S. Michael Song

• Microsoft Corp. v. Hon Hai Precision Industry Co., Ltd. (N.D. Cal.). Represented Microsoft in a patent royalty dispute with leading smartphone manufacturer Foxconn (a/k/a Hon Hai Precision) in the Northern District of California, alleging that Foxconn was not reporting nor paying patent royalties due under a patent license for Android phones. After obtaining two sanctions orders for withholding evidence in China, and ferreting out evidence showing the missing royalties, the team filed a motion for terminating sanctions for discovery abuse. The liability trial was set for November 2020, and the team filed a motion for summary judgment as the plaintiff. Judge Koh granted Microsoft summary judgment on Microsoft’s affirmative breach of contract claim and validated the damages model. She issued a separate order dismissing all of Foxconn’s counterclaims and virtually all of Foxconn’s defenses. Foxconn settled.
  
• Theta IP v. Samsung (E.D. Tex.). Obtained a covenant not to sue on all asserted patents from Plaintiff shortly after deposition of their expert. Represented Samsung in defending against a patent infringement action on RF Transceiver technology. 
• Intellectual Ventures v. AT&T, Centurylink, Windstream (W.D. Tex.). Represented Intellectual Ventures in asserting 19 patents relating to Digital Subscriber Line (DSL) technology. Settled on favorable terms.
• Visual Effect Innovations v. Samsung (E.D. Tex.). Represented Samsung in defending against a patent infringement action on motion processing technology. Case settled shortly after we filed IPRs on asserted patents.
• Red Rock Analytics v. Samsung (E.D. Tex.). Representing Samsung in defending against a patent infringement action on IQ calibration in transceivers. After previewing Samsung’s non-infringement and damages arguments to Red Rock through the exchange of expert reports and at the pre-trial conference, the case concluded on favorable terms.
• Microsoft v. Kyocera. Represented Microsoft in its complaint for patent infringement by Kyocera of seven patents relating to efficient operating systems. Kyocera licensed the patents and our client settled the case.
• Hitachi-Maxell, Ltd. v. Top Victory Elec., Co. Ltd., et al. (E.D. Tex.). Represented Hitachi in enforcing patents relating to video signal processing, digital television systems-on-a-chip (SOC), and high-definition television. Settled.
• In re Certain Electronic Devices, Including Mobile Phones and Tablet Computers and Components Thereof (USITC). Represented HTC Corporation in an investigation alleging infringement by HTC of nine separate patents. After dismissing five of the nine patents prior to the hearing, and two more as a result of the hearing, the parties reached a successful global settlement after the Commission granted review on multiple grounds on the two remaining patents.
• Mosaid Technologies Inc. v. Dell, Inc. et al. (E.D. Tex.). Represented Atheros Communications in an action involving six patents related to Wi-Fi technology. Settled on favorable terms for client.
• Smartphone Technologies v. HTC Corp. (E.D. Tex.). Represented HTC Corporation in a case brought by Smartphone Technologies where the plaintiff asserted five patents covering aspects of the Android operating system and applications used in HTC handsets. Settled.
• Represented HTC Corporation in five separate actions: ClassCo v. HTC (N.D. Ill.); Cascades Computer Innovation v. HTC (N.D. Ill.); Brandywine Communication Technologies v. HTC (M.D. Fla.); Advanced Display Technologies v. HTC (E.D. Tex.); and Gellyfish Technologies v. HTC (E.D. Tex.).
• Stanacard LLC. v. Jajah, Inc. (N.D. Cal.). Represented Jajah, a provider of VoIP services, in a patent infringement action brought by a competitor concerning virtual telephone numbers. The court, in its claim construction order, agreed that a key claim term in the asserted patent is arguably indefinite. The case settled on favorable terms while a motion for summary judgment of invalidity was pending.
• Sharp Corp. v. AU Optronics Corp. (USITC). Represented LCD manufacturer AU Optronics in an ITC action and Delaware district court action brought by competitor Sharp. The case involved multiple patents on manufacturing and assembly processes. Settled.
• STMicroelectronics Inc., v. SanDisk Corp. (E.D. Tex.). Represented SanDisk in an infringement suit brought by STMicroelectronics involving flash memory technology. The case settled after a report and recommendation was issued that SanDisk should be granted its motion for summary judgment.
• Honeywell Intellectual Properties, Inc. v. AU Optronics Corp. (E.D. Tex.). Represented AU Optronics in defending against a patent infringement action on active matrix LCD driving circuitry. The case settled after Honeywell conceded non-infringement by AU Optronics due to a favorable claim construction ruling.
• Certain Equipment for Telecommunications or Data Communications Networks, Including Routers, Switches, and Hubs, and Components Thereof (USITC), Investigation No. 337-TA-574. Represented telecommunications chip manufacturer PMC-Sierra before the ITC in an action involving clock recovery mechanisms in an ATM telecommunications network. The complaint was eventually withdrawn against PMC-Sierra.
  

Includes matters handled at Dechert or prior to joining the firm.