PRACTICE AREAS
Patent LitigationInter Partes Review
EDUCATION
- University of Texas School of Law (J.D. 1999)
- Dartmouth College (A.B. Engineering Sciences 1996)
LICENSES & ADMISSIONS
- Licensed to practice by State Bar of Texas
- Licensed to practice at United States Patent and Trademark Office
- Admitted in Eastern, Western and Southern Districts of Texas
- Registered to practice before the United States Patent and Trademark Office
Affiliations
- Named Texas Super Lawyer, 2020-2024
-
PACid Technologies, LLC v. Bank of America, N.A., et al. (W.D. Tex.)
Represented plaintiff PACid Technologies in patent infringement litigation against Bank of America relating to biometric user authentication and secure network communications. The matter settled favorably for a confidential sum.
-
Phelan Group v. Toyota et al. (E.D. Tex.)
Representing Phelan in enforcement of its patents relating to driver safety technology. Attained early, favorable settlements in actions against accused automakers.
-
Inter Partes Review re Software
Secured non-institution of four petitions for inter partes review filed against patents on 3D image-based rendering for real estate. The PTAB found the petitioner had not established “a reasonable likelihood of prevailing in demonstrating the unpatentability of any challenged claim” of the four patents because it failed (1) to explain sufficiently how the asserted prior art would be combined and (2) to provide sufficient “articulated reasoning with rational underpinning as to why one of ordinary skill in the art would have combined the teachings” of the references.
-
Appliance Computing III, Inc. d/b/a Surefield v. Redfin Corp. (W.D. Tex.)
Trial counsel for Surefield in a jury trial alleging Redfin’s infringement of patents related to 3D virtual tour technology, after successfully defeating related inter partes review petitions.
-
Papst Licensing GmbH & Co., K.G. v. Apple, Inc. et al. (E.D. Tex., PTAB, Fed. Cir.)
Trial and appellate counsel for Papst enforcing patents related to high data rate, device-independent information transfer against multiple cell phone manufacturers. Trial court denied motion to transfer venue and appeal court denied mandamus. DiNovo Price navigated the filing of twenty-three (23) IPRs of data transfer technology patents by nine (9) accused infringers, securing non-institution of many petitions and resulting in survival of patentable claims asserted in litigation. Obtained a $5.9 million jury verdict against Samsung and settled favorably while appeal pending.
-
Digital Reg of Texas, LLC v. Adobe Systems Inc. et al. (Fed. Cir. & N.D. Cal.)
Represented Digital Reg in action alleging infringement of patents related to digital rights management, including a jury trial and subsequent appeal against Adobe. Attained multiple favorable settlements.
-
Bandspeed, Inc. v. Broadcom Corp., et al. (W.D. Tex.)
Represented plaintiff hardware company in a patent litigation relating to Bluetooth communications against numerous integrated circuit manufacturers. The matter settled favorably for confidential sums.
-
eWatch, Inc. v. Apple Inc., et al. (E.D. Tex.)
Represented plaintiff hardware and software company in patent litigation relating to image capture, storage, and transmission against numerous manufacturers of camera phones. The matter settled favorably for confidential sums.
-
Inter Partes Review re Camera Phones
Navigated the filing of twenty (20) IPRs of camera phone technology patents by seven (7) accused infringers and a non-practicing entity, securing non-institution of several petitions and resulting in survival of patentable claims asserted in litigation.
-
Inter Partes Review re Wireless Technology
Navigated the filing of eleven (11) IPRs of wireless technology patents by three (3) accused infringers, resulting in survival of patentable claims asserted in litigation. No IPR invalidated all of its challenged claims.
-
Inter Partes Review re Data Transfer Technology
Navigated the filing of twenty-three (23) IPRs of data transfer technology patents by nine (9) accused infringers, securing non-institution of many petitions and resulting in survival of patentable claims asserted in litigation.