Jim Hall represented a client who was targeted by a large non-practicing entity (“NPE”) demanding that a license be taken on a patent directed to anti-aliasing color printing methods and apparatuses. Sensitive to the client’s desire to avoid both litigation and taking a license, Jim quickly and efficiently generated a rock solid noninfringement argument that convinced the NPE to withdraw its demand and walk away prior to litigation. Jim subsequently represented another client that was targeted by an NPE in a licensing campaign involving blade server power management technology. Jim again quickly generated a powerful noninfringement position that convinced the patent holder to dismiss his client from the case soon after it began.
Representing a medical device company in policing a series of trademarks through several cease and desist letters and negotiations, bringing about very favorable results short of filing in court.
A manufacturing client’s patented device was copied by a foreign competitor, and the infringing devices was imported and sold in the United States. Suit was filed and under Paul Cronin’s leadership the client obtained a permanent injunction against importation of the infringing devices.
Our client, a life sciences company, was accused by a competitor of patent infringement relating to an insertion method for a medical device. After briefing and a hearing, the Court disposed of the case on summary judgment, finding the patent-in-suit obvious as a matter of law.
Jim Hall was lead technical attorney for a patent holder suing a large software company on an anti-piracy software patent. Jim marshaled the evidence and worked with the testifying liability expert to obtain findings of infringement and no invalidity. The trial resulted in a nine-figure damages verdict for the client.
Jim Hall represented a startup speech recognition technology company defending numerous simultaneous lawsuits in multiple jurisdictions in a momentous patent war with a much larger rival company. In one of the cases, Jim crafted a solid defense and obtained key expert witness testimony that led to a unanimous verdict of noninfringement for his client. Jim then singlehandedly directed the remaining cases, which involved numerous patents asserted by both sides against the other. Through his efforts, the client was able to achieve a global settlement on very favorable terms.
Jim Hall was lead technical attorney on a team representing a patent holder suing numerous defendants on a portfolio involving wireless communication technologies. Jim successfully shaped the technical aspects of his client's liability case by securing favorable claim construction rulings and obtaining key infringement evidence and deposition testimony. Jim worked with and guided testifying experts to put together an ironclad infringement case. As a result of Jim’s efforts, each of the defendants settled before trial on terms favorable to his client.
A firearms client was sued for patent infringement by a competitor. Paul Cronin led the defense and obtained a favorable “walk away” settlement for his client well before trial.
A Fortune 500 client was sued for patent infringement by an aggressive and well-established non-practicing entity. Requested to join the defense team by his colleagues, Paul Cronin’s guidance and leadership resulted in a favorable settlement for his client well before trial.
Defending a biotechnology company against claims of breach of contract and licensing fees relating to the purchase of intellectual property. Settled on the eve of an arbitration hearing on terms favorable to the client.
Negotiation of an early settlement of a patent infringement suit whereby client agreed to re-design its product. Case was dismissed with no payment of damages.
In a high-profile trial for patent infringement damages, Paul Cronin took the lead in crafting a damages theory that valued the benefit of the defendant’s infringing use of the patented technology. Using an analytical damages approach, and introducing key evidence at trial, Paul successfully presented $1.2 billion in damages to the jury. Shortly thereafter the case settled favorably to his client.
Our client was sued for allegedly infringing a patent pertaining to the method by which our client’s product was packaged. Though the client denied any infringement, the client was able to settle the matter on favorable terms, including an advantageous license arrangement.