The matter, and what was at issue
| The matter | Where it was heard, and what was at issue |
|---|---|
| Authentication and notification | |
| Twilio v. TeleSign | Before the Patent Trial and Appeal Board. U.S. Patent 7,945,034. The challenge argued that a fraud detection process built around a user's telephone number was obvious. The Board rejected those obviousness assertions. |
| TeleSign v. Twilio | United States District Court for the Central District of California. U.S. Patents 7,945,034; 8,462,920; 8,687,038; 9,300,792. Three inter partes reviews were defended in parallel with the district court case, which is the two-front situation that decides how a patent dispute is budgeted. |
| StrikeForce v. PhoneFactor and StrikeForce v. Microsoft | United States District Court for the District of Delaware. U.S. Patents 7,870,599; 8,484,698; 8,713,701. Out of band authentication, meaning the security idea that a second confirmation should travel over a channel separate from the one being logged into. |
| SimpleAir v. Microsoft | United States District Court for the Eastern District of Texas. U.S. Patents 7,035,914; 6,021,433. Push notification and the delivery of data to remote devices. |
| Cryptography, encoding and security | |
| Princeton Digital v. Microsoft | United States District Court for the District of Delaware. U.S. Patent 4,813,056. |
| Tallgrass v. Microsoft | United States District Court for the Eastern District of Texas. The Addison Fischer patents, U.S. Patents 5,346,972; 6,141,423; 6,216,229. |
| Pantaurus v. Microsoft | United States District Court for the Eastern District of Texas. U.S. Patent 6,272,533. |
| Communications, email and imaging | |
| Comcast v. Sprint | United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania. U.S. Patent 5,991,271. |
| InNova v. Cinemark | United States District Court for the Eastern District of Texas. U.S. Patent 6,018,761. |
| E-contact v. Microsoft | United States District Court for the Eastern District of Texas. U.S. Patent 5,347,579. |
| Skyline v. Microsoft | United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia. U.S. Patent 7,551,172. |
| Chemical | |
| Buckman Laboratories v. Solenis | United States District Court for the Western District of Tennessee. U.S. Patents 8,841,469; 8,962,059. Argued on appeal at the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, and that argument sits in the court's public recordings. |
| Buckman Laboratories v. Nalco | United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois. U.S. Patents 7,949,432; 8,012,758; 7,981,679. |
| Trademark | |
| A cancellation proceeding defended | Defence of a fashion company against a proceeding brought to cancel its registration. |
| An opposition pursued | An opposition brought on behalf of a non-profit organization against another party's application to register. |
How to read the list above
These are public matters listed by the firm. Past results do not guarantee a similar outcome, and nothing on this list predicts anything about a different patent in a different court.
Outcomes are stated only where the outcome is itself a matter of public record, which is almost never. Damages figures, settlement amounts, case counts and win rates are worse than useless to a reader: some are confidential, some mean nothing without the facts around them, and none of them can be checked by the person being asked to trust them.
A case caption is also not a description of the work. What a matter actually took is easier to see elsewhere.