A case name is only two parties and a court. The patent numbers after it are the part that says what the fight was really about.
Each of those numbers is a separate document with its own set of claims and its own history at the patent office, which is why a case with four patents in it is closer to four cases than to one. Reading a list like this from the outside, the useful question is not who won. It is how many numbers are sitting on each line, and how far apart the technologies are.
Authentication and notification
- Twilio v. TeleSign, Patent Trial and Appeal Board. U.S. Patent 7,945,034. Obviousness assertions against a fraud detection process based on a user's telephone number were rejected by the Board.
- TeleSign v. Twilio, Central District of California. U.S. Patents 7,945,034; 8,462,920; 8,687,038; 9,300,792, with 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, on out of band authentication.
- SimpleAir v. Microsoft, Eastern District of Texas. U.S. Patents 7,035,914; 6,021,433.
Cryptography, encoding and security
- Princeton Digital v. Microsoft, District of Delaware. U.S. Patent 4,813,056.
- Tallgrass v. Microsoft, Eastern District of Texas. The Addison Fischer patents, U.S. 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 Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit.
- Buckman v. Nalco, Northern District of Illinois. U.S. Patents 7,949,432; 8,012,758; 7,981,679.
A chemical patent and an authentication patent are read the same way. The claims draw the line, the prosecution history says where the line was moved, and somebody has to explain the whole of it to a court that has seen the inside of neither a chemical plant nor a telephone network.
Trademark
- Defended a fashion company against a cancellation proceeding.
- Pursued an opposition on behalf of a non-profit.
What a list like this cannot tell you
These are matters listed publicly by the firm. Past results do not guarantee a similar outcome, and no two patent cases are close enough in their facts for one to predict the other.
Read the recommendations on LinkedIn, where they were written, or read all seven here.