Profile
Howard Wizenfeld focuses his practice in the area of intellectual property law. He handles complex patent litigations primarily in the electrical engineering, telecommunications, and computer science fields, and has handled litigations in the biotechnology, pharmaceutical, and chemical sectors. He also counsels clients with respect to various intellectual property issues, including licensing or purchasing IP assets, corporate transactions that concern IP, and patent prosecution. Although Howard’s practice largely focuses on intellectual property law, he has also litigated non-IP matters, for example defending a large manufacturer of Petrol tanks in an arbitration proceeding for payment of dividends.
Prior to joining Cadwalader, Howard was an associate at White & Case, Quinn Emanuel, and Amster, Rothstein & Ebenstein where he participated in all aspects of intellectual property law.
Howard earned his J.D. from Fordham University School of Law, where he was a member of Moot Court, and his B.S. in Electrical Engineering from Columbia University. He is admitted to practice in the State of New York, the Southern and Eastern Districts of New York, and is registered to practice before the U.S. Patent & Trademark Office. In addition, Howard is a member of the New York Intellectual Property Law Association (NYIPLA).
Experience
Auth Token v. Citigroup (W.D. Tex.)
Defending Citi against charges of infringing a patent related to the use of an authentication token embedded in Europay, Mastercard and Visa (“EMV”) chip cards.
AuthWallet v. Citibank (S.D. Tex.)
Represented Citibank in a patent infringement lawsuit alleging infringement of a patent related to online platforms and services that facilitate transaction processing, including redemption of reward points.
Fast 101 v. Citigroup (D. Del.)
Defended Citibank against charges of infringing five patents related to electronic intermediated settlement of invoices. We successfully won a motion to dismiss the case based on a ruling that the patents were direct to ineligible subject matter, which was successfully affirmed on Appeal.
TriOptima Ltd. v. Quantile Technologies, Ltd. (EDTX)
Defend Quantile against allegations of patent infringement and trade secret misappropriation. We successfully won a motion to dismiss the case for lack of personal jurisdiction.
Certain Blow-Molded Bag-In Container Devices, Associated Components, And End Products Containing Or Using Same (U.S.I.T.C.)
Represent Complainant Anheuser-Busch InBev before the International Trade Commission in an infringement proceeding involving several of ABI’s patents related to blow-molding bag-in-container dispensing devices as well as in a parallel federal district court litigation. The case settled on favorable terms for ABI.
Modern Telecom Systems v. Brother International Corporation (D. Del.)
Represented Brother in a patent infringement lawsuit relating to the use of training sequences in Wi-Fi communications.
Diversified Observation v. Brother International Corporation (D. Del.)
Represented Brother in a patent infringement lawsuit concerning light adjustment technology in printers and scanners.
Freeny v. Brother International Corporation (E.D. Tex.)
Represented Brother in a patent infringement lawsuit relating to use of authorization codes in providing services over Wi-Fi communications.
Orca Health, Inc. v. 3D4Medical Ltd., et al. (D. Utah) (Settled Prior to Filing Answer)
3D4Medical Ltd., et al. v. Orca Health, Inc. (S.D. Cal.) (Settled Prior to Filing Answer)
Represented 3D4Medical Ltd. in actions against Orca Health, Inc. In one action, we defended 3D4Medical in Utah Federal District Court where Orca Health alleged over 10 state and federal tort claims, including unfair competition, trade secret misappropriation, and infringement of its trademarks, trade dress and patents. Before discovery began, we filed multiple motions to dismiss the complaint under rule 12(b)(6) as well as a motion to disqualify plaintiff’s counsel and to invalidate the asserted patents as being directed to ineligible subject matter. In addition, we filed a separate lawsuit in the Southern California Federal District Court against Orca Health for copyright infringement, trade dress infringement, unfair competition and breach of obligations under its End User License Agreement with 3D4Medical. After having already dismissed one of the two patents from case and just before the hearing on the Utah preliminary motions, a favorable settlement of both cases was reached.
ParkerVision, Inc. v. Qualcomm, Inc.
Representing Qualcomm in a multi-patent infringement case related to RF receivers.
Broadcom Corp. v. Qualcomm, Inc.
Substituted as counsel to defend Qualcomm against allegations of infringement by its 3rd Generation baseband processors and proprietary network software. Broadcom alleged that these products infringed telecommunications patents related to video encoding and network switching technologies. The case settled on favorable terms.
Matsushita Electric Industrial Co., Ltd. v. MediaTek, Inc.
Represented Mediatek in a multi-patent litigation involving optical disc drive technology. The case settled on favorable terms.
Nidec Corp. v. Victor Company of Japan
Represented JVC in a multi-patent infringement case related to hard disk drives. Case settled on favorable terms.
Reliant Pharmaceuticals v. Abbot Laboratories
Represented Reliant Pharmaceuticals in a litigation involving fenofibrates. The case settled on favorable terms.
John R. Gammino v. Verizon Communications, Inc.
Defended Verizon and its subsidiaries against allegations of patent infringement regarding call-blocking technology. Case settled on favorable terms.
Syngeta Seeds, Inc. v. Monsanto
Represented Syngenta Seeds in a patent infringement litigation relating to genetically modified seeds.
Defended a large corporation in an arbitration proceeding regarding payment of dividends.
|
