IP Litigation

Garteiser Honea is a different kind of law firm.
We represent clients in high-value, high-risk intellectual property disputes. Because we represent both plaintiffs and defendants, we have insight into what motivates parties on different sides of the bar. We’re committed to never losing sight of what success means for our clients. Sometimes success requires stand-up trial lawyers taking the fight to the other side in a six-week trial. We can do that. It’s what we love. But sometimes achieving success for our client requires the skill, business judgment, and creativity to work out a solution that gets an even better result than what’s possible in the courtroom. At Garteiser Honea, you get a true team—from our support staff to our trial and appellate lawyers—committed to your success.

We invite you to review this sampling of cases handled by the firm:

  • Represent Blue Spike, Inc. as its patent infringement counsel to monetize over 60 patents related to digital watermarking technology, secure transactions over a network, monitoring, tracking digital purchases with a receipt, digital rights management, software protection via watermarking, or use of encryption, or key.
  • Represent defendant Aptus GRC, LLC adverse Fox Technologies, Inc. in a breach of contract dispute now pending in the Superior Court of California, County of San Francisco. See Fox Technologies, Inc. v. Aptus GRC, LLC, Inc., Case No. 111-cv-212703 (2011).
  • Represent third-party defendant Blue Earth, Inc. adverse Genesis Fluid Solutions, Ltd, et al., in a breach of contract lawsuit now pending in the Northern District of California. See Press Rentals, Inc. v. Genesis Fluid Solutions, Ltd., et al., Case No. 5:11-cv-02579 (N.D. Cal. 2011).
  • Represent defendant iShopUSA Services, Inc. adverse DE Technologies in a patent infringement lawsuit now pending in the Western District of Virginia after a court in Eastern District of Texas granted our motion. See DE Technologies, Inc. v. iShopUSA Services, Inc. and International Checkout, Inc., Case No. 7:11-cv-00183-GEC (W.D. Va 2011).
  • Represent PanTerra Networks, Inc. as counsel in a breach of contract dispute adverse Dynamix Systems, Integration, Inc. in PanTerra Networks, Inc. v. Dynamix Systems Integration, Inc., Case No. 1-10-CV-177853, Superior Court of California, County of Santa Clara (2010).
  • Represent Martin Hellman in a contract dispute involving patent rights with AOL involving network security authentication.
  • Represented Cornerstone Pharmaceutical adverse class action plaintiff to get defendant dropped from lawsuit prior to filing a response where Plaintiff was attempting to obtain venue, improperly, in San Francisco County. Mary Keene, et al. v. McKesson Corp., et al., Superior Court of California, County of San Francisco, Case No. CGC-11-516031 (2011).
  • Represented defendant Carl Raff, a software programmer adverse prior CEO in a case involving conversion of alleged trade secrets. Obtained successful result for our client by filing a demurrer that the court sustained without leave to amend in Marin County. Carson v. Raff, Superior Court of California, County of Marin, Case No. CIV-1106045 (Judge D’Opal) (2011).
  • Represented i4i, Inc. against Microsoft relating to their XML technology used in Microsoft Office, in which the Supreme Court recently affirmed a jury award of over $290 million, Microsoft Corp. v. i4i, Inc., 131 S.Ct. 2238 (2011).
  • Represented Roche Molecular Systems, Inc. defending against patent infringement claims from Stanford University relating to HIV research. Found the “smoking gun” agreement between a Stanford University professor and Roche Molecular System’s predecessor granting it rights to the patents-in-suit, and which eventually was upheld by the Supreme Court, Board of Trustees of the Leland Stanford Junior University v. Roche Molecular Systems, Inc., 131 S.Ct. 2188 (2011).
  • Represented Wi-LAN, Inc. in the Eastern District of Texas as part of its lawsuits and licensing that has led to 230 companies, including Cisco, Nokia, Panasonic, Samsung, RIM, Sharp, Sony and Toshiba, licensing Wi-LAN technologies.
  • Represented Sony Electronics in defending patent infringement claims brought by Adams and Associates, Inc., in which Phillip M. Adams had taken millions from the floppy disk market, including Toshiba and Gateway. Sony Electronics was found not liable at trial, Adams and Associates, Inc. v. Sony Electronics, Inc., et al., District of Utah, Case No. 1:05-cv-00064 (filed May 12, 2005).
  • Represented Taiwanese based MediaTek, Inc. in defending patent infringement claims brought by Matsushita Electric Industrial Company, Ltd., in which MediaTek was able to acquire and assert its own patents that led to a favorable settlement, Matsushita Electric Industrial Company, Ltd. v. MediaTek, Inc., et al., Northern District of California, Case No. 3:05-cv-03148 (filed August 3, 2005).
  • Represented global discount airline EasyJet and Bulletproof Technologies in defending copyright infringement and trade secret misappropriation claims relating to software used in easyJet’s booking system brought by Navatiare and which resulted in a favorable settlement, Bulletproof Technologies, Inc. v. Navitaire, Inc., District of Utah, Case No. 2:03-cv-00428 (filed May 6, 2003).
  • Wrote the Software and Information Industry Association’s amicus brief, which was cited by the U.S. Solicitor General, supporting Microsoft’s successful petition for certiorari in Microsoft Corp. v. AT&T Corp., 550 U.S. 437 (2007).
  • Coauthored the prevailing appellants’ brief in In re Napster Copyright Litigation, 479 F.3d 1078 (9th Cir. 2007), which reversed a district court’s order to disclose privileged information.
  • Represented NexTag in defending trademark and copyright infringement claims brought by LowerMyBills, Inc. relating to online lending advertising which resulted in a quick and favorable settlement. Lowermybills, Inc. v. NexTag, Inc., Central District of California, Case No. 2:04-cv-09751 (filed December 1, 2004).
  • Represented Monsanto in a patent infringement lawsuit adverse The Regents of the University of California. This case notably resulted in a favorable settlement for our client.
  • Represented Intuit in a lawsuit alleged Intuit had improperly charged customers recurring monthly service charges. Obtained a favorable settlement for Intuit.
  • Represented IBM adverse a Patent Holding Company in a patent infringement lawsuit involving Business Process Monitoring software. Obtained a favorable settlement for IBM.
  • Represented MediaTek (an integrated circuit design company based in Taiwan) adverse Matsushita Electric Industrial (“MEI”) in a patent infringement lawsuit. Obtained a favorable settlement for MediaTek.
  • Represented Oberthur Card Systems against an alleged inventor in a patent infringement lawsuit. Obtained a favorable settlement for Oberthur.
  • Represented Sony Electronics, Sony Computer Entertainment America, and Sony BMG in a patent infringement lawsuit filed by a Patent Holding Company in the Eastern District of Texas involving downloading video and streaming video over the Internet. Successfully stayed the litigation pending reexamination.
  • Represented Actavis in Abbreviated New Drug Application (“ANDA”) litigation adverse King Pharmaceuticals concerning extended-release morphine formulations. Drafted opening and responsive claim construction briefs that resulted in favorable construction of disputed claim terms for our client.

Local Counsel


We act as counsel to corporations with Intellectual Property disputes in both the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Texas and the Northern District of California. With offices both in the SF/Silicon Valley Bay Area and in Tyler, Texas, we are intimately familiar the Rules of those two courts. The Rules are among the most complex of any of the 94 District Courts in the United States.

Mr. Garteiser previously clerked for the current Chief Judge James Ware in 2003-2004. With significant experience both litigating and clerking under these Rules, we can add a real advantage to your side of the case.

If you are a plaintiff or a defendant with a patent infringement, trademark, copyright, unfair competition, trade secret theft, licensing, Bus. & Prof. Code 17200 or other Intellectual Property dispute in NDCAL, WDTX, or EDTX, and your in-house or outside General Counsel or Litigation Counsel needs Counsel expertise, please contact Garteiser Honea for a consultation to see how we can make your work easier and more effective here in our Courts.