Litigation


Practice Areas

UNITED STATES

Osha Liang’s U.S. Litigation Group handles a wide variety of intellectual property disputes including patent, trademark, copyright, unfair trade practice, and trade secret matters.  Our team of experienced litigators has extensive experience representing clients in Federal District Courts across the United States, including the popular Eastern District of Texas, as well as the International Trade Commission (ITC). Our practice frequently includes defending against non-practicing entities, with a high rate of success both in negotiating favorable settlements for our clients early in the litigation process and, where appropriate, mounting an aggressive, substantive defense.

In addition to traditional courtroom litigation, we leverage our patent office expertise to provide representation at the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB), where Osha Liang has handled an ever-growing number of proceedings. From federal trials, to post-grant reviews, to covered business method patent reviews, our litigators have successfully handled virtually every type of intellectual property proceeding.

EUROPE AND ASIA

Osha Liang’s patent litigation experience combined with our knowledge of EPO and USPTO law and case law provide us with a knowledgeable and unique perspective on how best to coordinate litigation support and strategies from a global context.  We regularly defend clients’ patents while also helping clients establish freedom to operate by challenging patents in at the EPO before both the Opposition Divisions and the Boards of Appeal.  Our French and European patent attorneys provide litigation support in cooperation with French IP lawyers before the Paris Court.  We also assist clients with invalidation proceedings before the Patent Reexamination Board (PRB) of the State Intellectual Property Office (SIPO).  We have close, established relationships with a number of litigation firms through Europe and Asia to effectively handle multi-jurisdictional issues.

ADVANCED TECHNICAL EXPERTISE

Our attorneys are as diverse as the industries we represent.  Our backgrounds include a wide variety of engineering and science degrees, including electrical engineering, mechanical engineering, chemical engineering, material science, chemistry, physics, neuroscience, genetics, biology, cell and molecular biology, food and biotechnology, pharmaceutical sciences, imaging science, and computer science.  Calling upon our wide-ranging experience and focused IP perspective, we create cutting-edge litigation strategies to be dynamic and effective.

BUSINESS-FOCUSED APPROACH

Our clients benefit from our business-focused approach to developing litigation strategies tailored to each client’s definition of success.   We invest the time and resources to develop a value-driven relationship with our clients that produces better results, reduces costs, drives increased productivity, and improves the quality of legal services provided.

We believe that open, frank, and regular communication with our clients is of primary importance.  Our clients are involved in, not merely aware of, the progress of their matters at all times and all phases of the litigation.  We look to and rely upon our clients for assistance in identifying people with knowledge of relevant facts, identifying in-house and outside experts, and identifying and producing relevant documents.  Our attorneys work closely with and guide clients through these often complex and time-consuming issues and tasks. In addition, our experience and collaborative approach result in the most cost-effective, appropriately staffed representation possible.

Early Investigation & Risk Analysis, Together with Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR)

Osha Liang’s Litigation Group investigates all disputes as thoroughly as possible at the outset, analyzes the litigation risks with the client, and, where appropriate, seeks early resolution of the dispute through Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR). This approach saves our clients valuable time and resources. It also fosters the continuation of business relations between the parties to the dispute. While not all cases can be resolved through the use of ADR due to the particular facts of a dispute, a need for the discovery tools of litigation, or the character of the opponent, the early consideration of this option is advisable in most cases. The forms of ADR most commonly used by our attorneys are mediation and arbitration.  Our attorneys have mediated or arbitrated a large number of intellectual property and commercial disputes.

REPRESENTATIVE EXPERIENCE

Patents

  • Axalto S.A. v. Toshiba America Electronic Components, Inc., et al., E.D. Tex.
  • Swift Computers, Inc. v. Dictaphone Corporation, et al., S.D. Tex.
  • Weatherford International, Inc., et al. v. Casetech International, Inc., S.D. Tex.
  • Rainin Instrument LLC v. Molecular BioProducts Inc., E.D. Tex.
  • National Oilwell Varco v. Hydril, SD Tex.
  • Halliburton Energy Services, Inc. v. Smith International, Inc., E.D. Tex.
  • Smith International, Inc. v. Halliburton Energy Services, Inc., E.D. Tex.
  • Smith International, Inc. v. Halliburton Energy Services, Inc., S.D. Tex.
  • Schlumberger Tech v. OSCA Inc, S.D. Tex.
  • MPR Services Inc v. ECO-TEC Limited, et al, S.D. Tex.

Trademarks

  • SETCO v. Bridgestone/Firestone (Oklahoma)
  • Pollution Denim & Co. v. Pollution Clothing, et al. (California)
  • The Proctor and Gamble Company v. Lidl Stiftung & Co.KG, Opp. No. 91158060 before the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board
  • Mr. Edward Kolos v. Water Standard Company, L.L.C., Opp. No. 91181615 before the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board
  • Buc-ee’s Ltd. v. Buck’s, Inc., Opp. No. 91177801 before the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board

Copyrights

  • Frank Betz Associates, Inc. v. D.R. Horton, Inc. et al. (N.D. Ga.)
  • Frank Betz Associates, Inc. v. Jim Walters Homes (D.S.C.)
  • Kipp Flores Architects v. Signature Homes (E.D. Va.)
  • Kevin Young Designer, Inc. v. Abshire Custom Homes (S.D. Tex.)
  • King Empire v. Milan Courtyard Homes (S.D. Tex.)
  • Patrick Berrios Design, Inc. v. Arthur Monroe Construction et. al. (S.D. Tex)
  • Blackmer v. The Woodlands Development Corp. (S.D. Tex.)
  • Blackmer v. Shadow Creek Ranch (S.D. Tex.)
  • Humphreys & Partners Architects, L.P. v. George F. Tibsherany Architects, Inc. et al. (D. Az.)
  • Humphreys & Partners Architects, L.P. v. Metropolitan Life et al. (D. Az.)
  • Roth Architects, Inc. v. Cornerstone Architects, Inc. et al. (N.D. Ill.)
  • Iggulden Architectual Group v. Woodley Architectural Group (C.D. Cal.)
  • The Weintraub Organization v. BORM Associates (D. Colo)
  • Christopher Phelps & Associates v. Galloway (W.D.N.C.)
  • Schumacher Homes Operating v. Reserve Builders (N.D. Ohio)

Trade Secrets

  • Plant Automation Services, Inc. v. LimeWare, Inc. (software trade secrets)
  • Diamond Offshore Drilling, Inc. v. Stewart & Stevenson Services, Inc. (complex, highly-technical breach of contract/breach of warranty matter)
  • Gyrodata, Inc. v. Baker-Hughes, Inc., et al., (software & hardware trade secrets)
  • BMC Software, Inc. v. Neon Systems, Inc., et al. (software trade secrets)