Frank E. Scherkenbach
`
`Boston
`617-521-7883
`Silicon Valley
`Email scherkenbach@fr.com
`
`
`Services
`Litigation
`
`Appellate
`
`Patent Litigation
`
`ITC Litigation
`
`Sectors
`Electrical/Computer Technology
`
`Software
`
`Manufacturing
`
`Semiconductors
`
`Telecommunications
`
`Medical Devices
`
`Cleantech
`
`Frank Scherkenbach is a trial lawyer who specializes in complex high technology litigation, with particular
`expertise in computer software, semiconductors, and medical devices.
`
`After co-founding the Harvard Journal of Law & Technology, Mr. Scherkenbach clerked for the Honorable H.
`Robert Mayer at the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit. He began his private practice
`career with Fish & Richardson in the firm's Silicon Valley office, where he immediately made a mark
`winning jury trials for Power Integrations, among others. In 2001 he relocated to the Boston office.
`
`Since then, Mr. Scherkenbach has proceeded to litigate patent disputes in a wide range of technologies.
`Examples include a patent relating to the use of voice control in a robotic surgical system in the 2002
`case, Intuitive Surgical, Inc. and IBM v. Computer Motion, Inc.; the 2005 case involving patents for spinal
`surgery devices, Kyphon, Inc. v. Disc-O-Tech Medical Technologies, et al.; and the 2006 case, Fairchild
`Semiconductor Corporation, et al v. Power Integrations, which involved patents relating to semiconductors
`used in switching power supplies and which resulted in a $34 million verdict for Mr. Scherkenbach’s
`client.
`
`Mr. Scherkenbach also won a patent defense verdict for the Microsoft Corporation in a 2004 suit brought
`by Arendi U.S.A., Inc. In fact, a few of Mr. Scherkenbach's jury trial wins have been selected by The
`National Law Journal as particularly significant: Power Integrations, Inc. v. Motorola, Inc., in which Mr.
`Scherkenbach and his team achieved a jury award of $32.3 million, was named as one of the "most
`significant intellectual property cases" of 1999; and both Adobe Systems Inc. adv. Quantel Ltd. and the
`
`1
`
`

`

`Microsoft adv. Arendi verdicts were named as "Top 10 Defense Verdicts" of the year in 1997 and 2004,
`respectively.
`
`More recently, the Microsoft victory and the jury verdicts for Power Integrations Inc., in the cases against
`Motorola, Inc. and Fairchild Semiconductor, respectively, earned him recognition in The American Lawyer's
`2007 "Young Litigators Fab Fifty." He was one of the 'Magnificent 7' in IP Worldwide's 2002 "Rising Stars:
`Best Young Trial Lawyers" list, and has been named as a "recommended lawyer" in 2005 by Chambers
`U.S.A. Additionally, in 2007 and 2008, he made the Best Lawyers in America list in Intellectual Property
`Law.
`
`Mr. Scherkenbach also practices before the International Trade Commission (ITC), where he
`successfully tried a multi-patent semiconductor case in 2006, and regularly handles appeals to the
`Federal Circuit. Recently in 2006, he led the trial team for the ITC case, Power Integrations, Inc. v.
`System General Corporation and System General USA, in which the ITC determined that Power Integrations'
`asserted patents were infringed and not invalid, and entered an exclusion order covering both the chips
`at issue and downstream products.
`
`Experience
`Litigation examples
`
`SOFTWARE OR SOFTWARE-RELATED
`Microsoft adv. Arendi, U.S.A., Inc. and Arendi Holding Limited (Office XP "smart tags")
`Defended Microsoft as lead trial counsel in a patent case brought by Arendi U.S.A., Inc. and Arendi
`Holding Limited in the United States District Court, District of Rhode Island. Won jury verdict of non-
`infringement - the first ever for Microsoft - after a two week trial. Accused technology was Office XP
`"smart tag" technology, which involves associating actions with certain content in an electronic
`document. Verdict selected by The National Law Journal as one of the ten top defense verdicts of 2004.
`
`Microsoft adv. HyperPhrase Technologies, LLC and HyperPhrase, Inc. (Office XP "smart tags")
`Successfully defended Microsoft in a patent case brought by HyperPhrase Technologies, LLC and
`HyperPhrase, Inc. in the United States District Court, Western District of Wisconsin, seeking over $2
`billion in damages. Accused technology was Office XP "smart tag" technology, which involves associating
`actions with certain content in an electronic document. Won case on eve of trial on summary judgment.
`
`Google, Inc. adv. HyperPhrase Technologies, LLC and HyperPhrase, Inc. (search technology, ad serving,
`autolinking)
`Successfully defended Google, Inc. in a multi-patent case brought by HyperPhrase in the United States
`District Court, Western District of Wisconsin. The accused technology included Google Search, AdSense,
`and the autolink feature of the Google toolbar. Won summary judgment of noninfringement of all
`asserted claims.
`
`Microsoft adv. Spacone/Morrow (Office XP "smart tags")
`Successfully defended Microsoft in a patent case brought by various trusts affiliated with the bankrupt At
`Home Corporation in the United States District Court, Northern District of California. Asserted patent
`related to the automated generation of hypertext links. Won case on summary judgment of non-
`infringement and invalidity.
`
`Microsoft adv. Mallory Ventures, Inc. (internet software)
`Defending Microsoft in a patent case brought by Mallory Ventures, Inc. in the United States District
`Court, District of Massachusetts. Asserted patent relates to a method for identifying clients accessing
`network sites using cookies.
`
`Microsoft, et al adv. Fred B. Dufresne (client/server internet software)
`Defending Microsoft in a patent case brought by solo inventor in the District of Massachusetts. Accused
`technology relates to client-server programming environment where executable tags are embedded in
`an html file.
`
`Microsoft adv. Uniloc USA (anti-piracy software)
`Defending Microsoft in a patent case brought by Uniloc USA in the United States District Court, District of
`Rhode Island. Asserted patent relates to software registration technology. District court granted post-
`trial JMOL of non-infringement and no willfulness, along with, in the alternative, a new trial. Appeal
`
`2
`
`

`

`currently pending before the Federal Circuit.
`
`Google, Inc. adv. Netjumper Software, L.L.C. (web page navigation)
`Defending Google, Inc. in a patent case brought by Netjumper Software, L.L.C. in the United States
`District Court, Eastern District of Michigan. Asserted patent relates to methods for navigating among
`search results in a web browser.
`
`Sandel Avionics, Inc., et al adv. Honeywell International, Inc. (avionics software) Successfully defended
`Sandel Avionics, Inc. in a five patent suit brought by Honeywell International, Inc. in 2002 in the District
`of Delaware relating to aircraft terrain awareness and warning systems (TAWS). Case ultimately resolved
`by jury trial verdict of noninfringement in favor of Sandel in December 2008.
`
`National Instruments/SoftWIRE Technology, LLC and Measurement Computing Corporation (graphical
`programming)
`Asserted National Instruments' pioneering patents relating to graphical programming, embodied in
`LabVIEW, against SoftWIRE Technology and Measurement Computing in the United States District
`Court, District of Massachusetts. Also defending countersuit on two patents relating to virtual
`instrumentation. Case settled.
`
`Adobe Systems Inc. adv. Quantel Ltd. (computer graphics software)
`Successfully defended Adobe Systems in a patent infringement suit by Quantel Limited on five patents
`relating to various aspects of computer graphics. Defense verdict. One of the Top 10 Defense verdicts
`of 1997 according to The National Law Journal.
`
`National Instruments Corp. adv. Cognex Corp. (machine vision software)
`Defended National Instruments in a suit alleging infringement of two patents and related copyrights and
`trademarks, as well as unfair competition, relating to machine vision software algorithms and
`programming methods. Also asserted two National Instruments’ machine vision patents against Cognex
`in a separate action. Cases settled on eve of trial.
`
`Identix, Inc. adv. Digital Biometrics, Inc. (fingerprint image processing)
`Successfully defended Identix in a patent infringement suit brought by Digital Biometrics, relating to
`fingerprint image recognition and processing. Summary judgment was affirmed on appeal to the
`Federal Circuit, reported at 149 F.3d 1335.
`
`Multum Information Services adv. First DataBank (drug dosing and prescription software)
`Defended Multum in a trade secret and unfair competition case relating to a software database
`application for drug dosing and prescription. Case settled.
`
`National Instruments Corp. v. PPT Vision, Inc. (machine vision software)
`Represented National Instruments in a multi-patent infringement suit against PPT. Patents related to
`virtual instrumentation software programmed to perform machine vision functions. Case settled on eve
`of trial.
`
`National Instruments Corp. v. Coreco, Inc. (machine vision software)
`Represented National Instruments in a multi-patent infringement suit against Coreco. Patents related
`to virtual instrumentation software programmed to perform machine vision functions. Case settled.
`
`National Instruments Corp. v. Intelligent Instrumentation, Inc. (virtual instrument software)
`Represented National Instruments in a patent infringement suit against Intelligent Instrumentation.
`The patents related to software that allows a PC to function as a "virtual instrument". Case settled.
`
`SRI International, Inc. v. Internet Security Systems, Inc. and Symantec Corp. (Network Surveillance and
`intrusion detection)
`Asserting SRI International, Inc. patents relating to network surveillance against ISS and Symantec in
`the United States District Court, District of Delaware. The patents relate to intrusion detection systems
`for enterprise networks.
`
`TELECOMMUNICATIONS
`Level 3 Communications adv. British Telecommunications (installation of fiber optic cable)
`
`3
`
`

`

`Defended Level 3 Communications in a multi-patent case brought by British Telecommunications in the
`United States District Court, District of Delaware, relating to methods of installing fiber optic cable. Case
`settled.
`
`Oplink Communications, Inc. adv. Chorum Technologies LP (fiber optic interleavers)
`Defended Oplink in a three patent case with associated claims of trademark infringement and unfair
`competition relating to fiber optic interleavers, and asserted Oplink patent against Chorum in separate
`action relating to dense wavelength division multiplexing. Cases mutually dismissed.
`
`Oplink Communications, Inc. adv. E-Tek Dynamics, Inc. (dense wavelength division multiplexing products)
`Defended Oplink in a patent case relating to DWDM products and components, and counterclaimed for
`infringement of an Oplink patent also relating to DWDM products. Case settled.
`
`Level One Communications, Inc. v. SEEQ Tech. Inc. (networking technology)
`Represented Level One in a patent infringement suit brought by SEEQ Technology. The patents related
`to Ethernet LAN transceivers. Case settled on eve of trial.
`
`BROADCAST AND CABLE TELEVISION
`Rembrandt IP Management, LLC adv. Comcast Corporation, et al (cable modems, VoIP, digital television)
`Representing Rembrandt IP Management, LLC in a patent case against Comcast Corporation in the
`United States District Court, Eastern District of Texas. The patents generally relate to digital television
`transmission, cable modems, and high-speed internet services such as VoIP.
`
`Gemstar Development Corporation v. Scientific-Atlanta, Pioneer Electronics, EchoStar (interactive program
`guides, set-top boxes)
`Called in on eve of trial in the U.S. International Trade Commission to assist in prosecution of multi-
`patent case on core television technologies, including IPGs and set-top box electronics. Adverse U.S.
`International Trade Commission determination reversed on appeal to Federal Circuit. Case
`subsequently settled.
`
`Gemstar Development Corporation, Personalized Media Communications v. Scientific-Atlanta (set-top boxes,
`cable head-end equipment)
`Asserted Gemstar’s exclusive rights under five Personalized Media Communications patents relating to
`interactive program guides, video on demand, and pay per view technologies. Case settled.
`
`Gemstar Development Corporation adv. Scientific-Atlanta (set-top boxes, cable head-end equipment)
`Defended Gemstar Development Corporation in a patent case brought by Scientific-Atlanta in the United
`States District Court, Northern District of Georgia. Asserted patent relates to cable set top box software.
`Case settled.
`
`Interactive Network, Inc. adv. NTN Communications, Inc. (interactive television)
`Successfully defended Interactive Network's basic patent on an interactive television entertainment
`system in a declaratory judgment action challenging infringement, validity and enforceability. Handled
`all aspects of case including Federal Circuit appeal and recovered over $350,000 in attorney fees for
`client.
`
`Successfully defended Interactive Network in an action alleging trademark, trade dress and copyright
`infringement by an interactive football game. Case settled after favorable summary judgment, reported
`at 875 F. Supp. 1398 (N.D. Cal. 1995).
`
`Interactive Network, Inc. v. Zing Sys., L.P. (interactive television)
`Brought suit for Interactive Network against Zing Systems for infringing a patent relating to an
`interactive television entertainment system. Case settled.
`
`ELECTRONICS AND SEMICONDUCTOR
`Lemelson Medical, Education & Research Foundation, LP v. Cypress Semiconductor Corp., et al (semiconductor
`devices and manufacturing)
`Defending Cypress Semiconductor, Linear Technology Corporation, LSI Logic and Micrel Semiconductor
`Incorporated in a multi-patent case brought by Lemelson Medical, Education & Research Foundation, LP
`in the District of Arizona. The patents allegedly relate to semiconductor devices and manufacturing.
`
`4
`
`

`

`Power Integrations, Inc. v. System General Corporation and System General USA (Circuits for PWM
`Controllers)
`Asserting Power Integrations, Inc. patents relating to circuits for PWM controllers against System
`General Corporation and System General USA in the United States District Court, Northern District of
`California as well as the ITC. The patents relate to power supply controllers that employ pulse width
`modulation. Prevailed at trial in the ITC, where the patents were found to be valid and infringed.
`
`Power Integrations, Inc. v. Fairchild Semiconductor International, Inc. and Fairchild Semiconductor Corporation
`(Circuits for PWM Controllers)
`Successfully asserted Power Integrations, Inc. patents relating to circuits for PWM controllers against
`Fairchild Semiconductor International, Inc. and Fairchild Semiconductor Corporation in the United States
`District Court, District of Delaware. The patents related to integrated pulse width modulation integrated
`circuits that are used in power supplies for electronic devices such as cellular telephones, LCD monitors
`and computers. Jury found that Fairchild had willfully infringed all four Power Integrations patents
`asserted in the case, and awarded Power Integrations damages of $34 million.
`
`Micron adv. Motorola, Inc. (semiconductors, telecommunication, software)
`Defended Micron in a 34 patent case initially brought by Motorola, Inc. and Freescale Semiconductor,
`Inc. in the United States District Court, Western District of Texas. Assert patents related to a host of
`semiconductor, electronic, and software technologies used in DRAMS, microprocessors, cell phones, and
`semiconductor manufacture and test. Case settled.
`
`Power Integrations, Inc. v. Motorola, Inc. (high voltage analog integrated circuits)
`Represented Power Integrations, Inc. as lead trial counsel in a five patent case relating to various
`aspects of chips used in high-voltage AC-to-DC power conversion. Jury found willful infringement and
`awarded Power Integrations $32.3 million in damages, at the time the largest patent jury verdict ever
`awarded in Delaware. One of the most significant intellectual property cases of 1999 according to The
`National Law Journal.
`
`Cypress Semiconductor Corp. v./adv. Integrated Circuit Systems, Inc. (integrated circuits for use in timing
`applications)
`Represented Cypress Semiconductor in asserting three patents against Integrated Circuit Systems in
`the District of Delaware and one in the ITC, and defended Cypress against patent asserted by
`Integrated Circuit Systems in the Northern District of California and two patents asserted in the ITC. The
`patents related to timing products of various kinds (clock generators with power-down functionality and
`dual-function pins, and programmable clocks). Cases settled on eve of ITC trial.
`
`Advanced Micro Devices, Inc. v. Cypress Semiconductor, Inc. (programmable logic devices, arithmetic logic
`units) Represented Cypress Semiconductor in the defense of a two patent case brought by Advanced
`Micro Devices. The patents involved macrocells in programmable logic devices and an architecture for a
`microprocessor commonly used in peripheral devices. Case settled.
`
`AVID Mktg., Inc. v. Beigel Tech. Corp. (RF identification systems)
`Represented AVID in an arbitration of a royalty dispute and a breach of contract and tort suit against
`Beigel Technology Corporation. The patent involved a passive RF identification system for use in live
`animals. Case settled.
`
`Fluke Corp. adv. Omega Engineering (infrared thermometers and digital multimeters)
`Successfully defended Fluke Corporation against charges of patent infringement by Omega Engineering.
`Case settled after getting summary judgment of noninfringement.
`
`Goldstar Instrument and Electric adv. Robertshaw Controls (electronic range and oven controls)
`Successfully defended Goldstar Instrument and Electric against a charge of patent infringement by
`Robertshaw Controls. Case settled.
`
`Diversified Technologies adv. Polarity, Inc. (solid-state high power modulators)
`Asserting Diversified Technologies patent in the Northern District of California. Accused technology
`relates to solid-state high power modulators for use in large radar transmitters.
`
`Applied Materials, Inc. adv. SEZ Holding AG, et al (semiconductor manufacturing equipment)
`Defending Applied Materials, Inc. in a patent case brought by SEZ Holding AG in the District of Delaware,
`
`5
`
`

`

`seeking correction of inventorship of patents relating to semiconductor fabrication equipment.
`
`PC-RELATED
`Apple Computer, Inc., et al adv. Honeywell International, Inc., et al. (LCD modules)
`Defending Apple Computer, Inc. in a patent case brought by Honeywell in the District of Delaware
`relating to the construction of LCD modules used in notebook computers and other consumer electronic
`devices.
`
`Apple Computer, Inc., et al adv. Quantum Technology (touchpads and clickwheels)
`Defending Apple Computer, Inc. in a patent case brought by Quantum Technology in the District of
`Maryland relating to capacitive sensing devices used in user interface devices such as touchpads and
`clickwheels.
`
`TriGem Computer, eMachines, Inc., et al. adv. NEC Corp. (PC technology)
`Defended TriGem, eMachines and two other defendants in a four patent case relating to PC and laptop
`technology, including management of graphics memory, parallel port functionality, peripheral bus
`controllers, and power-save modes. Case settled.
`
`eMachines, Inc. adv. Apple Computer, Inc. (computer trade dress)
`Represented eMachines in a case brought by Apple Computer alleging trade dress of "eOne" computer
`infringed and diluted trade dress of "iMac" computer. Case settled.
`
`Trigem Computer, Inc., et al adv. Compaq Computer Corporation (PC technology)
`Assumed defense of TriGem Computer, Inc., eMachines and Korea Data Systems in a thirteen patent
`case brought by Compaq Computer Corporation in the Southern District of Texas, Houston Division.
`Case settled on eve of trial.
`
`MECHANICAL
`Thermax, Inc.; FWM, Inc. adv. Cryoquip, Inc. (cryogenic heat exchangers)
`Defended Thermax and FWM in patent case in Central District of California relating to the construction
`of cryogenic heat exchangers. Case settled.
`
`Electropure, Inc.; HOH Water Tech. Corp. adv. Ionpure Technologies Corp. (water purification)
`Defended Millipore against charge of patent infringement relating to devices for producing ultrapure
`water. Case settled.
`
`Millipore Corp. adv. Electropure, Inc. (water purification)
`Successfully defended Millipore in a declaratory judgment action challenging the validity, enforceability
`and infringement of two Millipore patents relating to water purification. Case disposed of on motion to
`dismiss.
`
`Lund v. Nedwind Rhenen bv (wind turbines)
`Represented individual inventor in a patent infringement suit against Nedwind. The patent related to
`wind turbines with multiple generators. Case settled.
`
`OPTICS
`Carl Zeiss SMT AG, ASML Netherlands B.V. and ASM Lithography, Inc. adv. Nikon Corporation and Nikon
`Precision, Inc. (wind turbines)
`Represented Carl Zeiss SMT in patent litigation re the optics involved in semiconductor wafer steppers in
`the Northern District of California. Carl Zeiss SMT is the worldwide exclusive supplier of optical
`components for ASML, a Dutch manufacturer of advanced technology systems such as wafer steppers
`for the semiconductor industry. Case settled.
`
`MEDICAL DEVICES AND BIOTECH
`St. Jude Medical, et al. v. Volcano Corp.
`Defended Volcano Corp. in patent litigation and jury trial related to pressure sensing guide wires used
`to diagnose heart problems. At trial, jury found two St. Jude patents invalid, two not infringed; a fifth
`patent was declared not infringed by the court on the eve of trial.
`
`Kyphon, Inc. adv. Disc-O-Tech Medical Technologies, et al. (surgical devices and procedure for treating
`
`6
`
`

`

`vertebral compression fractures)
`Asserted six Kyphon patents, first in the ITC and then in the District of Delaware, relating to pioneering
`"kyphoplasty" procedure for repairing vertebral compression fractures caused, for example, by
`osteoporosis. Received summary judgment of infringement on several patents, and a jury verdict of
`infringement on another. Case then settled.
`
`Kyphon, Inc. and Harvinder S. Sandhu v. Medtronic Sofamor Danek, et al (surgical devices and procedure for
`treating vertebral compression fractures)
`Asserting Kyphon, Inc.'s portfolio of patents re kyphoplasty against Medtronic Sofamor Danek in the
`Western District of Tennessee. Also prosecuting related claims of trade secret misappropriation and
`breach of contract.
`
`Kyphon, Inc. adv. Medtronic Sofamor Danek, et al (surgical devices and procedure for treating vertebral
`compression fractures)
`Defending Kyphon, Inc. in a 4-patent infringement case brought by Medtronic and various of its
`subsidiaries in the Northern District of California. Patents relate to balloon angioplasty and curette
`devices.
`
`Intuitive Surgical, Inc. and IBM v. Computer Motion, Inc. (robotic surgical systems)
`Brought suit for Intuitive Surgical, Inc. against Computer Motion, Inc. in Delaware Federal District Court
`on a patent relating to the use of voice control in a surgical robotic system. Lead counsel in jury trial
`resulting in verdict finding patent not invalid, infringed, and awarding Intuitive approximately $4.5
`million in damages.
`
`Intuitive Surgical, Inc. adv. Computer Motion, Inc. (robotic surgical systems)
`Defended Intuitive Surgical in a ten patent case in the Central District of California relating to various
`aspects of surgical robots, including electrical, mechanical and computer software components, used to
`perform laparoscopic and thoracoscopic surgery. Case dismissed in wake of acquisition of Computer
`Motion by Intuitive.
`
`Mentor H/S, Inc. v. Medical Device Alliance, Inc., et al. (ultrasonically-assisted liposuction)
`Successfully argued Federal Circuit appeal on behalf of patent holder, after trial court set aside
`favorable jury verdict. Opinion reported at 244 F.3d 1365, 58 USPQ2d 1321 (Fed. Cir. 2001). Case
`subsequently settled.
`
`Yukiyo v. Shiro Watanabe (dental veneers)
`Successfully handled Federal Circuit appeal seeking to overturn JMOL of invalidity of asserted patent.
`Opinion reinstating jury verdict reported at 111 F.3d 883, 42 USPQ2d 1474 (Fed. Cir. 1997).
`
`Dade Int'l Inc. v. Serono Diagnostics, Inc. (double receptor, specific binding assays)
`Represented Dade International in a patent infringement suit against Serono Diagnostics on the
`Bunting patent relating to diagnostic assays. Case settled.
`
`OTHER
`TravCal Indemnity Co. v. Trans Cal Assocs. (insurance services)
`Represented two of the Travelers Group companies in a trademark infringement, dilution and unfair
`competition case involving the mark "Trans Cal Associates". Won case on summary judgment.
`
`Education
`BS, Stanford University 1986
`Mechanical Engineering
`with distinction, Phi Beta Kappa, Tau Beta Pi
`
`AB, Stanford University 1986
`Classics
`with distinction
`
`JD, Harvard Law School 1989
`Co-Founder, Editor-in-Chief Harvard Journal of Law & Technology
`
`Admissions
`
`7
`
`

`

`California 1989
`
`Massachusetts 2003
`
`United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit
`
`Numerous federal courts
`
`Clerkships
`The Honorable H. Robert Mayer, United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, 1989 - 1991
`
`Memberships and Affiliations
`Founder and Editor-in-Chief, Harvard Journal of Law & Technology (1988-1989). Active in bar organizations
`including the Federal Circuit Bar Association, the American Bar Association, and the American Intellectual
`Property Law Association. Also sits on the Federal Circuit Advisory Committee. Named by Chambers USA
`as a recommended lawyer in 2005; Listed in The Best Lawyers in America in Intellectual Property Law
`(2007 and 2013).
`
`Other Distinctions
`"IP Star" by Managing Intellectual Property, 2013.
`IAM 250, The World's Leading Patent Litigator, 2011.
`
`News
`Fish Receives Top Tier 1 National Rankings in Patent Prosecution and Patent Litigation from The Legal
`500
`Firm’s International Trade Commission and Trademark and Copyright practices also included in top rankings of
`leading U.S. law firms
`
`Fish Named to IAM Patent 1000 for National Patent Prosecution and Litigation Practices
`
`Fish & Richardson Receives Top 2013 “Band 1” Rankings from Chambers USA in Intellectual Property and
`International Trade
`
`Forty Fish & Richardson Attorneys Named “IP Stars” by Managing Intellectual Property Magazine
`
`Q&A With Fish & Richardson's Frank Scherkenbach
`
`Fish & Richardson Prevails in Patent Infringement Trial for Volcano Corporation
`
`Thirty Fish & Richardson Attorneys Selected for the 2013 Best Lawyers in America®
`
`Fish & Richardson Wins Jury Verdict for Adobe in Patent Suit
`
`Fish & Richardson Named to IAM Patent 1000 for National Patent Prosecution and Litigation Practices
`
`Fish Receives Top Tier 1 National Rankings in Patent Prosecution and Patent Litigation
`
`Fish Receives Top 2012 “Band 1” Rankings from Chambers USA in Intellectual Property and International
`Trade
`
`Fish & Richardson Wins Patent Suit for IPG Photonics Corporation
`
`Fish has 28 Attorneys Selected for 2012 Edition of The Best Lawyers in America
`
`Fish & Richardson Receives Top 2011 “Band 1” Rankings from Chambers USA in Intellectual Property
`and International Trade
`
`Fish & Richardson Has 11 Attorneys Named to IAM Patent Litigation 250 – World’s Leading Patent
`Litigators
`
`Twenty-Five Fish & Richardson Attorneys Selected for 2011 Edition of The Best Lawyers in America
`
`Fish Recognized for Having Largest Number of Boston’s Best Intellectual Property Lawyers
`
`The Lawdragon 500 Leading Lawyers in America
`
`US District Judge Overturns $388 Million Jury Verdict Against Microsoft Corp.
`
`Fish Wins Jury Trial Victory for Sandel
`
`"The Appellate Hot List"
`The National Law Journal
`
`8
`
`

`

`Appeals Court Upholds ITC Decision in Favor of Power Integrations
`
`Power Integrations Litigation Victory Named as One of the Top 100 Verdicts of 2006
`
`Thirty Fish & Richardson Attorneys Selected for the 2013 Best Lawyers in America®
`
`Speaking Engagements
`
`23rd Annual All Hands Meeting
`
`The i4i Case and Invalidity: What to do now in patent litigation and prosecution
`
`The Biosimilars Patent Exchange
`
`9
`
`