphia
M. Mitchell Oates Associate Philadelphia
Jason S. Oliver Partner New York
Joseph P. O'Malley Counsel Philadelphia
Stephanie M. Papastephanou Associate Philadelphia
Henrik D. Parker Partner Philadelphia
Tayan B. Patel Associate Washington, D.C.
Paul E. Poirot Partner Washington, D.C.
Katrina M. Quicker Partner Atlanta
Robert T. Razzano Partner Cincinnati
Michael J. Riesen Associate Atlanta
Steven J. Rocci Partner Philadelphia
Douglas S. Rupert Partner Chicago
Chad A. Rutkowski Partner Philadelphia
Steven B. Samuels Partner Philadelphia
Brian L. Saunders Associate Philadelphia
Kenneth J. Sheehan Partner Washington, D.C.
Thomas H. Shunk Partner Cleveland
Scott S. Simpkins Associate Philadelphia
Hans P. Smith Associate Costa Mesa
Scott R. Stanley Associate Cincinnati
Michael D. Stein Partner Seattle
Michael J. Swope Partner Seattle
Oren J. Warshavsky Partner New York
Shawnna M. Yashar Partner Washington, D.C.

Experience

Electrical

We have represented clients in the following cases that involved electrical engineering:

  • Represented clients in Internet applications case (Civix DDI LLC v. Motorola Inc, et. Al, (N.D. Ill.))
  • Represented client in case regarding electrical instruments (IPCO, LLC v. Elster Electricity LLC, (N.D. Georgia))
  • Represented client in case regarding electrical instrumentation (ABB Automation Inc. v. Schlumberger Resource Management Services, Inc. (D. Del.))
  • Represented client in case regarding speech coding (AT&T Corporation v. Microsoft Corporation (S.D.N.Y.))
  • Defended accused infringer, Guidance Software, against patent claims related to computer forensics technologies, obtaining a finding of no violation after trial in August 2012. (In the Matter of Certain Computer Forensic Devices and Products Containing the Same, International Trade Commission, Case No. 337-TA-799)
  • Defended accused infringer against patent claims related to DVD scene selection menus, with case settled on confidential terms after jury trial in December 2012. (Patent Harbor, LLC v. Audiovox Corporation, ED Texas, Case No. 6:10-cv-00361
  • Obtained summary judgment of no liability for accused infringer, Muzak Holdings LLC and Muzak LLC, against patent claims related to programmable messaging system for controlling playback of messages on remote music on-hold. (Info-Hold, Inc. v. Muzak Holdings LLC and Muzak LLC, SD Ohio, Case No. 1:11-cv-283)
  • Represented patent owner against alleged infringer in litigation related to high speed variable printing technologies, with the case settled on confidential terms. (Tesseron, Ltd. v. Konica Minolta Business Solutions U.S.A., Inc., et al., ND Ohio, Case No. 1:2007-cv-02947)
  • Represented accused infringer against patent claims related to telephone encryption technologies, with the case settled on confidential terms. (ISwitch, LLC v. Cincinnati Bell Inc., ED Texas, Case No. 6:12-cv-118)
  • Represented accused infringer against patent claims related to technologies that allow secure financial transactions, with the case settled on confidential terms. (Swipe Innovations, LLC v. Elavon, Inc., ED Texas, Case No. 9:12-cv-0040)
  • Representing patent owner against alleged infringers related to laser technologies (Newport Corporation v. Lighthouse Photonics Inc., CD California, Case No. 8:12-cv-00719)
  • Represented client in case regarding semiconductor-wafer manufacturing (Semcon Tech, LLC v. Ebara Corp., Ebara Technologies Inc., et. al. (D.Del.)) Represented client in case regarding contact voltage detectors (Power Survey, LLC v. L-3 Communications Corp. (D.NJ))
  • Represented client in case regarding cell-phone location equipment (TruePosition, Inc. v. Andrew Corp. (D.Del.))
Mechanical

We have recently represented mechanical engineering clients in the following cases:

  • Bayer Healthcare LLC v. Abbott Labs, Inc. (D. Del.)
  • Anheuser Bush v. Crown Cork & Seal Co., Inc. (Wis.)
  • LifeScan, Inc. v. Home Diagnostics, Inc. (N.D. Cal.)
  • DePuy Mitek, Inc. v. Arthrex, Inc. (D. Mass.)
  • Medtronic, Inc. v. Boston Scientific, Inc. & SciMed Life Sys., Inc. (D. Del.)
  • (Huhtamaki, Inc. v. PWP Industries, Inc., SD Ohio, Case No. 1:09-cv-795 (food packaging technology)
  • Pride Mobility Products Corp. v. Permobil, Inc. (E.D.PA) (power wheelchairs)
Computer Software

Some recent cases include:

  • Representing Microsoft in a patent infringement action involving voice encoder-decoder products (AT&T, Inc. v. Microsoft Corp. (S.D. N.Y.)).
  • Representing Microsoft Corp., et al. in a patent infringement case involving Internet-based mapping and location systems and methods (Civix-DDI, LLC v. Microsoft Corp. et al. (D. Colo.)) Representing Elster Electricity in patent infringement action involving wireless mesh networking (IPCO v. Elster Electricity LLC, (N.D. Ga.))
  • Successfully represented Guidance Software in an International Trade Commission (ITC) trial to determine whether Guidance Software’s manufacture and sale of certain computer forensic devices, used by such federal agencies as the CIA, Department of Homeland Security, Department of Defense, and Federal Bureau of Investigations, violated section 337 of the Tariff Act of 1930 due to the alleged infringement of two patents. Chief Administrative Law Judge Bullock entered an order in favor of Guidance on both patents determining that no 337 violation had occurred.
  • Representing Visual Technology Applications in a patent infringement case involving computer-based vision testing and therapy software (Visual Technology Applications, Inc. v. Gemstone Educational Management, LLC. (E.D. Pa.))
  • Representing WSI Corp. in a patent infringement action involving a weather forecasting presentation system and method (Weather Central, Inc. v. WSI Corporation (W.D. Wis.))
  • Represented client in litigation regarding Android operating system and Barnes & Noble Nook e-reader (In the Matter of Certain Handheld Electronic Computing Devices, Related Software, and Components Thereof, Investigation No. 337-TA-769)
  • Represented client in litigation regarding data security and encryption (Paone v. Microsoft, (E.D.NY))
  • Represented client in litigation regarding database management and object-oriented software programming (Microsoft v. DataTern (S.D.NY))
  • Represented client in litigation regarding data security and encryption (TecSec v. Microsoft (E.D. VA))

Recognition

  • The Legal 500 United States
    • Intellectual property - Patent litigation (full coverage) (2015)
    • Intellectual property - Patent prosecution: utility and design patents (2015)

News

Press Releases

Key Contacts

Blog

In The Blogs

Previous Next
Data Privacy Monitor
2015 BakerHostetler Security Incident Response Report Provides Insight Beyond Technical Incidents
August 27, 2015
There is no longer a debate – security incidents are inevitable. Organizations are working to be better prepared to respond when the first sign of an incident is detected (often at 4:30 p.m. on a Friday). So what kind of incidents should...
Read More ->
IP Intelligence: Insight on Intellectual Property
Attorney Fees for Post-Grant Patent Challenge Proceedings Before the USPTO May Be Recoverable in Exceptional Cases Under 35 U.S.C. § 285
August 26, 2015
Parties accused of patent infringement are turning more and more to post-grant challenge proceedings at the United States Patent and Trademark Office (“USPTO”) as a faster and cheaper means for invalidating the asserted claims. A recent...
Read More ->
IP Intelligence: Insight on Intellectual Property
Favoring a Holistic Approach, the Federal Circuit Overturns TTAB Decision to Refuse Paw Print Logo
August 25, 2015
Last week, the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit reviewed a TTAB decision that had refused outdoor apparel company Jack Wolfskin’s application to register its paw print logo. Jack Wolfskin Ausrustung fur Draussen GmBH...
Read More ->
Data Privacy Monitor
Federal Trade Commission Joins with Industry Experts to Provide Start-Ups and Developers with Practical Advice at “Start with Security” Conference
August 24, 2015
The FTC has a history of offering practical advice to organizations and consumers to protect against security threats and related concerns, and is continuing this practice with the upcoming – and very first – “Start with Security”...
Read More ->
Data Privacy Monitor
EMV Liability Shift Update – What Liability Actually Shifts?
August 20, 2015
With the October 1, 2015 liability shift deadline looming, merchants who have not yet made the change continue to evaluate the cost of accepting EMV cards versus the liability that will shift from the issuer to the merchant if they do not...
Read More ->