T. Cy Walker

Experience

ITC

• Representing wind turbine manufacturer as lead counsel in defense of its wind turbine generators against claims of patent infringement. Obtained final determination of no violation as to one asserted patent and awaiting Commission determination as to a second asserted patent. Certain Variable Speed Wind Turbine Generators and Components Thereof, 337-TA-1218 (Cheney, ALJ).
• Represented radiopharmaceutical company as lead counsel in the defense of its radiopharmaceutical medical devices against claims of patent infringement. Obtained early determination that design-around systems did not infringe and, following hearing, secured final determination of no violation based upon our showing that all asserted claims of three patents are invalid, which findings were affirmed on appeal. Certain Strontium-Rubidium Radioisotope Infusion Systems, 337-TA-1110 (Shaw, Cheney, ALJ).
• Represented juvenile products company in the defense of its child carriers against claims of patent infringement. Case terminated after settlement. Certain Child Carriers, Components Thereof and Products Containing the Same, 337-TA-1154 (Cheney, ALJ).
• Represented consumer electronics company as lead counsel in the defense of its televisions and Blu-ray players against claims of patent infringement concerning various patents directed to video decoding and processing. Case terminated after settlement. Certain Semiconductor Devices and Consumer Audiovisual Products Containing Same, 337-TA-1047 (Shaw, ALJ).
• Represented consumer electronics company against patent infringement claims relating to client’s FaceTime application. Complaint withdrawn prior to hearing. Certain Devices with Secure Communication Capabilities, Components Thereof, and Products Containing Same, 337-TA-858 (Gildea, ALJ).
• Represented consumer electronics company in the defense of its computers, laptops and printers against claims of patent infringement concerning various patents directed to flash memory card interfaces. Following hearing, secured final determination of no violation based on proof that client’s products did not infringe any asserted claims of four patents. Certain Computers and Computer Peripheral Devices, 337-TA-841 (Essex, ALJ).
• Represented consumer electronics company against patent infringement claims relating to secure wireless communications. Complaint dismissed for lack of standing. Certain Devices with Secure Communication Capabilities, Components Thereof, and Products Containing the Same, 337-TA-818 (Shaw, ALJ).
• Represented consumer electronics company in the defense of its laptops from claims of patent infringement concerning display technology. Certain Motion-Sensitive Sound Effects Devices and Image Display Devices, 337-TA-773 (Gildea, ALJ).
• Represented consumer electronics company in the defense of its Blu-ray products against claims of patent infringement concerning technologies relating to recording media. Certain Electronic Devices Having a Blu-ray Player, 337-TA-764 (Bullock, ALJ).
• Represented consumer electronics company in the defense of its cellphones and other mobile communications devices against claims of patent infringement. Certain Mobile Telephones and Modems, 337-TA-758 (Bullock, ALJ).
• Represented data storage systems company against patent infringement claims relating to data storage technology. Certain Data Storage Products and Components Thereof, 337-TA-748 (Charneski, ALJ).
• Represented consumer electronics company in the defense of its LCD displays against claims of patent infringement. Certain Liquid Crystal Display Devices and Products Interoperable with the Same, 337-TA-737 (Essex, ALJ).
• Represented consumer electronics company in the defense of its digital displays against claims of patent infringement. Certain Display Devices Including Digital Televisions and Monitors, 337-TA-713 (Essex, ALJ).
• Represented automotive manufacturer in the defense of its hybrid vehicles against claims of patent infringement concerning technologies relating to hybrid drive systems. Certain Hybrid Electric Vehicles and Components Thereof, 337-TA-688 (Essex, ALJ).

District Court

• Represented Internet services company and its subsidiaries as lead counsel in the defense of online video delivery services and online dating services against claims of patent infringement. Invalidated four of six asserted patents on motion to dismiss on Alice grounds prior to answering; the claims of the two remaining asserted patents were dismissed prior to trial. British Telecommunications plc v. IAC/InterActiveCorp, C.A. No. 1-18-cv-00366 (D. Del.).
• Represented radiopharmaceutical company as lead counsel in the defense of a radiopharmaceutical medical device against claims of patent infringement. Case was dismissed following favorable decision in parallel ITC case. Bracco Diagnostics Inc. v. Jubilant DraxImage Inc., C.A. No. 3-18-cv-04422 (D.N.J.).
• Represented Internet services company as lead counsel in the defense of its Internet security services against claims of patent infringement. Obtained dismissal with prejudice of all claims. Finjan, Inc. v. Symantec Corporation, C.A. No. 4-14-cv-02998 (N.D. Cal.).
• Represented Internet services company and one of its customers as lead counsel in the defense of its web browser toolbar services against claims of patent infringement. Initially obtained transfer of cases from the Eastern District of Texas to the Northern District of California and thereafter invalidated all claims of the two asserted patents on motion for judgment on the pleadings, which was affirmed on appeal. MyMail, Ltd. v. IAC Search & Media, Inc., 5-17-cv-04488 (N.D. Cal.); MyMail, Ltd. v. ooVoo, LLC, C.A. No. 5-17-cv-04487 (N.D. Cal.).
• Represented consumer electronics company and its subsidiaries as lead counsel in the defense of its digital imaging products against claims of patent infringement relating to semiconductor manufacturing processes. Obtained dismissal with prejudice after invalidating all asserted claims in an IPR, which was affirmed on appeal. Raytheon Co. v. Sony Kabushiki Kaisha, et al., C.A. No. 2:15-cv-0342 (E.D. Tex.). Also represented client in the PTAB and Federal Circuit proceedings.
• Represented consumer electronics company in the defense of its computers, laptops and printers against claims of patent infringement concerning various patents directed to flash memory card interfaces. Prior to a Markman hearing, obtained a favorable ruling transferring the case from the Eastern District of Texas to the Northern District of California, and shortly thereafter the case settled on favorable terms. MCM Portfolio LLC, et al. v. Hewlett-Packard, C.A. No. 4:14-cv-3643 (N.D. Cal.).
• Represented consumer electronics company as lead counsel in the defense of its digital imaging products against claims of patent infringement concerning image sensor technology. Obtained judgment that all asserted claims were not infringed and invalid. L-3 Communications Inc. v. Sony Corp. et al., C.A. No. 10-734-RGA (D.Del.).
• Represented chemical company in the defense of its anti-degradant compounds against claims of patent infringement concerning chemical patents. Obtained summary judgment of noninfringement. Flexsys v. Kuhmo Tire, et al., CA No. 5:05-CV-156 (N.D. Ohio).
• Represented home shopping company and one of its on-air personalities against claims of trademark infringement and false advertising. Although clients were found technically liable, court refused to award any damages, which findings were upheld on appeal. Fishman Transducers, Inc. v. Stephen Paul, et al., 1:07-CV-10071-GAO (D. Mass.).
• Represented automobile manufacturer in the defense of its hybrid vehicles from patent infringement claims. Although client was found liable for infringement, jury awarded only a small fraction of the damages sought and judge refused to permanently enjoin hybrid car sales, which findings were upheld on appeal. Paice LLC v. Toyota Corp., CA No. 2:04-CV-211 (E.D. Tex.).
• Represented printing company in a patent infringement action relating to offset lithographic printing press technology. Case settled after judge awarded summary judgment of patent infringement against the plaintiff and dismissed the defendants’ inequitable conduct defense. Goss International Americas, Inc. v. MAN Roland Inc., CA No. C-03-513 (D.N.H.).
• Represented medical device manufacturer in the defense of its cardiovascular stent products from claims of patent infringement. Obtained summary judgment of noninfringement on all four patents, which was affirmed on appeal. Medtronic Vascular, Inc. v. Boston Scientific Corp., CA No. 04-034 (D. Del.)

PTAB

• Vimeo, Inc. et al. v. British Telecommunications plc, IPR2019-00833
• Jubilant DraxImage Inc. et al v. Bracco Diagnostics Inc., IPR2018-01448, IPR2018-01449, IPR2018-01450
• IAC Search & Media, Inc. et al v. MyMail, Ltd., IPR2018-00117, IPR2018-00118
• Sony Corporation v. Raytheon Company, IPR2016-00209, IPR2015-01201
• Hewlett-Packard Company v. MCM Portfolio LLC, IPR2013-00217

Federal Circuit

• MyMail, Ltd. v. ooVoo, LLC and IAC Search & Media Inc., 20-1825, 20-1826
• Bracco Diagnostics Inc. v. Jubilant DraxImage Inc., 20-1696
• Bracco Diagnostics Inc. v. ITC, 20-1358
• British Telecommunications v. IAC/InterActiveCorp, 19-1917
• MyMail, Ltd. v. ooVoo, LLC and IAC Search & Media Inc., 18-1758, 18-1759
• Raytheon Company v. Sony Corporation, 17-1554
• MCM Portfolio LLC v. Hewlett-Packard Company, 15-1091
• L-3 Communications v. Sony Corporation, 15-1052
• In re: MCM Portfolio, LLC, 14-0104
• Suprema, Inc. v. ITC, 12-1170

Memberships

• International Trade Commission Trial Lawyers Association
  • Executive Committee (2009 to 2014)
  • President (2013 to 2014)
• Intellectual Property Owners Association
  • ITC Committee Member (2015 to 2020)
• American Intellectual Property Law Association
• American Bar Association
  • Intellectual Property Law Section
  • Litigation Section