Congratulations to Cabello Hall Zinda’s post grant proceedings team for securing six wins in inter partes reviews (“IPRs”) initiated by media giant Roku. Roku filed IPR petitions with the Patent Trial and Appeal Board challenging the validity of six different patents owned by Anonymous Media Research. The patents are directed toward novel media-measurement technologies. Led by Stephen Zinda and James Hall, the post grant team worked diligently to prepare comprehensive preliminary responses identifying weaknesses in the petitions. Based on the arguments and evidence presented in the preliminary responses, the Board determined that Roku failed to demonstrate a reasonable likelihood that any challenged claim was unpatentable and DENIED institution of all six petitions. This is phenomenal result for Anonymous, particularly in light of the current 70%+ institution rate for IPRs. The patents are currently being asserted against Roku in Anonymous Media Research Holdings, LLC v. Roku, Inc., 3-24-cv-01471 (N.D. Cal.).
Cabello Hall Zinda, PLLC
律师事务所
Houston，Texas 202 位关注者
We are intellectual property and commercial litigators with big firm experience and small firm rates.
关于我们
We are a results-oriented intellectual property and commercial litigation boutique with big firm experience, attractive small firm rates, and?a long history of putting our clients’ interests ahead of our own.??We understand the financial pressures that our clients face and use our extensive experience and judgment to quickly assess and resolve our clients’ disputes without needlessly incurring legal expenses.?We are trusted advisers?to our clients because of our long history of delivering what we promise at the lowest possible cost, showing our clients that we care more about their bottom line than extracting the highest possible attorney's fees.?Our in-house experience gives us unique business insight?and allows us to approach our clients’ legal issues from a business?perspective. ? Our experience?allows us to seamlessly work with our clients and their in-house counsel, and to help make decisions that take into account their?long term business interests and financial considerations. Our?representative cases?reflect our focus on efficient litigation and our desire to resolve disputes without protracted, years-long litigation whenever possible. Our philosophy is that almost all disputes have a reasonable business solution, and that "win-at-all-costs," scorched-earth litigation is rarely appropriate in the context of most clients' business and financial situations. However, we also understand that the best way to resolve disputes short of the courthouse is to relentlessly prepare each case for trial, and our experience allows us to do this for our clients in the most efficient way possible.
- 网站
-
https://www.chzfirm.com/
Cabello Hall Zinda, PLLC的外部链接
- 所属行业
- 律师事务所
- 规模
- 2-10 人
- 总部
- Houston，Texas
- 类型
- 私人持股
- 创立
- 2019
- 领域
- Intellectual Property Litigation、Patent Litigation、Trademark Litigation、Copyright Litigation、Commercial Litigation、Breach of Contract、Licensing、Clearance Opinions、Opinion Work、Due Diligence、Patent Portfolio Review、Trial Attorneys、Trade Secret Litigation、Tradesecrets、Copyrights、Patents、Trademarks和Trade Dress
地点
-
主要
获取路线
801 Travis St
Suite 1610
US，Texas，Houston，77002
Cabello Hall Zinda, PLLC员工
动态
-
Congratulations to the CHZ litigation team for its precedent-setting win before the Federal Circuit Court of Appeals in PS Products Inc. v. Panther Trading Co. Inc., 2023-1665 (Fed. Cir. Dec. 6, 2024). Our team was asking the appellate court not to disturb a favorable district court’s issuance of sanctions pursuant to its inherent authority, on top of the full award of attorney fees and costs previously granted by the trial court under 35 U.S.C. § 285. In a well-reasoned precedential opinion, the Federal Circuit established that a “district court can impose sanctions under its inherent power in addition to awarding attorney fees and costs under § 285.” PS Products Inc. v. Panther Trading Co. Inc., 2023-1665 (Fed. Cir. Dec. 6, 2024). In a principal article published by Law360, lead attorney Stephen Zinda is quoted as saying he is “pleased that the Federal Circuit issued this as a precedential opinion, which clearly [establishes] that district courts can impose sanctions pursuant to their inherent power in addition to awarding attorney fees and costs” and that this new precedent will “undoubtedly help district courts address and deter frivolous patent suits filed solely for the purpose of extracting nuisance settlements.” https://lnkd.in/gbKhKwit. The decision is also discussed in articles published by Patently-O (https://lnkd.in/g28EGyPD) and Bloomberg Law (https://lnkd.in/gJq__CM8).?
-
We are pleased to announce that Super Lawyers has recognized David Cabello (left) and Stephen Zinda (right) as Super Lawyers, and Munira Jesani (center) as a Rising Star. Each year, no more than five percent of lawyers in Texas are selected by the research team at Super Lawyers to receive these honors. The annual selections are made using a multiphase process that includes a statewide survey of lawyers, an independent research evaluation of candidates, and peer reviews by practice area. This is a well-deserved recognition of the experience and expertise our top-tier team of attorneys bring to the table for clients, particularly in the area of intellectual property law.
-
-
We are pleased to announce that we have achieved complete victory on behalf of Identity Security, LLC in a long-running battle against Apple before the U.S. Patent Office. As a brief overview, in 2021, Apple filed an inter partes review (IPR) petition challenging each of Identity Security’s four asserted patents. Based on the arguments and evidence presented in our preliminary response, the Patent Trial and Appeal Board denied all four petitions on the merits, finding that Apple had failed to show a reasonable likelihood of success in showing that any challenged claim was unpatentable. The Board also denied all four of Apple’s requests for rehearing. ? Apple then filed six requests for ex parte reexamination with the USPTO against the asserted patents, alleging a substantial question of patentability based on prior art not asserted in the IPRs. While the USPTO instituted reexam proceedings based on Apple’s petitions, based on the arguments and evidence we presented after institution (without amending any claims), the Examiner ultimately concluded that none of the claims were unpatentable. The patentability of all claims as originally issued was then confirmed in ex parte reexamination certificates. ? These results reflect years of hard work and dedication by our team and further demonstrate the innovative nature of Identity Security’s technology.