| |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
|
 |
| |
 |
|
|
| |
| |
> High Technology
Case Examples
>
Other Practice Areas...
|
|
AEP
has frequently been asked to work on cases involving high technology,
including computer hardware, peripherals, printers, and software. Such
cases often involve complex valuation issues, and require the use of
surveys and complex economic models to estimate damages.
|
|
| |
|
Representative Assignments:
|
|
|
|
Apple
Computer, Inc. v. Microsoft Corp.
|
|
Apple hired AEP
to prepare a damages study in connection with Apple's copyright infringement
case against Microsoft. Apple alleged that Microsoft had infringed Apple's
copyright for its graphical user interface. Apple had licensed some
early aspects of its graphical interface to Microsoft. The damages analysis
valued those aspects of the graphical interface Microsoft had used but
had not licensed from Apple. The analysis included an AEP-directed survey
of computer purchasers in addition to a study of the market for computer
operating systems.
|
|
|
|
|
Vermont
Microsystems, Inc. v. Autodesk, Inc.
|
|
Autodesk, a major software developer, retained AEP in connection with
its defense against claims of misappropriation of trade secrets brought
by Vermont Microsystems, Inc., another software development firm. AEP
measured the plaintiff's losses through an end-user survey that measured
the economic value of the disputed technology. |
|
|
|
|
IBM
v. Seagate Technology LLC
|
|
IBM
alleged that it lost trade secrets because Seagate hired one of IBM's
top engineers. An important consideration was whether Seagate had undertaken
enough measures to inoculate itself against charges of trade secret misappropriation.
The case confronted the tension between the right of an individual to
seek employment in his area of expertise and the right of a company to
preserve its trade secrets. A closely related issue was whether an employee's
contribution is part of that employee's expertise, and therefore transferable
in a change of employment, or whether such a contribution is a trade secret.
Seagate hired AEP to evaluate these issues in the context of reviewing
IBM's damages study. |
| |
|
|
| EPT
v. CardioRhythm |
|
AEP
prepared a damages study on behalf of a developer who had a trade secrets
dispute against a rival firm. AEP's client, a start-up company that had
developed a non-surgical system for treating irregular heart rhythms,
shared its trade secrets with some prospective investors when it sought
financing. These investors then allegedly used the trade secrets to launch
their firm. As a result, AEP's client was unable to obtain financing.
AEP computed damages based on the value the company would have realized
had its trade secrets not been misappropriated. The case settled. |
| |
|
|
| Hewlett-Packard
v. Nu-kote |
|
After
Hewlett-Packard filed a patent infringement action against Nu-kote, a
replacement ink manufacturer, Nu-kote counter-sued alleging that Hewlett-Packard
violated antitrust laws when it sought to eliminate competition for inkjet
cartridges. AEP provided expert testimony on the proper definition of
the market and on how the market would have been different absent Hewlett-Packard's
alleged anticompetitive acts. As part of its market analysis, AEP undertook
a survey of consumers using inkjet printers and cartridges. |
| |
|
|
| Triad
Systems Corp. v. Southeastern Express Systems, Inc. |
|
Triad,
a major manufacturer of specialized computer systems and software for
automotive parts stores, sued to prevent Southeastern from using Triad
software to maintain and upgrade Triad computer systems. Southeastern
counter sued, alleging Triad had violated the antitrust laws, and argued
that Triad had leveraged its legitimately obtained monopoly in software
to gain a monopoly position in the market for servicing of Triad computers.
Southeastern hired AEP to analyze liability and damages for the antitrust
phase of the litigation. The analysis considered the tension between Triad's
right to control the use of its intellectual property and the misuse of
that intellectual property to stifle competition. |
| |
|
|
| Texas
Instruments v. Tandy Corp. |
|
Tandy,
a major computer manufacturer, hired AEP to study antitrust issues in
the technology licensing market. Texas Instruments alleged that it had
fundamental patents that applied to all computer manufacturers, including
Tandy. An important issue was whether Texas Instruments had waited to
enforce its patents until they were widely used. |
|
|
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
