HANDAL & ASSOCIATES LAWYERS AND COUNSELORS

Transcription

1 HANDAL & ASSOCIATES LAWYERS AND COUNSELORS

2 INTRODUCTION The philosophy at Handal & Associates is simple: be the client. Because if we are the client, we feel the client s elation and distress. As a firm, we try to select our clientele as much as they select us. We get to know our clients, visiting them often and regularly, so as to get to know them in their own environment. We believe that if we know who our client is, we can best serve their needs. Handal & Associates has been in existence for thirty years and has always been true to this philosophy. It is not unusual for the firm to represent clients for decades in the most intense of legal circumstances or simply act as a sounding board for different strategies. In Handal & Associates, our clients find a quiet partner that is always around and willing to lend a helping hand. As a firm, we never fail to deliver quality legal service to our select clientele that is focused on their individual needs. Over the years, Handal & Associates has evolved into San Diego s only true boutique intellectual property litigation law firm. We specialize in patent litigation and enjoy an impressive history of litigation victories for a distinguished list of corporate clients. Looking at the numbers, we are by far the most active specialized intellectual property litigation law firm in San Diego. While San Diego is our base, the firm s reach is global. Having conducted litigation in several venues including the Eastern District of Texas, Washington DC, New York, New Jersey, Virginia, as well as the Northern and Central Districts of California. Our litigation team is always suited up and ready to hit the road. With decades of combined experience, the attorneys of Handal & Associates provide clients with a seasoned and experienced approach to problem solving. When the fate of the client s company is on the line, Handal & Associates steps up to the plate.

3 GLOBAL REACH Handal & Associates has achieved global recognition by representing clients from around the world. Our current client list includes companies headquartered in Hong Kong, Singapore, The People s Republic of China, Mexico and Germany. Specializing in electronics and related technologies, the firm has gained a worldwide reputation as the firm to contact for reasonably-priced, top quality patent litigation defense in these areas. We are known for the delivering high quality legal services at reasonable cost with a sensitivity to the cultural differences that exist in today s world. The firm has affiliates in Asia, including greater China, so that the firm can deliver prompt-global service to our clients 24 hours a day. Having local people on the team creates unique opportunities for introductions and for conducting business in today s fastpaced global economy.

4 FIRM CULTURE The firm operates in a relaxed environment. We never accept work for the sake of taking work. The firm s engagements are always within our core areas of competence and always when there is a good fit with the client s needs. We are relaxed and easy to deal with. The principal attorneys of the firm have worked together for over a decade. As a team, they work together on all cases. There is never a time when a client is unable to reach one of them for a case update or a chat. The firm accepts engagements where, as a group, the attorneys are able to focus their full and direct attention in service of the clients needs. As such, the firm is selective with the cases and clients it chooses to represent. For that reason, the firm enjoys long standing relationships with its clients who have come back to Handal & Associates time and time again for their legal needs. The firm s fundamental approach to each case is to provide individual and customized attention to each issue. The lawyers of Handal & Associates therefore prepare, discover and litigate each case with a clear perspective of the client s desired results. Handal & Associates has proven to be an aggressive opponent in and out of the courtroom. As such, with an ever-increasing propensity for specialization within the legal profession, the firm s skills as trial lawyers have never failed to give clients an edge in whatever area of representation the firm is called upon to practice.

5 LITIGATION Make no mistake, the firm s focus is litigation. Our services include investigating, prosecuting and defending claims that are commonly encountered by companies that do business in today s rapidly-changing world. With an emphasis on practical problem solving, we have done extensive work in the following areas: Intellectual Property Patent litigation Trademark litigation International Trade Commission proceedings Prosecution and defense of business frauds Contract litigation Corporate partnership disputes and shareholder derivative actions Product liability litigation Labor disputes involving high profile executives Prosecuting professional liability claims Class action litigation Anti-trust litigation Health care regulation Handal & Associates team of seasoned litigators blend their mature business experience with a common sense approach to arrive at practical solutions. Our goal is to deliver satisfactory results at a reasonable cost.

6 OUR INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY PRACTICE Handal & Associates has extensive experience handling its clients Intellectual Property needs including copyright and patent infringement litigation, intellectual property licensing negotiations, licensing programs, prosecuting patents in association with qualified patent practitioners, and handling trademark/lanham Act disputes. Additionally, the firm is experienced in handling and litigating Section 337 actions before the United States International Trade Commission. On the licensing side, the firm has acted as lead negotiator in a number of high profile intellectual property acquisitions, including the RCA brand from Thomson. The firm also acted as lead negotiator in connection with the acquisition of other intellectual properties including GE and Hamilton Beach brands for kitchen electronics. The firm regularly associates with licensed patent attorneys in order to facilitate the prosecution of patents for our clients. With a strong understanding of consumer electronics, manufacturing and electrical engineering, Handal & Associates is keenly positioned to assist clients and manage their intellectual property rights.

7 OUR SECTION 337 PRACTICE Section 337 investigations, which are conducted by the United States International Trade Commission, most often involve claims regarding intellectual property rights, including allegations of patent and trademark infringement by importers of goods. The primary remedy available in Section 337 investigations is an exclusion order that directs Untied States Customs to stop infringing imports from crossing the border. The Commission may also issue cease and desist orders against named importers and other persons engaged in unfair acts that violate Section 337. Expedited relief in the form of temporary exclusion orders and temporary cease and desist orders may also be available in certain exceptional circumstances. Section 337 investigations, which are conducted pursuant to 19 U.S.C and the Administrative Procedure Act, include trial proceedings before administrative law judges and review by the International Trade Commission. As such Section 337 investigations have become powerful weapons to keep infringing products out of the United States. Used effectively, the holder of United States patents can wage war on foreign competition in ways that traditional patent litigation does not. Whether you are a company seeking to exclude infringing products or a company that is subject to a Section 337 action aimed at keeping your products out of the Untied States, you need a skilled and experienced lawyer by your side because the rules in such proceedings are different, rigid and extremely complicated. Section 337 proceedings are therefore highly technical and expensive. Handal & Associates is but one of a small number of firms big or small - in the United States that handles Section 337 matters. We have handled several and recently tried a Section 337 action before the honorable Chief Administrative Judge Charles Bullock. The matter was hard fought and our client bet the company on a victory over a much bigger and better funded foe. The lawyers at Handal & Associates battled against the worlds largest law firm that claimed to have never lost an ITC Section 337 action, ultimately gaining not only a finding of no violation of Section 337 for its client, but also a finding that many of the asserted patent claims against our client were invalid.

8 TRANSACTIONAL PRACTICE Handal & Associates has been engaged in a number of corporate transactional matters. The firm has acted as lead negotiator in a number of high profile business acquisitions involving intellectual properties, real estate, and business units. The firm enjoys an excellent reputation for handling many types of commercial and business transactions including: Acting as General counsel for large corporations Vendor liability Contracts including multi-million dollar contract disputes Fraud and RICO Deceptive Trade Practices Employer/Employee Matters Corporate partnership disputes and shareholder derivative actions Business transactions exceeding $130,000,000 in value Product liability cases involving manufacturing defects and/or failure to warn issues Intellectual property disputes, licensing, and acquisitions

9 CLASS ACTIONS Handal and Associates has represented clients in a number of class action lawsuits involving securities fraud, product liability, and anti-trust. The firm was lead counsel in class action lawsuits that have included: Koch v. Gateway (Consumer Product Defect) Lead Counsel Jaffe v. Pioneer of North America (Consumer Product Defect) Lead Counsel The 3C DVD Patent Class Action Suit, which include defendants Koninklijke Philips Electronics, N.V., dba Philips Intellectual Property and Standards, Sony Corporation of Japan, Pioneer Corporation of Japan, and LG Electronics (Anti-Trust/ Patent Licensing) The BCCI Depositor Class Action Suit (Banking Fraud)

10 PRINCIPAL MEMBERS OF THE FIRM ANTON HANDAL GABRIEL HEDRICK PAMELA C. CHALK

11 ANTON HANDAL ANTON N. HANDAL: Founder of the Firm, Tony was admitted to the California Bar in 1984 and the Florida State Bar in He received his BA in Economics from UCLA in 1980 and his JD from Southwestern University School of Law in He is a member in good standing with the Bar of the United States Supreme Court, the Bar of the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, the State Bar of California and the United States Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, the United States District Courts for the Southern, Central and Northern Districts of California, as well as the Central District of Florida. He has practiced in the Federal and State courts of Colorado, New York, New Jersey, Texas, Hawaii to name a few. His pro bono work includes having served as counsel to the San Diego Fire Youth Soccer Team, as a member of the Villa View Hospital board of directors, and as a member of the Board of Trustees of the San Diego Railroad Museum. Litigation: Tony works hand in hand with his partners on every matter. They work as a unit with Tony as the lead on every case bearing the firm s name. Tony is an experienced trial lawyer, having tried over a hundred disputes in a variety of settings. He has a command of trial techniques, discovery practice, motion work, and case presentation. He has litigated cases in Federal Courts, State Courts and at Arbitrations. Notably, Tony and Mr. Hedrick ( Gabe ), also of the Firm, litigated to completion an International Trade Commission Section 337 action in Washington DC in defense of a client who was alleged to have infringed over 18 claims arising out of two patents. Under their guidance, the firm achieved a complete victory for its client with a finding of non-infringement on each claim, and a finding that the asserted claims under one of the patents were invalid. Tony s case-law specialties include: Patent Litigation, Civil RICO, Securities Frauds, Class Actions, Contract Disputes, Business Fraud, Real Estate Disputes, Personal Injury, and Torts. He has settled or hundreds of millions of dollars worth of controversies. His trial verdicts are measured in the tens of millions of dollars. Tony also lays claim to several case precedents including the setting aside of the O'Dench doctrine (establishing residual liability of the US Federal Government for the frauds of Directors of companies seized by the government) in the landmark, Ledo Financial vs. FSLIC; and the elimination of judicial enforcement of gaming liabilities in Kelly v. First Astri Corporation. Mr. Handal is a proven litigator having represented clients against major corporate opponents in intellectual property matters including Imation Corporation, (patent infringement), BDT AG (patent infringement, Section 337 investigation). He has litigated against extraordinary opponents such as Danaher Corporation (patent infringement, copyright infringement, business fraud) and Massachusetts Mutual life Insurance Company (copyright infringement), Koninklijke Philips Electronics, N.V., dba Philips Intellectual Property and Standards, Sony Corporation of Japan, Pioneer Corporation of Japan, and LG Electronics (Anti-Trust/Patent Licensing); Pioneer Company (Consumer Class Action); Gateway (Consumer Class Action); and others.

12 ANTON HANDAL - cont. Transactional: Mr. Handal has constructed and drafted a variety of business documents from boilerplate on invoices to complex purchase and sale agreements. He has consulted clients in major business transactions including the development of strategies to successfully handle them. Mr. Handal has negotiated business transactions exceeding $130,000,000 in value. He acted as lead negotiator on the acquisition of the RCA, from Thomson, for an overseas client. He has also successfully negotiated licensing/distribution deals for the Firm s electronics manufacturing clients from, among others: Disney ; Hamilton Beach ; General Electric ; Philips; Sony; 3C DVD licensing group; MPAA; 6C DVD licensing group; MPEG LA patent licensing group; Dolby ; Sisvel/Audio MPEG; The Licensing Company; and Digital Choice of Texas. Corporate: Mr. Handal has been CEO of a start-up technology company, secured patents, directed financial transactions, negotiated contracts, raised capital and handled communications with shareholder/investors. He has successfully negotiated and secured off-shore manufacturing agreements, and acted as General Counsel to a closely held group of companies engaged in the Real Estate, Health Care and Entertainment industries. Public Company Experience: Mr. Handal was appointed to the position of Chief Executive Officer of the Singing Machine Company, a publicly traded (AMEX: SMD) electronics manufacturer and distributor located in Ft. Lauderdale, Florida. Mr. Handal, directed the day-to-day affairs of the company, was responsible for all financial reporting and grew the company into profitability in one year, turning around 4 years of record losses. Regulatory: Mr. Handal is one of a handful of attorneys in the State of California that regularly represents Knox-Keene licensed health plans before the California Department of Managed Health Care.

13 GABRIEL HEDRICK GABRIEL HEDRICK: Partner in the Firm, was admitted to the California State Bar in 2002 after graduating from the University of San Diego School of Law where he earned distinctions for his work in International Law. Mr. Hedrick earned a B.A. in Economics from the University of Colorado at Boulder in Mr. Hedrick is an experienced civil litigator with a background in complex corporate transactional matters and civil litigation, including intellectual property litigation. He has represented various multi-national companies, individuals, governmental entities, and national insurance companies in a wide variety of legal disputes involving issues of, among other things, intellectual property litigation in both Federal court and before the International Trade Commission, intellectual property licensing, corporate transactions, partnership and shareholder disputes, and contract disputes. Mr. Hedrick is a member in good standing with the State Bar of California and has also been admitted before the Supreme Court of The State of California, the United States District Courts for the Southern, Central and Northern Districts of California, the Ninth Circuit and Federal Circuit Courts of Appeal, and the United States Supreme Court. Representative Litigation Matters: ITC 337 Investigations: Certain Automated Media Library Devices, U.S. International Trade Commission, Investigation No. 337-TA-746, representing five respondents in a Section 337 investigation involving automated data storage devices. Resulting in a complete victory after trial and appeal for the firm s client. Certain DVD Players and Recorders and Certain Products Containing Same, U.S. International Trade Commission, Investigation No. 337-TA-603, obtained favorable settlement for multiple respondents in Section 337 Investigation involving patented DVD player and DVD recorder technology.

14 GABRIEL HEDRICK- cont. Representative Patent Litigation: e.digital Corporation v. Apple, Inc., et al., U.S. District Court for the Southern District of California, representing plaintiff patent holder in more than 20 patent infringement lawsuits against smartphone, tablet, and camera manufacturers and retailers in effort to enforce client s flash memory-related patents. Patent Harbor, LLC v. Audiovox Corporation, et al., U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Texas, Case No. 6:10-cv-361-LED-JDL, Federal Circuit Court of Appeals, Docket No , representing defendant and appellee in patent infringement litigation involving technology for generating and displaying DVD content menus. Guardian Media Technologies, Ltd. v. Acer America Corporation, et al., U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Texas, Case No. 6:10-cv-597-LED, representing three defendants in patent infringement litigation related to parental control technology for DVD players and TVs.! Patent Harbor, LLC v. Audiovox Corporation, et al., U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Texas, Case No. 6:10-cv-361-LED-JDL, representing defendant in patent infringement litigation involving technology for generating and displaying DVD content menus. Collins, et al. v. Western Digital Technologies, Inc., et al., U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Texas, Case No. 2:09-cv-219-DF, obtained favorable settlement for defendant in patent infringement litigation involving diamond like carbon coating for computer hard disc drives. Multimedia Patent Trust v. Directv, Inc., et al. U.S. District Court for the Southern District of California, Case No. 3:09-cv-278-JAH-CAB, obtained favorable settlement for defendant in patent infringement litigation involving MPEG-2 encoding and decoding technologies. Maldonado v. Belt Drives, Ltd., United States District Court for the Southern District of California, Case No. 3:08-cv-1431, obtained favorable settlement for plaintiff in patent infringement litigation related to a patented motorcycle brake design.

15 GABRIEL HEDRICK- cont. Patent Litigation - cont: Technology Licensing Company, Inc. v. jwin Electronics Corporation, United States District Court for the Northern District of California, Case No. 3:08-cv-3802, obtained favorable settlement for defendant in patent infringement litigation involving a system and method of making and/or viewing DVDs. Technology Licensing Company, Inc. v. Memcorp, Inc., United States District Court, Northern District of California, Case No. 06-cv-7110, obtained favorable settlement for Defendant in patent infringement litigation involving a system and method of making and/or viewing DVDs. Koninklijke Philips Electronics, et al. v. International Disc Manufacturer, et al., United States District Court for the Southern District of California, Case No. CV , obtained favorable settlement for defendants in dispute over patent license royalties. Representative Trademark, Licensing and other Business Litigation: Those Characters From Cleveland, Inc. v. The Singing Machine Company, Inc. State of Ohio, Court of Common Pleas, Cuyahoga County, Case No. CV , obtained favorable settlement for Defendant in dispute over copyright/trademark license agreement. CN Capital, Inc. v. CalAmp Corp., et al., Superior Court of California, County of Ventura, Case No. CIV243567, obtained favorable settlement for defendants and cross-complainants arising from dispute over an asset purchase agreement. Orient Power Hi-Fi Manufacturing Limited v. Peavey Electronics Corporation, Superior Court of California, County of San Diego, Case No , obtained favorable settlement for Hong Kong manufacturer/supplier plaintiff in dispute over approximately $1 million in unpaid invoices. Surround the Sound Media Corp. v. International Disc Manufacturer, et al., Superior Court of California, County of Los Angeles, Case No. SC94612, obtained favorable settlement for defendant and cross-complainant DVD disc manufacturer in contract dispute.

16 GABRIEL HEDRICK- cont. Trademark, Licensing and other Business Litigation - cont: The Singing Machine Company, Inc. v. MGA Entertainment, Inc., United States District Court for the Central District of California, Case No. 2:10-cv-4536, obtained favorable settlement for plaintiff in trademark and copyright licensing dispute related to the Bratz line of children s toys. Chan, et al. v. Lin, et al., Superior Court for the State of California, County of Los Angeles, Case No. BC401139, obtained multi-million dollar settlement for Hong Kong based plaintiffs in complex partnership dispute and shareholder derivative action against approximately twenty corporate and individual defendants. Hamilton Beach Brands, Inc. v. Starlight International Holdings, Ltd., et al., United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, obtained favorable settlement for Hong Kong based defendant in case involving alleged underpayment of royalties on a license agreement. Starlite Consumer Electronics (USA), Inc. v. Petters Consumer Brands LLC, International Center for Dispute Resolution Case No T , representing Claimant in arbitration involving breach of contract claim based on alleged failure to pay over $1 million in past due invoice.

17 PAMELA C. CHALK PAMELA C. CHALK: Partner in the Firm, was admitted to the California Bar in Ms. Chalk received her bachelor of arts in English from the University of Maryland in 1994, a master s degree in management from Troy State University in 1996, and her JD from Texas Tech School of law in Ms. Chalk spent two years of her law school career as a visiting student as the USD School of Law. While in law school, Ms. Chalk received two CALI awards for academic excellence, assisted low-income clients at the University of San Diego Civil Clinic, and published two trademark articles in the Journal of Contemporary Legal Issues. Ms. Chalk is a member in good standing with the State Bar of California and has also been admitted before the United States Supreme Court, Supreme Court of The State of California, the United States Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, the United States District Courts for the Northern, Southern and Central Districts of California. Ms. Chalk is a seasoned civil litigator, having been with the firm for over ten years. Her resume is filled with a wide array of civil litigation experience that includes complex corporate transactional matters and civil litigation, including intellectual property litigation. Ms. Chalk has represented various multi-national companies and individuals in a wide variety of legal disputes involving issues of, among other things, intellectual property disputes in both Federal Court and before the International Trade Commission, intellectual property licensing, corporate transactions, partnership and shareholder disputes, contract disputes, manufacturing disputes, national class action matters, legal malpractice, and complex real estate disputes. Representative Litigation Matters: e.digital Corporation v. Diasonic Technology Co. LTD, et al., U.S. District Court for the Southern District of California, Case Number 3:12-cv-0253, represented plaintiff in patent infringement matter; successfully resolved patent infringement case. e.digital Corporation v. Shaghal, LTD. dba ematic, et al., U.S. District Court for the Southern District of California, Case Number 3:12-cv-02801,represented plaintiff in patent infringement matter; successfully resolved patent infringement case. e.digital Corporation v. Grundig Business Systems GmbH, et al.,,u.s. District Court for the Southern District of California, Case Number 3:12-CV-02696, represented plaintiff in patent infringement matter; successfully obtained consent judgment against defendants.

18 PAMELA C. CHALK cont. e.digital Corporation v. MiTAC Digital Corporation, et al. U.S. District Court for the Southern District of California, Case Number 3:12-cv-02997,represented plaintiff in patent infringement matter; successfully resolved patent infringement case. Incase Designs, Inc. vs. Jwin Electronics Corp., et al., United States District Court for the Central District of California, Case No. 3:13-CV-00610, represented patent infringement defendant and successfully resolved matter at initial stages of litigation. Nanospin Solutions Inc. vs. Gray, Cary, Ware & Freidenrich LLP, et al., Superior Court of California, County of San Diego, Case No. GIC , successfully represented plaintiff patent owner in legal malpractice lawsuit against major law firm related to alleged missed filing deadlines/failure to protect patent interests. Certain DVD Players and Recorders and Certain Products Containing Same, U.S. International Trade Commission, Investigation No. 337-TA-603, helped obtain favorable settlement for multiple respondents in Section 337 Investigation involving patented DVD player and DVD recorder technology. The Singing Machine Company, Inc. v. MGA Entertainment, Inc., United States District Court for the Central District of California, Case No. 2:10-cv-4536, obtained favorable settlement for plaintiff in trademark and copyright licensing dispute related to the Bratz line of children s toys. Delta Millennium, Inc. v. Starlight Marketing (Hk) Ltd., United States District Court, District of New Jersey, Case 3:12-cv-02824, obtained favorable settlement for international manufacturing defendant in breach of contract case. Tan vs. Dolby, et al., U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California, Case No.05-cv-3973, successful representation of a key female executive of a multinational firm in connection with claims of wrongful termination. This cornerstone case dealt with the rights of non-us resident women under the United States laws and Constitution to be free from workplace harassment. Anand vs. Circuit City Stores, Inc., et al., Superior Court of California, County of San Francisco, Case No. CGC , represented defendants in consumer class action involving CD Players; obtained dismissal of class allegations and resolved matter in favor of manufacturing defendants.

19 PAMELA C. CHALK cont. Koch vs. Gateway., U.S. District Court for the Southern District of California, Case No. 05-cv-2229 obtained favorable settlement in national class action case involving defects with plasma televisions. Jaffe vs. Pioneer North America Inc., Superior Court of California, County of San Diego, Case No. GIC835574, obtained favorable settlement in national class action case involving defects with plasma televisions. vs. WellPoint, ADRS Case No JWO, successfully arbitrated wrongful termination case and obtained favorable settlement in favor of a top level, key female executive. Fuess vs. San Diego Regional Center for the Developmentally Disabled, et al., Superior Court of California, County of San Diego, Case No. GIC , obtained favorable settlement for plaintiff employee in wrongful termination and discrimination dispute. AMCOBeauty Corporation v. Armstrong McCall, L.P. et al., Superior Court of California, County of San Diego, Case No CU-BC-CTL, litigated and obtained favorable settlement of complex franchise-franchisor dispute. McProud Inc. v. Armstrong McCall, L.P. et al., U.S. District Court of California, Case Number 8:11-CV JST, litigated and obtained favorable settlement of complex franchise-franchisor dispute. Koornenny vs. Landfill Holdings LLC, Superior Court of California County of Ventura, Case No. SC and Superior Court of California, County of San Diego, Case No.: GIC , represented defendants in dispute with former counsel over attorneys fees; successfully won change of venue motion and appeal on that motion; obtained favorable settlement for clients. Mahe vs. Gordon, et al., Superior Court of California, County of San Diego, Case No. GIC874406, obtained favorable settlement for minor injured in golf cart accident against golf cart owner and makers of E-Z-GO golf cart. Palmer v. Scull, et al., Superior Court of California, County of San Diego, Case No CU-BC-CTL, represented individual plaintiff in complex real estate dispute/real estate investment case; obtained over $13,000,000 judgment against corporate defendants and over $6 million in judgments against corporate officers of those entities.

20 PAMELA C. CHALK cont. Adams vs. W.C. Richards, County of Orange Superior Court of California, County of Orange, Case No. 04CC07238, obtained favorable settlement for landfill worker against paint manufacturer for personal injuries related to the disposal of paint products. Glover vs. Planned Parenthood, et al. Superior Court of California, County of San Diego, Case No CU-PN-CTL, obtained favorable settlement in medical malpractice claim against Planned Parenthood for personal injuries related to alleged late diagnosis of cervical cancer. Clinton vs. Gentle Dental & Orthodontics, et al., Superior Court of California, County of Riverside, Case No. INC , represented major dental insurance company in dental malpractice case; successfully resolved matter during initial stages of litigation.