Quinn Steps in for Verizon in Patent Showdown With Huawei
Partners Charles Verhoeven and Patrick Curran are accusing Huawei of trying to protect "outdated and valueless techniques" in suits in the Eastern and Western districts of Texas.
April 02, 2020 at 12:30 PM
3 minute read
Charles Verhoeven of Quinn Emanuel.
Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan has come out swinging for Verizon Communications Inc.
The New York-based company has tapped Quinn for a clash of wireless giants with Huawei Technologies Co. Ltd. in two Texas federal courts.
Huawei sued Verizon in the Eastern and Western districts of Texas in February, accusing Verizon of using its patented technology to transmit massive amounts of data from base stations or access points to remote destinations.
At the time Verizon publicly dismissed the lawsuits as "nothing more than a PR stunt." But Huawei was reported to be seeking more than $1 billion in license negotiations last year, and Verizon is taking the suits seriously enough to enlist Charles Verhoeven and five other Quinn attorneys, along with Deron Dacus of The Dacus Firm in Tyler, Texas.
"Verizon's patented ideas fuel Verizon's networks—not the outdated and valueless techniques referenced in Huawei's complaint," Verizon contends in answers to the complaints filed Monday and Wednesday. Huawei's suits are "another example of an attempt by Huawei to take credit for American innovation," Verizon says.
Each answer is signed by Dacus. Quinn partners Verhoeven and Patrick Curran also appear on each of the briefs, with partner Brianne Straka and of counsel John McKee joining the Eastern District filing and partners Brian Mack and Deepa Acharya signing onto the Western District filing.
Huawei is asserting five patents in the Eastern District that are essential for practicing the International Telecommunications Union's G.709 standard interface for optical transport networks. Huawei is represented by Caldwell, Cassady & Curry and the Love Law Firm in that case.
The Western District suit asserts seven patents that Huawei contends are infringed by Cisco Systems Inc. and Juniper Networks Inc. routers that are deployed in Verizon's networks. Fish & Richardson and Naman, Howell, Smith & Lee represent Huawei in the Western District.
The Western District case sets up a rematch of counsel from one of last year's highest-profile patent cases, Apple v. Qualcomm in San Diego federal court. Fish represented Apple (along with Boies Schiller Flexner) and Quinn represented Qualcomm (along with Cravath, Swaine & Moore and other firms). That case settled during opening statements.
This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.
To view this content, please continue to their sites.
Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
NOT FOR REPRINT
© 2024 ALM Global, LLC, All Rights Reserved. Request academic re-use from www.copyright.com. All other uses, submit a request to [email protected]. For more information visit Asset & Logo Licensing.
You Might Like
View All
5th Circuit Rules Open-Source Code Is Not Property in Tornado Cash Appeal
5 minute read
Texas Court Invalidates SEC’s Dealer Rule, Siding with Crypto Advocates
3 minute read
Samsung Flooded With Galaxy Product Patent Lawsuits in Texas Federal Court
Republican Who Might Become FTC's Next Chair Blasts Democratic Commissioners' 'All Mergers Are Bad' Mindset
7 minute readLaw Firms Mentioned
Trending Stories
Who Got The Work
Michael G. Bongiorno, Andrew Scott Dulberg and Elizabeth E. Driscoll from Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr have stepped in to represent Symbotic Inc., an A.I.-enabled technology platform that focuses on increasing supply chain efficiency, and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The case, filed Oct. 2 in Massachusetts District Court by the Brown Law Firm on behalf of Stephen Austen, accuses certain officers and directors of misleading investors in regard to Symbotic's potential for margin growth by failing to disclose that the company was not equipped to timely deploy its systems or manage expenses through project delays. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Nathaniel M. Gorton, is 1:24-cv-12522, Austen v. Cohen et al.
Who Got The Work
Edmund Polubinski and Marie Killmond of Davis Polk & Wardwell have entered appearances for data platform software development company MongoDB and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The action, filed Oct. 7 in New York Southern District Court by the Brown Law Firm, accuses the company's directors and/or officers of falsely expressing confidence in the company’s restructuring of its sales incentive plan and downplaying the severity of decreases in its upfront commitments. The case is 1:24-cv-07594, Roy v. Ittycheria et al.
Who Got The Work
Amy O. Bruchs and Kurt F. Ellison of Michael Best & Friedrich have entered appearances for Epic Systems Corp. in a pending employment discrimination lawsuit. The suit was filed Sept. 7 in Wisconsin Western District Court by Levine Eisberner LLC and Siri & Glimstad on behalf of a project manager who claims that he was wrongfully terminated after applying for a religious exemption to the defendant's COVID-19 vaccine mandate. The case, assigned to U.S. Magistrate Judge Anita Marie Boor, is 3:24-cv-00630, Secker, Nathan v. Epic Systems Corporation.
Who Got The Work
David X. Sullivan, Thomas J. Finn and Gregory A. Hall from McCarter & English have entered appearances for Sunrun Installation Services in a pending civil rights lawsuit. The complaint was filed Sept. 4 in Connecticut District Court by attorney Robert M. Berke on behalf of former employee George Edward Steins, who was arrested and charged with employing an unregistered home improvement salesperson. The complaint alleges that had Sunrun informed the Connecticut Department of Consumer Protection that the plaintiff's employment had ended in 2017 and that he no longer held Sunrun's home improvement contractor license, he would not have been hit with charges, which were dismissed in May 2024. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Jeffrey A. Meyer, is 3:24-cv-01423, Steins v. Sunrun, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Greenberg Traurig shareholder Joshua L. Raskin has entered an appearance for boohoo.com UK Ltd. in a pending patent infringement lawsuit. The suit, filed Sept. 3 in Texas Eastern District Court by Rozier Hardt McDonough on behalf of Alto Dynamics, asserts five patents related to an online shopping platform. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Rodney Gilstrap, is 2:24-cv-00719, Alto Dynamics, LLC v. boohoo.com UK Limited.
Featured Firms
Law Offices of Gary Martin Hays & Associates, P.C.
(470) 294-1674
Law Offices of Mark E. Salomone
(857) 444-6468
Smith & Hassler
(713) 739-1250
