Jonathan Retsky Representative Matters •
C-Cation Technologies LLC v. Comcast Corp. et al. Represented OEM vendor and defendants against charges of patent infringement. Patent was directed to communications between a Cable Modem Terminal System head end and cable modems used in WiFi communications under the DOCSIS 3.0 standard. Negotiated favorable settlement on the eve of trial.
•
Video Streaming Solutions LLC v. Arris Group, Inc. et al. Represented Arris, Motorola Mobility, and Motorola Solutions against charges of patent infringement. Patents were directed to Cable TV set-top boxes and related equipment. Negotiated favorable settlement after service of invalidity contentions.
•
CyberFone Systems, LLC v. Federal Express Corporation, et al. Represented Motorola Mobility and Motorola Solutions in multi-defendant litigation against charges of patent infringement. Patents were directed to data transaction terminals using form driven operating systems. Co-leader of very large joint defense group. Negotiated favorable settlement after successful motion for early Markman hearing on key claim terms.
•
Swipe Innovations, LLC v. Elavon, Inc. et al. Represented Motorola Solutions against charges of patent infringement. Patent was direct to securely communicating financial information over a network. Negotiated favorable settlement prior to claim construction hearing.
•
Motorola, Inc. v. Lemko Corporation, et al. Represented Motorola in alleged theft of trade secrets by employee who was apprehended while boarding a flight to China. Helped negotiate very successful settlement including assignment of defendants’ key Intellectual Property assets.
•
Negotiated Data Solutions, Inc. v. Apple Inc. et al. Represented Motorola Mobility against charges of patent infringement. Patents were directed to communication over Universal Serial Bus interfaces. Plaintiff accused all of Motorola Mobility’s products of infringement. Participated in one of the first Markman hearings before Judge Rodney Gilstrap in Marshall, Texas. Negotiated favorable settlement after issuance of claim construction order.
•
SPH America, LLC v. Motorola, et al. Represented Motorola against charges of patent infringement. Patents were directed to 3G wireless communications technology. Plaintiff accused Motorola’s cellular phones of infringement. Negotiated favorable settlement stemming from alleged co-invention and derivation of invention.
•
WiAV Solutions, LLC v. Motorola, et al. Represented Motorola against charges of patent infringement. Patents were directed to adaptive, multi-rate (AMR) vocoder technology. Plaintiff accused Motorola’s cellular phones of infringement. Negotiated favorable settlement based on alleged waiver of rights due to standards organization representations.
•
MLR v. Motorola. Represented Motorola against charges of patent infringement. Patents were directed to Personal Communication Services (PCS) technology. Plaintiff accused Motorola’s cellular phones of infringement. Negotiated favorable settlement based on pre-existing license defense.
•
Technology Patents, LLC v. Motorola, Inc., et al. Represented Motorola against charges of patent infringement. Patents were directed to international text messaging. Won summary judgment of noninfringement, which was affirmed on appeal.
•
Vehicle IP v. General Motors, et al. Represented GM in defense of charges of patent infringement for its OnStar service. Patent was directed to server-based vehicle navigation system. Won summary judgment of non-infringement, which was affirmed on appeal. Handled oral argument for GM. © 2014 Winston & Strawn LLP
Jonathan Retsky •
Williams Wireless v. General Motors, et al. Represented GM against charges of patent infringement. Patent was directed to use of fax machines to send digital data. Plaintiff settled with a walk-away dismissal with prejudice for failing to comply with Eastern District of Texas patent disclosure rules.
•
SPS Technologies v. Motorola, Inc. Represented defendant in nine-week trial against misappropriation of trade secrets claim. Trial resulted in a hung jury.
•
Oasis Technologies v. Sierra Design. Represented plaintiff patent owner in preliminary injunction hearing. Patent was directed to electronic gaming system with a fixed pool of winning plays. Cochaired three-day preliminary injunction trial.
•
Micro Solutions v. Hewlett-Packard, et al. Represented plaintiff-patentee on patent to parallel port interface to computer peripheral devices such as disk drives. Negotiated favorable settlement, which included Hewlett Packard’s exit from the parallel port computer peripheral business.
•
BFGoodrich v. Insight. Represented plaintiff in a preliminary injunction hearing. Patent covered a lightning strike detector for use in small airplanes. After two-day trial, preliminary injunction was granted, which was affirmed on appeal.
© 2014 Winston & Strawn LLP
