Since forming in 2008, our firm has represented clients ranging from inventors to Fortune 100 companies in over 260 matters.  Our clients are involved in technologies as diverse as medical devices, antivirus and encryption software, image processing, streaming video, semiconductor chip design, automotive pollution controls, and biometric authentication.

Turner Boyd represents start up companies and technology incubators, like Rearden (the creator of Academy Award® winning MOVA® motion capture visual effects technology) and (formerly Netfirms); mid-size companies like Appthority and CoolerMaster; and also large companies, like Truven Health Analytics (an IBM Watson Health company) and St. Jude Medical (now Abbott).

Highlights regarding some of our cases and client relationships can be seen below.

SteelSeries ApS and SteelSeries North America Corporation
Lead Attorneys: Esha Bandyopadhyay, Joshua Masur

SteelSeries had never been accused of patent infringement until a non-practicing entity claimed that SteelSeries and a dozen other gaming mouse companies infringed a recently purchased patent. Less than two years later, after every other defendant settled, SteelSeries’s trial team, led by Turner Boyd partners Esha Bandyopadhyay and Joshua Masur, won the Eastern District of Texas’s first jury verdict of 2016.

Lead Attorney: Karen Boyd
Veracode, Inc. and Rovi Solutions Corp. v. Appthority, Inc., 1-12-cv-10487 (D. Mass., filed Mar. 16, 2012).

Days after launching their mobile device application security company and winning “Most Innovative Company” at the International RSA Conference in San Francisco, start-up Appthority was sued for patent infringement by Veracode—a more established computer security company in Boston.  We were recommended by Appthority’s patent prosecution and corporate counsel.

It was clear that Veracode’s goal was to shut Appthority down.  We focused on trial themes from day one.  We had to go all the way to trial to do it, but Appthority was found by a jury not to infringe Veracode’s patent on August 22, 2014.  That patent does not expire until 2023, so this was a critical win.  The satisfying post-script on this story is that Appthority continues to thrive in the marketplace with its Mobile Threat Protection Solution. Veracode is not longer in the mobile app security market.

ASUSTek Computer Inc.
Lead Attorney: Joshua Masur
Florida Atlantic University Research Corporation, et al v ASUS Computer International, et al, No. 9:12-cv-80697-PAS (S.D. Fla., filed June 28, 2012).

Plaintiffs sued ASUS and two other groups of defendants, alleging that modern computer displays violated a 1994 patent for a device that would convert any video signal format to a format that the display could understand.  The defendants asserted, and the court eventually agreed, that because the patent failed to disclose structures that performed the conversion functions, no one who worked in the field would be able to determine what structures the patent covered.  As a result, as a matter of law, the patent was held to be indefinite, and therefore invalid. 

Cooler Master/LSI (now Avago)
Lead Attorney: Karen Boyd
Malico, Inc. v. Cooler Master USA, Inc. and LSI Corp., 11-cv-4537 (N.D. Cal., filed Sept. 13, 2011)

Four months before trial, Cooler Master and LSI hired Turner Boyd to defend a patent infringement lawsuit on a particular kind of heat sink.

The Turner Boyd team quickly got up to speed on the patents, infringement issues, prior art, and damages theories.  Then we brought two motions for summary judgment: one asserting that the patent was invalid, and the other to dramatically limit damages in light of plaintiff’s failure to mark its patent on its products.

We won summary judgment of obviousness, and Judge Seeborg limited potential damages to a fraction of what plaintiff sought.  He also denied plaintiff’s cross-motion for summary judgment of infringement, and precluded plaintiff from using the evidence on which that motion—and its entire infringement case—relied.

Lead Attorneys: Karen Boyd, Jennifer Seraphine

We have represented OtterBox in a number of patent litigation matters, and continue to advise and support the company in multiple intellectual property matters.  The public cases that we have handled include: Otter Products LLC v. KlearKase, LLC et al., 13-cv-1734 (D. Col. filed July 1, 2013); Otter Products LLC v. TreeFrog Developments, Inc., 12-cv-3115 (D. Col. filed Nov. 28, 2012); Otter Products LLC v. mophie LLC, 12-cv-1969 (D. Col. filed July 27, 2012); among others.