B&L attorneys secure a $112 million global settlement for their client National Oilwell Varco to resolve multiple patent infringement lawsuits that were litigated for a decade.”
NOV, L.P. v. Pason Systems Corp.
(1) Civil Action No. 03-cv-02579-RPM, In the United States District Court for the District of Colorado;
(2) Civil Action No. 1:12-cv-01113-SS, In the United States District Court for the Western District of Texas, Austin Division; and
(3) Civil Action No. T-436-05, In the Canadian Federal Court. (August 1, 2013)
B&L attorneys obtain a $72.6 million jury verdict following a four-week legal malpractice trial where Akin Gump lawyers negligently handled a client’s patents and patent applications.”
Air Measurement Technologies, Inc. et al. v. Akin Gump et al. Civil Action No. SA-03-ca-0541 (ECF No. 706 (May 7, 2009))
In the United States District Court for the Western District of Texas, San Antonio Division
Attorneys at B&L win a $2.3 million final judgment on a breach of contract claim for their client Oilfield Specialties, LLC for the post-verdict failure to pay patent royalties by Warrior Energy Services Corp.”
FINAL JUDGMENT – December 1, 2020
Oilfield Specialties, LLC v. Warrior Energy Services Corp.,
B&L win $700K for its client Pengu Swim School following a successful May 2023 trial where a unanimous jury found the competing swim school willfully infringed Pengu’s trademark.”
FINAL JUDGMENT – August 29, 2023
Pengu Swim School, LLC et al. v. Blue Legend, LLC, et al.
Civil Action No. 4:21-cv-01525 (ECF No. 132)
United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas Houston Division
B&L was retained by the manufacturer of oil and gas pipeline equipment that was involved in a serious accident where a worker suffered injuries which required him to be life-flight evacuated to a nearby hospital. Prior to any testing of the equipment, retention of expert witnesses or deposition of our client, B&L was able to promptly resolve the dispute to the satisfaction of our client.
See Cause No. 2022-48108, 125th Judicial District Court of Harris County, Texas.
On April 24, 2024, B&L won a complete and total domination victory in arbitration on behalf of its clients Stephanie and Christopher Findley and Imperial Recovery. Following a six-day arbitration trial, the Arbiter found for B&L’s clients and against the Asset Companies and the Coxes on all claims and awarded B&L’s clients $373,500.00 in compensation, finding that they were entitled to 51% interest in the Asset Companies’ valuation of $2.65 million minus the companies’ debts.
See AAA Case No. 01-22-0004-3159, In Re Matter of the Arbitration between Bryanna Cox and Corey Cox et al. vs. Stephanie Findley and Christopher Findley et al.
On April 24, 2024, B&L won a complete and total domination victory in arbitration on behalf of its clients Stephanie and Christopher Findley and Imperial Recovery. Following a six-day arbitration trial, the Arbiter found for B&L’s clients and against the Asset Companies and the Coxes on all claims and awarded B&L’s clients $373,500.00 in compensation, finding that they were entitled to 51% interest in the Asset Companies’ valuation of $2.65 million minus the companies’ debts.
See AAA Case No. 01-22-0004-3159, In Re Matter of the Arbitration between Bryanna Cox and Corey Cox et al. vs. Stephanie Findley and Christopher Findley et al.
On March 29, 2024, B&L defeated the global law firm of Morgan Lewis when B&L secured a victory for client Nabors in a patent infringement and breach of contract lawsuit. U.S. District Judge Alfred H. Bennet granted B&L’s Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(c) Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings and held C&M’s asserted patent-in-suit, U.S. Patent No. 11,300,260, was invalid as anticipated (post-AIA 35 U.S.C. § 102(a)(1)) by C&M’s own parent patents. Judge Bennet also dismissed C&M’s asserted breach of contract claims that had been asserted against B&L’s client Nabors. This case further shows how B&L’s boutique efficiency can will the day with the firm’s two lawyers besting the oppositions large team of litigators.
See Civil Action No. 4:22-cv-02140 (ECF No. 107), United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas, Houston Division.
On March 29, 2024, B&L defeated the global law firm of Morgan Lewis when B&L secured a victory for client Nabors in a patent infringement and breach of contract lawsuit. U.S. District Judge Alfred H. Bennet granted B&L’s Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(c) Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings and held C&M’s asserted patent-in-suit, U.S. Patent No. 11,300,260, was invalid as anticipated (post-AIA 35 U.S.C. § 102(a)(1)) by C&M’s own parent patents. Judge Bennet also dismissed C&M’s asserted breach of contract claims that had been asserted against B&L’s client Nabors. This case further shows how B&L’s boutique efficiency can will the day with the firm’s two lawyers besting the oppositions large team of litigators.
See Civil Action No. 4:22-cv-02140 (ECF No. 107), United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas, Houston Division.
B&L was retained by the manufacturer of oil and gas pipeline equipment that was involved in a serious accident where a worker suffered injuries which required him to be life-flight evacuated to a nearby hospital. Prior to any testing of the equipment, retention of expert witnesses or deposition of our client, B&L was able to promptly resolve the dispute to the satisfaction of our client.
See Cause No. 2022-48108, 125th Judicial District Court of Harris County, Texas.
On January 8, 2024, B&L prevailed against the combined firms of Gray Reed and Nix Patterson, LLP in a fraud and fraudulent inducement lawsuit where Auto-Dril was seeking over $12 million in damages from B&L’s client NOV. B&L obtained a FINAL JUDGMENT against all of Auto-Dril’s claims and a dismissal of the case with prejudice following extensive briefing and a hearing on Auto-Dril’s motions for reconsideration of Court’s summary judgment ruling in NOV’s favor.
See Cause No. 2023-40833, 61st Judicial District Court of Harris County, Texas.
On January 8, 2024, B&L prevailed against the combined firms of Gray Reed and Nix Patterson, LLP in a fraud and fraudulent inducement lawsuit where Auto-Dril was seeking over $12 million in damages from B&L’s client NOV. B&L obtained a FINAL JUDGMENT against all of Auto-Dril’s claims and a dismissal of the case with prejudice following extensive briefing and a hearing on Auto-Dril’s motions for reconsideration of Court’s summary judgment ruling in NOV’s favor.
See Cause No. 2023-40833, 61st Judicial District Court of Harris County, Texas.
B&L successfully defended NOV against plaintiff Johnson’s product liability claims relating to NOV’s top drive system where plaintiff sought damages of over $1,000,000.00.
B&L quickly filed and prevailed on their Tex R Civ Pro 91a.1 Motion to Dismiss Johnson’s asserted products and personal injury claims against NOV.
See Cause No. 2022-16309, 127th Judicial District Court of Harris County, Texas.
B&L successfully defended NOV against plaintiff Johnson’s product liability claims relating to NOV’s top drive system where plaintiff sought damages of over $1,000,000.00.
B&L quickly filed and prevailed on their Tex R Civ Pro 91a.1 Motion to Dismiss Johnson’s asserted products and personal injury claims against NOV.
See Cause No. 2022-16309, 127th Judicial District Court of Harris County, Texas.
On behalf of its client Grace Instruments, B&L successfully defeated global law firm Morgan Lewis’ Fed. R. Civ. P. 56 motion for summary judgment challenging the validity of Grace Instruments’ asserted U.S. Patent No. 7,412,877 on a new and useful viscometer designed for testing drilling fluids at extreme pressures.
See Civil Action No. 4:20-cv-01749, In the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas, Houston Division (ECF No. 146-2).
B&L successfully avoid an abatement of this lawsuit on behalf of its client NOV. Defendant Auto-Dril moved to stay the case that had been pending pending for more than 8 years in favor of Auto-Dril’s recently filed (July 3, 2023) fraud case in Harris County, Texas lawsuit. Following an aggressive hearing, U.S. District Court Robert W. Schroeder III denied Auto-Dril’s motion to stay and entered NOV’s proposed schedule for rapidly resolving this lawsuit.
See Civil Action No. 5:15-cv-00027-RWS, In the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Texas, Texarkana Division (ECF No. 353).
B&L aggressively pressed plaintiffs’ counsel to dismiss their music copyright infringement lawsuit against B&L’s client Sony Music. Plaintiffs asserted that Sony Music distributed rapper A$AP Ferg’s song “Plain Jane,” which allegedly included plaintiffs’ copyrighted work. Shortly after B&L’s designated sound recording expert analyzed plaintiffs’ copyrighted work and compared it to the song “Plain Jane,” plaintiffs promptly dismissed their lawsuit following a hearing on B&L’s Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss.
See Civil Action No. 4:23-cv-01508, In the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas, Houston Division (ECF Nos. 29-32).
B&L aggressively pressed plaintiffs’ counsel to dismiss their music copyright infringement lawsuit against B&L’s client Sony Music. Plaintiffs asserted that Sony Music distributed rapper A$AP Ferg’s song “Plain Jane,” which allegedly included plaintiffs’ copyrighted work. Shortly after B&L’s designated sound recording expert analyzed plaintiffs’ copyrighted work and compared it to the song “Plain Jane,” plaintiffs promptly dismissed their lawsuit following a hearing on B&L’s Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss.
See Civil Action No. 4:23-cv-01508, In the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas, Houston Division (ECF Nos. 29-32).
B&L developed the winning argument that knocked this $12 million fraud case out of court before B&L’s client NOV was even required to participate in discovery.
Plaintiff Auto-Dril filed suit against B&L client NOV on July 3, 2023, for fraud and fraudulent inducement, and sought more than $12 million in damages from NOV. Within a few weeks of being served with this lawsuit and before any discovery had been taken, B&L promptly prepared and filed a Tex. R. Civ. P. 166(a) motion for summary judgment (September 5, 2023) arguing that Auto-Dril’s claims of fraud were fundamentally flawed and set its motion for submission at the Court’s earliest available setting. District Judge Fredericka Phillips agreed, unconditionally dismissing Auto-Dril’s lawsuit with prejudice and entering a Final Judgment within 90 days of NOV being served with this lawsuit.
See Cause No. 2023-40833, 61st Judicial District Court of Harris County, Texas.
B&L developed the winning argument that knocked this $12 million fraud case out of court before B&L’s client NOV was even required to participate in discovery.
Plaintiff Auto-Dril filed suit against B&L client NOV on July 3, 2023, for fraud and fraudulent inducement, and sought more than $12 million in damages from NOV. Within a few weeks of being served with this lawsuit and before any discovery had been taken, B&L promptly prepared and filed a Tex. R. Civ. P. 166(a) motion for summary judgment (September 5, 2023) arguing that Auto-Dril’s claims of fraud were fundamentally flawed and set its motion for submission at the Court’s earliest available setting. District Judge Fredericka Phillips agreed, unconditionally dismissing Auto-Dril’s lawsuit with prejudice and entering a Final Judgment within 90 days of NOV being served with this lawsuit.
See Cause No. 2023-40833, 61st Judicial District Court of Harris County, Texas.
B&L successfully struck all asserted and unasserted patent invalidity defenses.
Defendant Stabil Drill asserted that B&L’s clients Extreme’s and Hard Rock’s asserted patents-in-suit (U.S. Patent Nos. 8,851,205; 8,813,877; and 9,657,526) were invalid for multiple statutory reasons and asserted more than 11 prior art references. Additionally, defendant Stabil Drill designated expert Steven Radford who provided an 87 page expert report in support of Stabil Drill’s invalidity defenses.
B&L achieved extraordinary results in successfully striking all of Stabil Drill’s patent invalidity defenses under a little-known theory of assignor privity. This case illustrates B&L’s keen ability to shred a case in pretrial and beat much larger law firms.
See Civil Action No. 4:19-cv-01977, In the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas, Houston Division (ECF No. 208).
In this trademark infringement lawsuit, B&L prevailed on all claims in a jury trial and obtained a permanent injunction against its client’s opponent – Blue Legend. U.S. Magistrate Judge Dena Palermo’s Final Judgment further awarded B&L’s client Pengu $482,863.75 in attorneys’ fees for defendant Blue Legend’s willful trademark infringement, $187,000 in Blue Legend’s profits and $28,390.57 in taxable costs – total award: $698,254.32.
See Civil Action No. 4:21-cv-1525, In the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas, Houston Division (ECF Nos. 132 & 140).
B&L successfully struck all asserted and unasserted patent invalidity defenses.
Defendant Stabil Drill asserted that B&L’s clients Extreme’s and Hard Rock’s asserted patents-in-suit (U.S. Patent Nos. 8,851,205; 8,813,877; and 9,657,526) were invalid for multiple statutory reasons and asserted more than 11 prior art references. Additionally, defendant Stabil Drill designated expert Steven Radford who provided an 87 page expert report in support of Stabil Drill’s invalidity defenses.
B&L achieved extraordinary results in successfully striking all of Stabil Drill’s patent invalidity defenses under a little-known theory of assignor privity. This case illustrates B&L’s keen ability to shred a case in pretrial and beat much larger law firms.
See Civil Action No. 4:19-cv-01977, In the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas, Houston Division (ECF No. 208).
In this trademark infringement lawsuit, B&L prevailed on all claims in a jury trial and obtained a permanent injunction against its client’s opponent – Blue Legend. U.S. Magistrate Judge Dena Palermo’s Final Judgment further awarded B&L’s client Pengu $482,863.75 in attorneys’ fees for defendant Blue Legend’s willful trademark infringement, $187,000 in Blue Legend’s profits and $28,390.57 in taxable costs – total award: $698,254.32.
See Civil Action No. 4:21-cv-1525, In the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas, Houston Division (ECF Nos. 132 & 140).
B&L was retained less than two weeks before jury selection and came in like gangbusters and secured a unanimous jury verdict for its client Pengu. In a four-day jury trial, B&L proved that Pengu’s trade dress was distinctive, the competing swim school willfully infringed Pengu’s trade dress and that Blue Legend’s profits should be awarded to B&L’s client Pengu. This case illustrates B&L’s ability to be creative, focused and fierce in trial and included a spectacular case-winning cross-examination.
B&L was retained less than two weeks before jury selection and came in like gangbusters and secured a unanimous jury verdict for its client Pengu. In a four-day jury trial, B&L proved that Pengu’s trade dress was distinctive, the competing swim school willfully infringed Pengu’s trade dress and that Blue Legend’s profits should be awarded to B&L’s client Pengu. This case illustrates B&L’s ability to be creative, focused and fierce in trial and included a spectacular case-winning cross-examination.
See Civil Action No. 4:21-cv-01525 (ECF No. 106-1 – VERDICT), United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas, Houston Division.
B&L prevailed at the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit on behalf of client NOV, following a successful 2021 jury trial. This victory paved the way for NOV to proceed back in district court to collect from Auto-Dril the unpaid balance due under the 2011 Settlement Agreement.
The Fifth Circuit held that the District Court lacked jurisdiction over defendant Auto-Dril’s fraud and fraudulent inducement counterclaims. The Fifth Circuit further held that the District Court had twice abused his discretion, and reinstated NOV’s breach of contract claims against Auto-Dril for failure to pay the full settlement amount.
See National Oilwell Varco, L.P. vs. Auto-Dril, Inc., 68 F.4th 206 (5th Cir. 2023).
B&L prevailed at the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit on behalf of client NOV, following a successful 2021 jury trial. This victory paved the way for NOV to proceed back in district court to collect from Auto-Dril the unpaid balance due under the 2011 Settlement Agreement.
The Fifth Circuit held that the District Court lacked jurisdiction over defendant Auto-Dril’s fraud and fraudulent inducement counterclaims. The Fifth Circuit further held that the District Court had twice abused his discretion, and reinstated NOV’s breach of contract claims against Auto-Dril for failure to pay the full settlement amount.
See National Oilwell Varco, L.P. vs. Auto-Dril, Inc., 68 F.4th 206 (5th Cir. 2023).
B&L prevailed at the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit on behalf of client NOV, following a successful 2021 jury trial. This victory paved the way for NOV to proceed back in district court to collect from Auto-Dril the unpaid balance due under the 2011 Settlement Agreement.
The Fifth Circuit held that the District Court lacked jurisdiction over defendant Auto-Dril’s fraud and fraudulent inducement counterclaims. The Fifth Circuit further held that the District Court had twice abused his discretion, and reinstated NOV’s breach of contract claims against Auto-Dril for failure to pay the full settlement amount.
See National Oilwell Varco, L.P. vs. Auto-Dril, Inc., 68 F.4th 206 (5th Cir. 2023).
In early 2023, B&L prevailed at the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit on behalf of client Grace Instruments. reversed the District Court’s final judgment in a patent infringement case.
The District Court had previously found the term “enlarged chamber” of Grace’s asserted patent-in-suit, U.S. Patent No. 7,412,877, invalid as indefinite under 35 U.S.C. § 112, ¶2. The Federal Circuit panel disagreed, reversing the District Court’s invalidity decision, and reinstated the validity of Grace Instruments’ patent-in-suit.
See Grace Instr. Indus., LLC vs. Chandler Instr. Co, LLC et al., 57 F.4th 1001 (Fed.Cir. 2023).
In early 2023, B&L prevailed at the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit on behalf of client Grace Instruments. reversed the District Court’s final judgment in a patent infringement case.
The District Court had previously found the term “enlarged chamber” of Grace’s asserted patent-in-suit, U.S. Patent No. 7,412,877, invalid as indefinite under 35 U.S.C. § 112, ¶2. The Federal Circuit panel disagreed, reversing the District Court’s invalidity decision, and reinstated the validity of Grace Instruments’ patent-in-suit.
See Grace Instr. Indus., LLC vs. Chandler Instr. Co, LLC et al., 57 F.4th 1001 (Fed.Cir. 2023).
In early 2023, B&L prevailed at the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit on behalf of client Grace Instruments. reversed the District Court’s final judgment in a patent infringement case.
The District Court had previously found the term “enlarged chamber” of Grace’s asserted patent-in-suit, U.S. Patent No. 7,412,877, invalid as indefinite under 35 U.S.C. § 112, ¶2. The Federal Circuit panel disagreed, reversing the District Court’s invalidity decision, and reinstated the validity of Grace Instruments’ patent-in-suit.
See Grace Instr. Indus., LLC vs. Chandler Instr. Co, LLC et al., 57 F.4th 1001 (Fed.Cir. 2023).
B&L prevailed over international law firm of Fish & Richardson on all disputed patent claim terms in a patent claim construction proceeding relating to a dual-eccentric reamer lawsuit before U.S. District Judge Lynn N. Hughes. Judge Hughes’ adoption of B&L’s claim constructions pave the way for a finding of infringement against Stabil Drill’s accused SmoothboreTM Eccentric Reamer.
See Civil Action No. 4:19-cv-01977, In the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas, Houston Division (ECF No. 114).
On August 24, 2021, following the jury’s verdict in B&L’s client NOV’s favor, the District Court granted B&L’s Fed. R. Civ. P. 50(a) Motion for Judgment as a Matter of Law (JMOL) dismissing Auto-Dril’s fraud and fraudulent inducement counterclaims as waived, released and also untimely.
On April 20, 2021, a unanimous jury returned a verdict in B&L’s client NOV’s favor dismissing Auto-Dril’s fraud and fraudulent inducement counterclaims as untimely following a two-week jury trail.
See Civil Action No. 5:15-cv-00027 (ECF No. 289 – VERDICT)
United States District Court for the Eastern District of Texas, Texarkana Division.
Attorneys at B&L win a $2.3 million final judgment on a breach of contract claim for their client Oilfield Specialties, LLC for the post-verdict failure to pay patent royalties by Warrior Energy Services Corp.
See Cause No. 2019-46881, 80th Judicial District of Harris County, Texas
Attorneys at B&L win a Final Judgment of $12,328,263.72 for their client Oilfield Specialties, LLC on a breach of contract lawsuit against Warrior Energy Services Corp. for failing to pay patent royalties under a patent license agreement.
See Cause No. 2018-35023, 80th Judicial District of Harris County, Texas
Attorneys at B&L win a unanimous jury verdict for breach of contract for their client Oilfield Specialties, LLC against Warrior Energy Services Corp. for failing to pay patent royalties under a patent license agreement related to their patented Wireless Pipe Recovery System (WIPR). The jury awarded B&L’s client $11,213,924.00 in past, unpaid royalties under the license agreement.
See Cause No. 2018-35023, 80th Judicial District of Harris County, Texas
B&L attorneys succeed at the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit maintaining the invalidity of Auto-Dril’s asserted patent (U.S. Patent No. 6,994,172) against the law firm of Gray Reed.
B&L attorneys prevailed at the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit on behalf of their client Kaneka. B&L succeeded in reversing the District Court’s non-infringement judgment and remanded the case back to district court for trial. The technology at issue relates to an improved patented process for manufacturing reduced Coenzyme Q10 (CoQ10).
On April 20, 2018, U.S. District Judge Lee H. Rosenthal entered a Final Judgement in B&L’s clients favor invalidating Auto-Dril’s asserted patent-in-suit (U.S. Patent No. 6,994,172) following a claim construction hearing. Judge Rosenthal found that Auto-Dril’s patent was indefinite (35 U.S.C. § 112, ¶2) for failing to disclose the necessary algorithm to perform the claimed patented steps.
See Civil Action Nos. H-16-cv-00280, -00293 (ECF No. 202)
United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas, Houston Division
B&L attorneys were victorious at the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit overturning the District Court’s non-infringement judgment and underlying claim construction.
