| DARRYL M. WOO |
 |
|
| Emphasis |
 |
|
Patent Litigation |
|
|
Intellectual Property Litigation |
|
|
| Profile |
Mr. Woo has successfully tried numerous cases to verdict and concentrates his practice on patent litigation and other complex technology litigation, principally in the areas of semiconductors, information technology, life sciences and biotechnology. In January 2007, Mr. Woo, as lead counsel, obtained a $74.7 million jury verdict in a patent case tried in the Northern District of California for client Asyst Technologies. This verdict was ranked by VerdictSearch as the fourth largest IP litigation verdict of 2007, and one of the top 20 largest verdicts overall in the U.S.
He has appeared as lead counsel in patent litigation across the country, including federal district courts in Arizona, California, Delaware, Illinois, Massachusetts, Minnesota, New Jersey, Ohio, Pennsylvania, and Texas on technologies ranging from software to semiconductor fab equipment, materials chemistry, voice over IP, fiber optic networking, bio assays, diagnostic tools, medical devices, pharmaceuticals and recombinant DNA. He has, for example, obtained a defense summary judgment in Boston for a well-known company’s Internet satellite mapping product that lets more than 250 million users “fly anywhere on Earth.” In addition, he has represented a range of clients, including the original Napster, in copyright, trademark and trade dress infringement cases, trade secret and licensing disputes, unfair competition, trade libel, false advertising, and other complex litigation.
|
|
| Education |
Georgetown University Law Center, J.D., 1981 University of California, Berkeley, B.S., in biology, 1977
|
|
| Admitted to Practice |
Member of the State Bar of California and is admitted to practice before all federal district courts in California, the United States Courts of Appeals for the 9th and Federal Circuits and the United States Supreme Court. |
|
| Additional Information |
Mr. Woo has lectured often on trial practice techniques, patent and IP litigation strategy, and other substantive law topics for the Practising Law Institute, the Continuing Education of the Bar - California, and other organizations. Mr. Woo appeared as a featured panelist for the Patent Litigation Roundtable of California Lawyer, and served on the faculty of the 2008 Annual Seminar of the Association of Business Trial Lawyers, on whose board he sits as a member of its Northern California Chapter. He has been named to The Best Lawyers in America in the area of Intellectual Property law, named a Northern California "Super Lawyer" in the area of Intellectual Property Litigation each year since 2004, and named one of California's Top 100 Leading Lawyers by the Daily Journal in 2007. In 2008, Mr. Woo was invited as a Fellow in the Trial Lawyers Honorary Society of the Litigation Counsel of America.
Mr. Woo is a member of the State Bar of California, the Bar Association of San Francisco, the American Bar Association, the American Intellectual Property Law Association and the Federal Circuit Bar Association. He is a life member of the Asian American Manufacturers Association and a member of the Mechanics Institute of San Francisco. He previously served as Vice President of Finance and later as inaugural chair of the IP section of the National Asian Pacific American Bar Association (NAPABA), and previously served on the board of directors of the Asian American Bar Association of the Greater Bay Area. He has also served on the boards of directors of a number of charitable organizations, including Sunny Hills Children's Garden and St. Francis Memorial Hospital.
Representative Engagements
Abbott Laboratories Inc., et al. v. Dako North America, Inc.: Mr. Woo was trial counsel in this enforcement action for patents directed to a revolutionary method of in situ hybridization, which method has become the standard of care used in the diagnosis of genetic abnormalities associated with many cancers and other diseases. A favorable settlement of this matter was obtained on the eve of trial.
ActivIdentity v. Intercede: Represented defendant in this patent litigation matter brought in the Northern District of California involving smart card technology. After coordinating an innovative “second front” declaratory judgment action in the U.K., which exposed the original plaintiff to payment of our client’s attorneys’ fees, the matter settled.
Adobe Systems, Inc. v. Macromedia, Inc.: Mr. Woo represented Macromedia, Inc. as senior trial counsel in these multiple patent litigation matters in the District of Delaware and the Northern District of California. The cases collectively involved seven software patents related to graphical user interfaces and graphics software techniques, sound mixing and WYSIWYG web page creation and editing. Following a jury verdict of $4.91 million in favor of client Macromedia in the Delaware case, the matter settled favorably.
Asyst Technologies, Inc. v. Jenoptik AG, et al.: Represented plaintiff as lead counsel with respect to patents directed to tracking of semiconductor wafers in a SMIF fab. After two appeals, obtained a $74.7 million unanimous jury verdict in U.S. District Court, Northern District of California.
CallWave, Inc. v. Web Telephony LLC: Represented provider of enhanced, Voice over IP telecommunications services in patent litigation in the Central District of California. Obtained favorable settlement.
The Procter & Gamble Co. v. The Clorox Company: Represented defendant The Clorox Company in this litigation matter in the Southern District of Ohio involving patents directed to certain aspects of competing household products. The matter settled favorably.
Entelos, Inc. v. Medical Science Systems: Mr. Woo was lead counsel for the plaintiff in this inventorship dispute concerning patents directed to bioinformatics software concerning the prediction of the course of diseases and clinical trial outcomes. Through diligent pre-filing preparation and carefully planned strategy, the case settled favorably almost before it started.
Idexx Labs v. Hansen Vet Immunology, Inc.: Mr. Woo stepped in to take over the lead representation of this patent litigation matter in the Eastern District of California involving diagnostic technologies for the detection of feline immunodeficiency virus. Through refinement and development of existing and additional defenses, he obtained a favorable settlement of this matter on the eve of trial.
In re Company X: Mr. Woo, as lead trial counsel, obtained a finding of trade secrets misappropriation in this matter involving ground-breaking silicon polymer chemistry.
The Laryngeal Mask Company, Ltd. v. Ambu A/S: Represent medical device maker defendant in this patent litigation in the Southern District of California involving laryngeal masks used in surgery. Obtained summary judgment of noninfringement and invalidity of asserted patent. Matter is currently on appeal.
ODS Technologies v. Magna Entertainment Corp.: Mr. Woo was lead counsel for defendant Magna Entertainment Corp. in this case in the Central District of California involving patents directed to interactive wagering. The matter settled after a claims construction ruling favorable to client Magna.
NCR Corporation v. Handspring, Inc.: Mr. Woo was lead counsel for defendant Handspring, Inc. in this patent litigation brought in the District of Delaware regarding patents asserted against various handheld computing products of the client. The court granted summary judgment for client Handspring, 217 F.Supp.491 (D.Del. 2002), later affirmed by the Federal Circuit.
Nortel Networks v. Optical Networks, Inc.: Represented defendant ONI Systems Corp. in a multiple patent case involving fiber-optic data networking. As a result of favorable claims construction rulings, the plaintiff dropped all but one of its five patents asserted against the client, and the case later settled favorably.
P v. A Materials: Obtained favorable settlement for client exceeding relief available at trial in patent litigation involving tunable integrated components for use in cell phones, radar and other mobile wireless applications.
Skyline Software, Inc. v. Google Inc.: Obtained summary judgment of noninfringement in District of Massachusetts patent case accusing popular Google Earth application, with its more than 250 million worldwide users. |
|
| Representative Clients |
|
|
Abbott Laboratories |
|
|
Ambu A/S |
|
|
Capcom Entertainment, Inc. |
|
|
Goodmail Systems, Inc. |
|
|
Hewlett-Packard Company |
|
|
Intercede Ltd. |
|
|
Kovio, Inc. |
|
|
|
 |
|
|
|
