Jesse.
The publicly reported ones, sorted by the technology that was argued about. Two-factor authentication, encryption, telecommunications, imaging and encoding, and a long run of chemical patents.
A caption tells you what was fought over. It tells you almost nothing about what the fight was like, which is the part worth asking about on a phone call.
Authentication and notification
- Twilio v. TeleSign Patent Trial and Appeal Board. U.S. Patent 7,945,034. The Board rejected obviousness assertions made against a fraud detection process based on a user's telephone number.
- TeleSign v. Twilio Central District of California. U.S. Patents 7,945,034; 8,462,920; 8,687,038; 9,300,792. Three inter partes reviews defended.
- StrikeForce v. PhoneFactor and StrikeForce v. Microsoft District of Delaware. U.S. Patents 7,870,599; 8,484,698; 8,713,701. Out of band authentication.
- SimpleAir v. Microsoft Eastern District of Texas. U.S. Patents 7,035,914; 6,021,433.
He is a consummate professional and I appreciated his civility even when opposing counsel made it difficult to be civil. I would not hesitate to use Jesse again and happy to recommend him to others.
Cryptography, encoding and security
- Princeton Digital v. Microsoft District of Delaware. U.S. Patent 4,813,056.
- Tallgrass v. Microsoft Eastern District of Texas. Addison Fischer Patents 5,346,972; 6,141,423; 6,216,229.
- Pantaurus v. Microsoft Eastern District of Texas. U.S. Patent 6,272,533.
Communications, email and imaging
- Comcast v. Sprint Eastern District of Pennsylvania. U.S. Patent 5,991,271.
- InNova v. Cinemark Eastern District of Texas. U.S. Patent 6,018,761.
- E-contact v. Microsoft Eastern District of Texas. U.S. Patent 5,347,579.
- Skyline v. Microsoft Eastern District of Virginia. U.S. Patent 7,551,172.
Chemical
- Buckman v. Solenis Western District of Tennessee. U.S. Patents 8,841,469; 8,962,059. Argued at the Federal Circuit.
- Buckman v. Nalco Northern District of Illinois. U.S. Patents 7,949,432; 8,012,758; 7,981,679.
Trademark
- Cancellation proceeding defended On behalf of a fashion company.
- Opposition pursued On behalf of a non-profit.
- You
- Some of these look enormous. Ours is not.
- Jesse
- The size of the company changes the budget and the tolerance for risk. It does not change the reading. A four-person company and a very large one are both going to lose or win on what one numbered sentence means, and on what the applicant gave up to get it. The smaller matter is often the one where careful reading pays back fastest, because there is less room for a second wrong turn.
About this list
These are publicly reported matters listed by the firm. Past results do not guarantee a similar outcome, and no two patent cases carry the same facts, the same court, or the same budget.