Blending sophisticated litigation experience with in-depth training in science, energy and technology, Bracewell's intellectual property litigation practice delivers an aggressive and practical defense of our clients’ valuable intellectual property rights.
Our seasoned litigators have significant experience in courtrooms across the country, from the Eastern District of Texas to the Southern District of New York and the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit. We understand effective courtroom procedure and speak the language of judges and juries. From the beginning of each matter, we work hand in hand with the firm’s highly regarded patent, trademark and copyright attorneys to present the strongest case possible. By staffing leanly and assigning the right resources to each client matter, we ensure that cases are handled both effectively and efficiently — no stone goes unturned, and no resource is wasted.
We understand the importance of working closely and cooperatively with our clients both to protect their businesses from the loss of profits and goodwill — and even the company itself — that are among the potential damaging effects of allegations of infringement and to enforce their intellectual property rights against unauthorized uses of such assets. Our attorneys are experienced in working with in-house counsel, engineers and scientists to define the technical details and legal parameters of the matter in dispute. In addition, we have access to and experience working with a varied set of expert witnesses, who play a key role in infringement litigation cases.
Working in key geographic centers for the energy and high-technology industries, our attorneys are closely involved in the emerging process, technology and scientific developments that are the natural result of these discovery-driven businesses. Likewise, we leverage both the technical experience of our attorneys and the technology resources of the firm in order to manage the thousands of documents involved in intellectual property litigation. Well-organized systems for data and information management significantly reduce the man-hours and costs associated with handling paper documents and help increase the likelihood of case success. Bracewell has consistently placed at or near the top of the annual survey conducted by American Lawyer magazine, and published in AmLaw Tech, for our use of technology in client service.
The strength of Bracewell’s intellectual property and litigation practices is regularly recognized by industry and media organizations. For example, in a survey of top general counsel from the nation’s largest corporations, American Law Media named Bracewell as a “Go-To Law Firm” for both intellectual property patent counseling and litigation in 2007-2008. Chambers and Partners USA: America’s Leading Lawyers for Business ranked Bracewell as leaders in intellectual property, litigation and appellate law in 2006 and 2007. Bracewell’s litigation practice was ranked among the best in Texas by Benchmark: America's Leading Litigation Firms and Attorneys published by Euromoney Institutional Investor, 2008. The Legal 500 US also praised the firm’s litigation and intellectual property practices in 2007.
Recent Representations
Bracewell's lawyers have extensive litigation experience in the Eastern District of Texas and in courts throughout the country. Recent successful cases include:
Furnace Brook LLC vs. Overstock.com, Inc. In this key patent-trolling case, Furnace Brook alleged that our client, Overstock.com, had infringed its patent for an online retail sales process (purchased by Furnace Brook at a bankruptcy auction in 2003) and demanded that Overstock.com purchase a license to the disputed patent. Instead, Overstock.com sued Furnace Brook in Utah seeking declamatory judgment of non-infringement. Although the United States District Court for the District of Utah was sympathetic to many of our attorneys’ arguments against the practice of intimidating companies into signing license agreements, the court held that it did not have jurisdiction to hear the case. Shortly after Overstock.com filed the suit, Furnace Brook responded by filing suit against our client in the Southern District of New York, seeking damages of $25 million. In response to our vigorous defense, the court in New York granted summary judgment that Overstock.com did not infringe U.S. Patent No. 5,721,832 as a matter of law. This represented a significant setback to companies engaged in similar practices and is one of several cases in which Bracewell’s IP litigators have successfully defended Overstock.com.
VAE Nortrak North America, Inc. v. Progress Rail Services Corporation. Bracewell successfully defended Progress Rail against VAE Nortrak’s $70 million claim that our client had willfully infringed a patent relating to railroad-track devices used to assist trains in switching tracks. In addition to defending our client against these allegations, we filed antitrust claims against VAE Nortrak on behalf of Progress Rail. Shortly thereafter, VAE Nortrak filed antitrust counterclaims. Subsequently, we obtained a complete summary judgment victory in which all patent infringement claims against Progress Rail were dismissed and the antitrust claims against VAE Nortrak were allowed to move forward.
Alexsam, Inc. v. Datastream Card Services, et al. In a case involving several well-known financial services companies, Bracewell successfully defended our client against a patent infringement claim by Alexsam in the Eastern District of Texas. The patents in question allegedly covered our client's mission-critical business activities, including the storage of information on debit cards. Bracewell was very active in leading the defense team, particularly with respect to claim construction briefing, creating a tutorial on the brief for use by the Court. Ultimately, the Court adopted significant portions of our claim construction positions, which resulted in a Markman ruling that excluded our client's business activities and resulted in a dismissal of our client for a minimal amount, far less than any of the other defendants.
Forgent Networks, Inc. v. Echostar Tech. Corp. In the Eastern District of Texas, Bracewell was able to successfully recover in excess of $25 million in license fees on behalf of Forgent Networks. The case involved a patent related to digital-video recorder (DVR) technology and was settled with most of the defendants prior to trial.
Reroof America, Inc. et al v. United Structures of America, Inc. Bracewell successfully defended our client, in the District Court for the Northern District of Oklahoma, against claims of patent infringement related to modular roofing.