Micron Technology, Inc. v. United Microelectronics Corporation, et al. (Northern District of California)

Dan Johnson Law Group represents United Microelectronics Corporation (UMC), one of the world’s leading semiconductor foundries, headquartered in Taiwan.  On December 5, 2017, UMC was sued by Micron Technologies in the Northern District of California for allegedly misappropriating trade secrets relating to DRAM technology.  In February 2018, Mr. Johnson’s team filed a motion to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction, asserting that Micron’s causes of action relate only to activities that took place in Taiwan, and the Court lacks jurisdiction in California.  Judge Jeffrey S. White entered an order on April 23 finding that Micron’s initial allegations and pleadings had failed to establish a prima facie basis for jurisdiction and allowed limited jurisdictional discovery and supplemental briefing.  The case was transferred to Judge Maxine M. Chesney on June 13, 2018 after Judge White recused himself.  The Court set a new hearing on the motion to dismiss for September 21, 2018.  UMC is represented in this matter by Dan Johnson, Mario Moore, and Robert Litts. 

Yu et al. v. Apple and Samsung (Northern District of California)

Dan Johnson Law Group represents Yanbin Yu, Ph. D. and Zhongxuan Zhang, Ph. D., the inventors and owners of United States Patent No. 6,611,289, in separate patent infringement actions against Apple and Samsung.  Drs. Yu and Zhang invented pioneering digital camera technology that captures images using two separate image sensors and then enhances one image with the other.  This technology has been adopted by numerous smartphone manufacturers, including Apple and Samsung, to provide a variety of features that are highly desired by consumers.  Drs. Yu and Zhang were true visionaries, conceiving their approach to improving digital camera performance years before anyone else recognized the power of this technology.  The complaints seek enhanced damages from both Apple and Samsung because their own patent filings demonstrate that they knew about the ‘289 Patent yet never attempted to contact Drs. Yu and Zhang to seek a license. DJLG recently obtained a favorable result in an inter parties review proceeding in the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office filed by Apple and later joined by Samsung, preserving the validity of a key patent claim being asserted in the infringement actions. DJLG will be arguing an appeal in the Court of Appeals in the Federal Circuit regarding the patent-eligibility of the ‘289 Patent.

Rogers v. Keurig/Green Mountain Coffee

Rogers, a family owned coffee company, manufactures the coffee pods used in Keurig brewers.  Rogers filed suit for violations of the antitrust laws by alleging that Keurig engaged in a concerted pattern of behavior including entering into agreements preventing competitors from selling their products in the office and retail space. Keurig also designed a locking mechanism that prevented Rogers coffee pods from working in Keurig brewers. The matter is currently venued in the Southern District of New York, pursuant to an order from the Multi District Panel.  Dan Johnson Law Group successfully opposed Keurig’s motion to dismiss, resulting in all of Rogers’ claims remaining in the case.  The matter is currently in the discovery phase.