Patent Litigation Services

For clients looking to enforce their patents in the marketplace or defend against claims of patent infringement made by others, Sprinkle IP Law Group’s attorneys bring their significant trial experience to assist clients in all aspects of litigation. Given the firm’s dual focus on both patent prosecution and patent litigation, the firm’s attorneys approach patent litigation with a unique perspective. Most of the firm’s attorneys have worked on both patent prosecution matters and patent litigation matters. The firm believes that knowing how patents are used in litigation, makes its attorneys better prosecutors and, conversely, knowing how patents are obtained, makes its attorneys better litigators.

Sprinkle IP Law Group has successfully represented clients in the Eastern District of Texas, the Western District of Texas, the Middle District of Florida, the Northern District of California and the District of Delaware in patent infringement litigation and has provided litigation advice to other clients not actively engaged in litigation. From 101 Motions, to Markman hearings to trial, the firm’s attorneys have represented clients in all aspects of litigation. In addition, the firm has defended clients in post-grant proceedings before the Patent Trial and Appeal Board.

In addition to more traditional patent infringement litigation services, Sprinkle IP Law Group provides licensing services to attempt to reach business resolutions with potential or actual infringers and generate revenue from its clients’ patent portfolios. Sprinkle IP Law Group also provides opinions of non-infringement and invalidity for clients regarding the patents of third parties. The firm also provides freedom to operate analyses to help a client determine the existing patent rights in a particular technology area or with respect to the technology development roadmap for a particular product or line of products.

Representative Cases

Motion Offense, LLC v. Sprouts Farmers Market, Inc., et al, Civil Action No. 6:19-cv-00417, Western District of Texas:  Representing plaintiff Motion Offense in a patent infringement matter relating generally to data sharing between users over a network.
Plano Encryption Technologies, LLC v. Independent Bank, Civil Action No. 2:15-cv-01382, Eastern District of Texas:  Represented Independent Bank in a patent infringement matter related to the client’s mobile banking application and it’s use of ...more
encryption in communicating between the handset and the client’s servers.  Negotiated a successful settlement for the client shortly after receiving a favorable Claim Construction Order from the Court.
Realtime Data LLC d/b/a IXO v. Open Text, Inc., Civil Action No. 1:19-cv-00394, District of Delaware:  Representing defendant Open Text in a patent infringement matter relating to the use of data compression in connection with data ...more
transmission and storage.
Technology Innovations, LLC v. Nstein Technologies, Inc., et al, Civil Action No. 2:10-cv-00341, Middle District of Florida:  Represented Nstein Technologies and Open Text Corporation in a patent infringement matter relating to natural language processing ...more
and semantic-based message filtering.  Obtained a successful Claim Construction Order from the Court, resulting in a successful settlement for the clients.
Crossroads Systems, Inc. v. Rorke Data, Inc., et al, Civil Action No. 1:10-cv-00652, Western District of Texas:  Represented plaintiff Crossroads Systems in a patent infringement matter relating to storage routers.  Obtained a favorable Claim ...more
Construction Order from the Court, resulting in a successful settlement for the client.
Optimize Technology Solutions, LLC v. Staples, Inc., et al, Civil Action No. 2:11-cv-00419, Eastern District of Texas:  Represented plaintiff Optimize Technology Solutions in a patent infringement matter against multiple large e-commerce companies, ...more
relating to the use of product recommendation functionality on e-commerce websites.  After obtaining a successful Claim Construction Order from the Court, the client was able to reach favorable settlements with each of the defendants.
Meetrix IP, LLC v. Polycom, Inc., Civil Action No. 1:16-cv-01035, Western District of Texas:  Represented Polycom in a patent infringement matter related to providing multi-participant conference calling between users on both the internet and on a ...more
public switched telephone network (“PSTN”).  Filed a Motion to Dismiss based on §101.  While the motion was pending, conducted a thorough review of both internal and external prior art and used such prior art to successfully resolve the case for the client before the Court held a hearing on the Motion To Dismiss.

YYZ, LLC v. Metastorm, Inc., et al, Civil Action No. 2:11-cv-01609, Eastern District of Pennsylvania: Represented defendants Metastorm and Open Text Corporation in a patent infringement matter relating to workflow management systems.  At the ...more

outset of the litigation, conducted a thorough review of available prior art, leading to the preparation and filing of a Request for Ex-Parte Re-examination before the USPTO.  This resulted in a successful settlement of the case very early in the litigation.

Contact Us

Sprinkle IP Law Group
1301 W. 25th Street, Suite 408
Austin, TX 78705
Phone: (512) 637-9220
Fax: (512) 371-9088
Email: info@sprinklelaw.com