Teague Donahey

Some recent examples of Teague's litigation matters at Holland & Hart include, among others:

• In the Matter of Certain Pillows and Seat Cushions, Components Thereof, and Packaging Thereof, Inv. No. 337-TA-1328 (ITC): Secured ITC determination of patent infringement against foreign respondents and the issuance of a General Exclusion Order barring infringing pillow products from entry into the United States regardless of source.
• Konami Gaming, Inc. v. High 5 Games, LLC (D. Nev.; Fed. Cir.): Defended gaming technology client in patent infringement action. Obtained summary judgment of patent invalidity of all four asserted patents. Summary judgment ruling was affirmed on appeal after oral argument before the Federal Circuit.
• Rhino Metals, Inc. v. Sturdy Gun Safe, Inc. (D. Idaho): Represented gun safe manufacturer in design patent and trade dress infringement action. Settlement.
• PLC Trenching Co., LLC v. IM Services Group, LLC (D. Idaho): Represented energy infrastructure company in patent infringement case. After a motion for preliminary injunction was denied, the action was voluntarily dismissed by the plaintiff.
• Rhino Metals, Inc. v. Kodiak Safe Company (D. Idaho): Obtained preliminary injunction, default judgment, and full award of attorneys' fees in trademark infringement dispute.
• Harris v. Meiling (D. Nev.; C.D. Cal.; Orange Cty. Sup. Ct.): Obtained removal of putative class action from state court, transfer of action to District of Nevada, subsequent dismissal of action in its entirety on res judicata grounds, and a full award of attorneys’ fees.

Additional examples of Teague’s experience prior to joining Holland & Hart include:

• Universal Electronics, Inc. v. Universal Remote Control, Inc. (C.D. Cal.): Trial counsel for electronics client in patent infringement action involving universal remote control technology. After a two week trial, the jury found in client's favor on all claims and affirmative defenses, resulting in a decision of non-infringement, invalidity, and unenforceability based on patent misuse and unclean hands. Subsequent motion for attorneys’ fees granted.
• In the Matter of Certain Semiconductor Chips With Minimized Chip Package Size and Products Containing Same, Inv. No. 337-TA-605 (ITC) and Tessera, Inc. v. Advanced Micro Devices, Inc., et al. (N.D. Cal.): Defended multinational semiconductor manufacturer in parallel patent infringement actions in ITC and district court involving semiconductor packaging technologies. Was partner responsible for non-infringement issues in action involving novel court-appointed expert (“CAE”) procedures. After CAE agreed that all asserted patents were not infringed and invalid, the parties entered into a settlement agreement.
• In the Matter of Certain Integrated Solar Power Systems and Components Thereof, Inv. No. 337-TA-811 (ITC): Led team defending major solar panel manufacturer in ITC Section 337 patent infringement investigation. The investigation was terminated after the parties entered into a settlement agreement during discovery.
• In the Matter of Certain Encapsulated Integrated Circuit Devices and Products Containing Same, Inv. No. 337-TA-501 (ITC) and Amkor Technology, Inc. v. Carsem (M) Sdn Bhd et al. (N.D. Cal.): Represented leading semiconductor company in parallel patent infringement actions in ITC and district court involving semiconductor packaging technologies. After the ITC entered an exclusion order barring the adversary's infringing products from being imported into the United States, the parties entered into a settlement agreement.
• Eolas Technologies Inc. v. Adobe Systems, Inc., et al. (E.D. Tex.): Defended major consumer electronics company in a patent infringement action involving fundamental World Wide Web technologies. The parties settled prior to trial.
• EON Corp. IP Holdings, LLC v. T-Mobile USA, Inc., et al. (E.D. Tex.) and EON Corp. IP Holdings, LLC v. FLO TV Inc., et al. (D. Del.): Defended major consumer electronics company in co-pending patent infringement actions involving telecommunications and smartphone technologies. The parties settled prior to trial.
• In the Matter of Certain Display Devices, Including Digital Televisions and Monitors, Inv. No. 337-TA-713 (ITC): Defended foreign manufacturer in ITC Section 337 patent infringement investigation involving digital television technologies. The parties settled prior to trial.
• In the Matter of Certain Wireless Communication System Server Software, Wireless Handheld Devices and Battery Packs, Inv. No. 337-TA-706 (ITC): Defended major consumer electronics company in ITC Section 337 patent infringement investigation involving various smartphone technologies. The parties settled prior to trial.