Tensegrity Law Group LLP

Firm Overview: Tensegrity Law Group LLP and its lawyers have unmatched experience and success in trying large and complicated technology cases in every significant U.S. jurisdiction and forum. The firm is known by clients, competitors, and independent observers as one of the truly top U.S. patent trial and appellate teams. A trial boutique specializing in patent-related disputes, Tensegrity’s lean teams have successfully opposed many of the largest prominent litigation firms at trial, at the Patent Trial and Appeal Board, and on appeal.

Main Areas of Practice:intellectual property litigation, patent, trade secret, antitrust, unfair competition, and contract.

Counseling and pre-litigation: Tensegrity frequently counsels technology companies regarding licensing and the strength of a patent portfolio, including providing assessment and mining services as a prelude to litigation.

Litigation:Tensegrity has deep experience in all stages of litigation, from licensing and pre-suit counseling through trial, appeal, and enforcement. The firm appears regularly in every major U.S. district court and the International Trade Commission. The firm participates in and directs parallel Patent Trial & Appeal Board proceedings or arbitration.

Appellate:Tensegrity’s lawyers have successfully briefed and argued appeals to the U.S. Federal Circuit Court of Appeals, including successfully preserving Tensegrity’s clients’ trial wins or parachuting in post-trial to overturn unfavorable lower court findings.

Technology Areas:Tensegrity’s attorneys have represented a wide variety of clients and litigated a broad range of technologies, including biotechnology and medical devices, mobile phones, computer and other consumer electronics, computer networking, operating systems, database hardware and software, mobile commerce, VOIP, memory manufacture and packaging, and Wi-Fi and location services.

Firm Details:

Partners: Matt Powers, Paul Ehrlich, Azra Hadzimehmedovic, Will Nelson, Aaron Nathan, Stefani Smith, Robert Gerrity, Samantha Jameson

Number of lawyers: 20-25

Contact:Matt Powers (Bay Area and DC Metro):

Email: [email protected]

Phone: +1 650.703.3301

Offices:

USA – San Francisco, Bay Area

555 Twin Dolphin Drive, Suite 650

Redwood Shores, CA 94065

USA – Washington D.C., Metro

1676 International Drive, Suite 910

McLean, VA 22102

Fee Structures: Tensegrity believes the traditional law firm billable-hours fee structure fails to serve most clients’ interests or needs and are no longer suitable for large and complex litigations. Tensegrity offer the same world-class legal representation for which Matt Powers and his trial teams are known, but under fee structures that reward results and incentivize efficiency.

Representative Matters:

• 10x Genomics, Inc. and President & Fellows of Harvard College v. Vizgen, Inc. (D. Del.) (representing 10x Genomics): after Tensegrity’s presentation of 10x’s patent infringement case against Vizgen to the jury and before Vizgen presented its defenses or counterclaims, the parties reached a global settlement favorable to 10x, including dismissal with prejudice of Vizgen’s patent and state-law counterclaims.
• 10x Genomics, Inc. and Prognosys Biosciences Inc. v. NanoString Technologies, Inc. (D. Del.) (representing Plaintiffs 10x and Prognosys): won a permanent injunction against NanoString following a jury finding of willful infringement and lost profit damages.
• Certain Microfluidic Systems and Components Thereof and Products Containing Same (ITC Inv. No 337-TA-1100) (representing Complainant 10x Genomics, Inc.): secured an exclusion order prohibiting the importation of Bio-Rad’s single-cell microfluidic devices following a week-long evidentiary hearing and finding by the International Trade Commission of Bio-Rad’s infringement of three of 10x’s four valid asserted patents, finding that Tensegrity successfully defended on appeal.
• Auriga Innovations, Inc. v. Intel Corporation, HP Inc., et al., Case No. 6:20-cv-00779-ADA (W.D. Tex.) (representing Plaintiff Auriga Innovations): weeks after Tensegrity filed suit against Intel alleging that Intel desktop and server processors infringed Auriga’s patents covering core FinFET features, Intel took a license with substantial licensing fees paid to Auriga.
• Limelight Networks, Inc.v. XO Communications, LLC and Akamai Technologies, Inc., Case No. 3:15-cv-720-JAG (E.D. Va.) and Akamai Technologies, Inc. v. Limelight Network, Inc., Case Nos. 1:16-cv-10253-GOA, 1:16-cv-12624-GAO (D. Mass) (representing Limelight): days before the start of trial in Limelight’s suit against Akamai, Tensegrity secured a settlement including payment to Limelight and resolution of all claims in two ongoing litigations. This resolution marks the end of more than a decade of lawsuits between the competitors.
• Certain Flash Memory Devices and Components Thereof (ITC Inv. No. 337-TA-1034) (representing Complainant Memory Technologies, LLC): Tensegrity brought suit against Western Digital and its SanDisk subsidiaries to enforce MTL’s patents covering flash memory systems. Following Tensegrity’s Markman briefing and hearing before the ITC, Western Digital took a worldwide perpetual license to MTL’s Memory Patents.
• Skyhook Wireless, Inc. v. Google Inc.(Case Nos. 1:10-cv-11571-RWZ and 1:13-cv-10153-RWZ) (D. Mass.) (representing Plaintiff Skyhook): following a string of substantial wins defeating Google’s summary judgment motions and striking significant portions of Google’s expert reports, Tensegrity secured a confidential eve-of-trial settlement resolving Skyhook’s claims that Google infringed Skyhook’s patents on Wi-Fi location technology. Tensegrity took over as trial counsel for Skyhook after Skyhook suffered several setbacks in litigation.
• Wake Forest University Health Sciences v. Kinetic Concepts, Inc., et al. (Case Nos. 11-cv-163 and 11-cv-713 XR) (W.D. Tex.) (representing Wake Forest): on the eve of the jury trial, Tensegrity secured a settlement of $280 million for client Wake Forest University Health Sciences, resolving Wake Forest’s claims against KCI for infringement of its pioneering “wound VAC” patents and for breach of contract claims for KCI’s repudiation of the parties’ license agreement.