IP Due Diligence
Patent & Trade Secret Litigation
Fordham University School of Law - J.D., 1996
Polytechnic University - M.S.M., 1992
Polytechnic University - B.S.E.E., 1990, cum laude
John Moehringer handles complex patent litigation, primarily in the electrical engineering, telecommunications, and computer science fields. In addition to representing clients in patent infringement suits in the U.S. district courts, John also has substantial experience representing clients in the U.S. International Trade Commission. He also counsels clients with respect to various Intellectual Property issues, including IP licensing and transactions, and advises clients on issues related to data protection and usage, data privacy and licensing of data assets.
Prior to joining Cadwalader, John was a partner with Morgan & Finnegan. Before graduating from law school, he worked as an electrical engineer for Grumman Aerospace Corporation. John is currently a Board Member of the New York Intellectual Property Law Association (NYIPLA) and has served as Co-Chair of the NYIPLA Trade Secrets Committee, and is a member of the New York State Bar Association and the Conner Inn of Court.
John received his J.D. from Fordham University School of Law, where he was a member of the Intellectual Property Law Journal. He received his Bachelor's Degree in Electrical Engineering, cum laude, and his Master's Degree in Engineering Management from Polytechnic University (now NYU-Poly).
- 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.
- Cedar Lane Technologies, Inc. v. Brother International Corporation (D. Del.): Representing Brother in a patent infringement lawsuit concerning six patents directed to various technologies, including JPEG compression, storage buffering in image processing, auto-cropping of an image, end of session notification, and authentication and secure access for printers in a network.
- 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.
- OpenText Corp. v. Alfresco Software Ltd. (W.D. Tex.): Representing defendant Alfresco in a series of three law suits filed by competitor OpenText alleging infringement of nine patents related to enterprise information management technology, including data storage, retention, and synchronization. We succeeded in securing a venue transfer of the three cases to the Central District of California where OpenText also filed suit against Alfresco’s parent company, Hyland Software. Judge Albright granted the transfer sua sponte after originally denying Alfresco’s motion to transfer and while Alfresco’s petition for mandamus was pending at the Federal Circuit.
- OpenText Corp. v. Hyland Software, Inc. (C.D. Cal.): Representing defendant Hyland in two separate litigations filed by competitor OpenText alleging infringement of eight patents related to enterprise information management technology, including data storage, retention, and synchronization. Cadwalader succeeded in invalidating two of the patents in an early motion on the pleadings under Section 101. Cadwalader further narrowed the case during claim construction, garnering a win under Section 112.
- Gladiator IP LLC v. Brother International Corporation (D. Del.): Represented Brother in a patent infringement lawsuit concerning networking and secure access technology in printers and scanners. The case was dismissed with prejudice following the filing of two Motions To Dismiss for failure to state a claim.
- 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.
- C.R. Bard Inc. v. AngioDynamics Inc., (D. Del.): Defending AngioDynamics against charges of infringing three Bard patents related to power-injectable ports. At trial, Bard sought damages of about $200 million, but suffered a complete defense win on all grounds. Following a successful 50(a) motion, the Court issued judgment of noninfringement, invalidity, patent-ineligibility and no willful infringement. In a companion case, we successfully secured a transfer for improper venue from the District of Utah to the District of Delaware.
- Diversified Observation v. Brother International Corporation (D. Del.): Represented Brother in a patent infringement lawsuit concerning light adjustment technology in printers and scanners.
- Certain Beverage Dispensing Systems and Components Thereof(S.I.T.C.): Defended Anheuser-Busch InBev in the ITC against allegations of patent infringement relating to beer dispensing devices.
- 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.
- Convolve Inc. v. Compaq Computer Corp. (S.D.N.Y.): Represent plaintiff Convolve in a patent infringement suit related to disk drive vibration control and input shaping. Achieved a favorable ruling at the Federal Circuit remanding for further proceedings.
- Symbology Innovations v. Brother International Corporation (S.D. Fla.): Represented Brother in a patent infringement lawsuit relating to the use of Quick Response (QR) codes in advertising media.
- Reflection Code LLC v. Brother International Corp (E.D. Tex.): Represented Brother in a patent infringement lawsuit relating to the use of two-dimensional barcode readers.
- Adaptix Inc. v. AT&T Mobility LLC, (N.D. Cal.): Represented AT&T Mobility in successfully defending allegations of patent infringement related to 4G/LTE wireless networks and the use of channel quality feedback reporting. We successfully secured a transfer from the Eastern District of Texas to the Northern District of California. The district court granted summary judgment of non-infringement of all seven asserted patent claims and invalidated four of those seven patent claims. Judgment was affirmed on appeal.
- Beneficial Innovations, Inc. v. Microsoft Corp, (E.D. Tex.): Defended Microsoft against allegations of patent infringement related to web-based targeted advertising.
- Dynamic Hosting Co. v. Brother International Corp. (E.D. Tex.): Represented Brother in a multi-defendant lawsuit brought by an NPE concerning remote printing to Internet-enabled printers using the Cloud.
- ParkerVision, Inc. v. Qualcomm, Inc., (N.D. Fla.): Representing Qualcomm in multi-patent infringement case related to RF receivers and baseband processing.
- Mobileye, Inc. v. Picitup Corp. (S.D.N.Y.): Represented plaintiff Mobileye in false advertising and intellectual property case involving image processing technology in the automotive industry.
- Development Innovation Group, LLC v. AT&T Mobility, (S.D.Cal.): Defended AT&T Mobility against charges of infringing three patents related to device synchronization, voice commands and power conservation.
- Ganas v. IBM (E.D. Tex.): Defended IBM against allegations of infringement in multi-defendant patent infringement suit dealing with encoding and firewall technology.
- Broadcom Corp. v. Qualcomm, Inc. (C.D.Cal.): Substituted as counsel of record on the eve of the trial to defend Qualcomm against allegations of infringement by its 3G baseband processors and proprietary network software. Broadcom alleged that these products infringed telecommunications patents related to video encoding and network switching technologies.
- In The Matter of Certain Computer Products, Computer Components And Products Containing Same: Represented complainant IBM before the International Trade Commission in an infringement proceeding involving several of IBM’s patents related to cooling, power conservation and router technology against respondents ASUSTek Computer, Inc. and ASUS Computer International as well as in a parallel federal district court litigation. While on appeal to the Federal Circuit, the case favorably settled.
- In the Matter of Certain Wireless Communication Devices, Components Thereof, And Products Containing The Same: Represented complainants Ericsson Inc. and Telefonaktiebolaget LM Ericsson in a patent infringement investigation before the International Trade Commission involving wireless telecommunication equipment. The investigation was successfully brought to conclusion through a stipulated dismissal and settlement resolved to the satisfaction of all parties.
- IBM v. Compuware (S.D.N.Y)/ Compuware v. IBM (E.D. Mich.): Represented plaintiff IBM in the Southern District of New York in a patent infringement litigation involving several of IBM’s patents related to database management, distributed computing and data processing. Also represented IBM in the Eastern District of Michigan defending against Compuware’s claims of trade secret theft, copyright infringement and antitrust violations and in asserting counterclaims of infringement of six patents related to graphical user interfaces, fault detection and system monitoring.
- TM Patents v. IBM (S.D.N.Y): Represented IBM against allegations of infringement of four complex computer patents in the area of data storage, memory control and parallel processing data routing. In a case of first impression, the Court ruled that a patentee is collaterally estopped from challenging claim construction rulings obtained in a prior action that was settled before appeal. 72 F. Supp. 2d 370 (S.D.N.Y. 1999).
Union Oil Company Of California v. Atlantic Richfield Company (C.D. Cal.): Represented defendants Atlantic Richfield Company, Chevron U.S.A., Inc., Exxon Corporation, Mobil Oil Corporation, Shell Oil Products Company and Texaco Refining And Marketing, Inc. in bench trial in the Central District of California involving alleged inequitable conduct during prosecution of plaintiff Union Oil Company of California’s patent directed to low-emission unleaded automotive gasoline and in a jury trial involving alleged infringement of the patent.