Intellectual Property

Intellectual property disputes often involve advanced technological and scientific concepts that lie at the heart of a company’s core offerings. But, success in intellectual property litigation requires more than lawyers with technical expertise or familiarity with scientific principles. Achieving victory in these matters requires experienced trial lawyers whose legal skills are matched by their ability to master complex issues and develop and present a clear and comprehensible technical case in court.

Our experience with technical subject matter enables us to skillfully and thoroughly prepare scientific experts and other key witnesses to testify at deposition and trial. This testimony is a key component in our case strategy, ensuring a persuasive presentation that distills complex information into compelling lay terms for both judge and jury.

Our attorneys have successfully represented plaintiffs and defendants in a wide variety of intellectual property cases, particularly those involving patent infringement. The technology at issue has included pharmaceuticals, computer hard drives, closed circuit TV, elevator belts, and radio frequency identification (RFID).

It is our goal to define and protect our clients’ intellectual property and our clients’ freedom to operate for maximum commercial benefit.


Managing Patent Litigation: Successful Results at Reasonable Costs, Mark L. Levine (Bartlit Beck Herman Palenchar & Scott LLP) and Alan E. Littmann

Representative Matters

CEATS, Inc. v. Continental Airlines, Inc. et. al. (E.D. TX)

Won summary judgment of non-infringement on behalf of defendant in a patent infringement suit before Judge Leonard Davis. Plaintiff CEATS sued over 30 defendants relating to online ticketing patents. was the only defendant to win summary judgment of non-infringement.

Alltech Associates, Inc. v. Teledyne Isco, Inc.

Teledyne Technologies, Inc. retained Goldman Ismail as lead counsel in a patent infringement case brought by Alltech Associates, a subsidiary of W.R. Grace & Co., in federal court in the District of Delaware.  Alltech alleged that Teledyne’s manufacture and sale of chromatography instruments infringed four of Alltech’s patents.  After Alltech filed suit, Teledyne responded with a patent infringement counterclaim of its own, asserting that Alltech’s manufacture and sale of chromatography instruments infringed two of Teledyne’s patents.  After extensive briefing and a lengthy Markman hearing in July 2014, the Court ruled in favor of Teledyne decisively and adopted all of Teledyne’s proposed constructions for the Alltech patents.  Earlier this year, the parties reached a confidential settlement on very favorable terms to Teledyne.

Front Row Technologies, LLC v. MLB Advanced Media, L.P., NBA Media Ventures LLC et al.

Goldman Ismail is lead trial and appellate counsel for MLB Advanced Media, L.P. in a patent case filed by Front Row Technologies, LLC, in the United States District Court for the District of New Mexico. The patent litigation relates to the wireless delivery of video content to handheld devices.  MLB Advanced Media, along with co-defendants in the case, filed a motion for judgment on the pleadings on the grounds that all asserted patents claimed unpatentable subject matter under 35 U.S.C. § 101. In July 2016, the district court granted Defendant’s motion and dismissed Plaintiff’s complaint with prejudice. The district court’s ruling is currently on appeal before the Federal Circuit.

Visual Intelligence LP v. Teledyne Optech, Inc.

Goldman Ismail was lead counsel for Optech, Inc. in a patent infringement lawsuit brought by Visual Intelligence, Inc. in federal court in the Southern District of Texas. The case involved allegations that Optech’s manufacture and sale of instruments used in remote sensing and mapping technology infringed two of plaintiff’s patents. After Visual Intelligence filed suit, Optech responded with multiple inequitable conduct and tortious interference counterclaims. Shortly after Optech filed a motion for summary judgment premised in part on its counterclaims, the matter was resolved favorably for Optech through a cross license.

Walker Digital, LLC v. Activision Blizzard, Inc. et. al. (Delaware)

Obtained pre-discovery dismissal for defendant MLB Advanced Media in a patent infringement suit brought in the District of Delaware.

Discovery Clothing Co. v. Priceless Clothing Co. (N.D. IL)

Represented plaintiff Discovery Clothing in a trade dress infringement suit filed in federal court in the Northern District of Illinois. Shortly after our client moved for a preliminary injunction, Defendant agreed to settle the case on favorable terms for Discovery.  In the stipulation dismissing the case, Defendant conceded that Discovery is the prevailing party, acknowledged the validity of Discovery's trade dress, agreed to dramatically change the appearance of its retail stores, agreed to pay our client's lost profits and attorney's fees, and dismissed all counterclaims with prejudice.

Uniloc USA v. Home Box Office, Inc.

Goldman Ismail is lead counsel for Home Box Office, Inc. in a patent infringement action brought by Uniloc USA, Inc. and Uniloc Luxembourg, S.A. (Uniloc) in federal court in the Eastern District of Texas.  The patent at issue relates to setting and enforcing limits on the devices used to access digital products.  HBO, along with co-defendants in the case, filed a motion for judgment on the pleadings on the grounds that all claims of the asserted patent claimed unpatentable subject matter under 35 U.S.C. § 101. In March 2017, the district court granted the defendants’ motion and dismissed the complaint with prejudice.

Avionica, Inc. v. Teledyne Technologies, Inc.

Goldman Ismail was lead counsel for Teledyne Controls, LLC in a declaratory judgment action brought by Avionica, Inc. in federal court in the Southern District of Florida.  Avionica filed suit seeking declarations of non-infringement and invalidity for three patents owned by Teledyne Controls related to the transmission of flight data.  Upon motion from Teledyne Controls, the district court dismissed two of the patents for lack of jurisdiction.  Teledyne Controls also filed a counterclaim for patent infringement.  At the close of discovery, Teledyne Controls filed motions to strike Avionica’s expert reports and compel production of documents withheld as privileged.  Shortly thereafter, the matter was resolved favorably for Teledyne Controls.