As lead counsel

• Successful in seven appeals to the Federal Circuit, and partially successful in the eighth appeal, from cases handled in district courts including securing a favorable reversal, without remand, of an adverse district court judgment on derivation, obviousness, and inequitable conduct
• Successfully represented ProstaLund, a Swedish medical device company, as defendant, in a dispute in Milwaukee involving two patents related to microwave technology for the treatment of benign prostatic hyperplasia; the plaintiff sought to prevent our client from entering the U.S. market by filing two preliminary injunction motions in early 2002; we attacked by not only opposing the preliminary injunctions but by also filing three summary judgment motions; the court denied the preliminary injunctions, invalidated one of the patents and provided a favorable claim construction on the other patent in October 2002; the litigation ended in 2004 because of a further dispositive ruling on invalidity in mid 2003 and because of a strong offensive position on inequitable conduct
• Won a major patent litigation for patentee Dow Chemical in May, 2002 when Sumitomo capitulated and paid Dow over $45 million shortly before trial; trial was set after Dow was successful in having the Federal Circuit reverse several adverse claim constructions on appeal, and remand the case for trial; the litigation lasted over 5 ˝ years and was fought in Bay City, Michigan and Wilmington, Delaware; Dow was also successful in four reexaminations filed by Sumitomo during the litigation
• Successfully represented Internet service provider, Prodigy Communications Corporation as defendant in a patent infringement litigation instituted in White Plains, New York by British Telecommunications PLC; BT accused Prodigy of infringing its patent by providing access to the internet for its customers; BT was reported as expecting to recover several billion dollars from the U.S. Internet service providers after successfully suing Prodigy; after obtaining a case dispositive construction of the claims in a Markman hearing in March 2002, Prodigy won the case when its summary judgment motion of non-infringement was granted in August 2002
• Successfully defended Textron, Kearney & Trecker and a large group of other machine tool companies in a significant patent infringement case in Delaware brought by Molins PLC involving flexible manufacturing systems and claims of several hundred million dollars; district court awarded attorneys fees and found litigation misconduct, inequitable conduct and unenforceability of all patents asserted by plaintiff; affirmed by Federal Circuit in 1995
• Represented Gambro (formerly COBE Laboratories), a manufacturer and provider of blood apheresis equipment, as defendant in an extended patent litigation in Chicago involving seven patents asserted by one of the major healthcare equipment providers; issues included interference, collateral estoppel, Walker process claims, unclean hands, inequitable conduct and damages claims approaching $900 million; summary invalidation of one key patent based on prior use was affirmed by the Federal Circuit; success in every Markman hearing led to either a stipulation or a summary judgment of no infringement of any of the asserted patents; these successes, coupled with a successful reversal without remand by the Federal Circuit of all adverse findings of the district court in Denver in a countersuit we filed for Gambro Lundia AB for infringement of its patent relating to dialysis equipment, led to an extremely favorable settlement of all issues in 1997
• Successfully represented 3M in more than eight patent litigations in Georgia and Texas since 1992
• Took over the appeal for 3M of a case they had lost at trial; convinced the Federal Circuit to reinstate the patent rights of 3M in its infringement case against Canadian corporation Chemque, Inc.; the dispute centered on chemical encapsulation technology for use in the telecom industry; a finding of invalidity at the district court below was successfully reversed on appeal in August 2002 and the case was remanded to the district court for purposes of a damages determination; upon remand, the district court entered an injunction for 3M against Chemque; the case subsequently settled on terms very favorable to 3M in early 2003
• Won a two week jury trial for patentee Auto Wax Co., Inc. in July 2001 in Dallas Texas; the jury found for our client Auto Wax on all counts, upholding the validity of Auto Wax's patent and finding that the defendant willfully infringed both Auto Wax's patent and trademark; following the jury's verdict, the Court also awarded Auto Wax treble damages and its lawyers fees
• Successfully defended Hydrogenics Corporation in a patent litigation brought against it in Houston, Texas by Lynntech; Lynntech accused Hydrogenics of infringing two of its patents relating to test systems for testing fuel cells; we obtained case dispositive claim constructions on both patents for Hydrogenics in early 2003; Lynntech then stipulated as to non-infringement of one of the two patents, and Hydrogenics obtained a summary judgment ruling of non-infringement of the remaining patent; Hydrogenics also recovered portion of its attorneys' fees and costs
• Successfully representing Dell Inc. in several patent infringement litigations brought against Dell; we were successful in resolving one case on very favorable terms in 2004 because of a dispositive claim construction; in another patent infringement case brought by Dynacore against Dell and others in the Southern District of New York, we obtained a summary judgment of non-infringement which was affirmed by the Federal Circuit in 2004
• Successfully represented a major oil company, since the early nineteen eighties, in a number of patent litigations in district courts in Houston, Chicago and Kansas City relating to various catalyst systems and chemical processes
• Successfully represented a major chemical company in patent, trade secrets and departing employee litigations, in district courts in Chicago, Houston, Wilmington and Bay City relating to various chemical processes and resins
• Successfully represented five Fortune-100 companies in patent and trade secrets litigations in various district courts

Pro Bono Cases

• Was successful in 2004 in a significant pro bono criminal case, by securing a new trial for Jim Tenny in a Federal Habeas Corpus Petition after Tenny had been convicted of murder and sentenced to 65 years in prison; the petition was granted because we established that Tenny's trial counsel had failed to represent him competently at trial in presenting defenses of self-defense and sudden passion

• Member: American Bar Association; American Intellectual Property Law Association; Austin Intellectual Property Law Association; Federal Bar Association; Federal Circuit Bar Association; Austin Bar Association; International Intellectual Property Law Association, The College of the State Bar of Texas
• Former President: Federation of Industrial Property Attorneys, U.S. Section (FICPI) 1992-1995; Former FICPI Council Member, 1982-1995
• Co-Author: (1) "Analyzing the New Dangers of Potential Patent Controversies," American Bar Association, The Business Lawyer, 1986; (2) "Assignor Estoppel: Infringement, Inequitable Conduct, and Privity in Light of Diamond Scientific and Shamrock Technologies," Journal of the Patent Office Society, 723, 1990; and (3) "The Art of Using Experts," Managing Intellectual Property, May 2002
• Listed: Chambers Global: The World's Leading Lawyers for Business in intellectual property law, 2006; International Who's Who of Business Lawyers in patent law, 2006; The Best Lawyers in America in intelluctual property law, 2006; "Texas Super Lawyers" in intellectual property litigation, Texas Monthly and Law & Politics, 2003-2005; "Euromoney's 1999 and 2003" Guide to the World's Leading Patent Law Experts; Austin Business Journal Best of Bar Award, 2006

• University of Cape Town, B.S., 1962; LL.B., 1964
• South Texas College of Law, J.D. magna cum laude, 1981
• Admitted to practice: Texas, 1981; United States Supreme Court; Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit; United States Patent and Trademark Office; South Africa Patent Office; Various Federal District Courts