Covington & Burling LLP operates as a limited liability partnership worldwide, with the practice in England and Wales conducted by an affiliated
limited liability multinational partnership, Covington & Burling LLP, which is formed under the laws of the State of Delaware in the United States
and authorized and regulated by the Solicitors Regulation Authority with registration number 77071..
Stan Young uses his strong advocacy and advising skills to help his clients achieve the best results in patent, trade secret, and other high stakes cases.
For decades he has represented companies in the telecommunications, electronics, semiconductor, software and financial services industries in all phases of federal district and state court litigation around the United States, in the Federal and Ninth Circuit Courts of Appeals, in international arbitrations and in the U.S. International Trade Commission.
Stan was Managing Partner of the firm’s Palo Alto office from 2008 to 2014, and has served on its Business, Evaluation, and Diversity committees.
Stan has represented companies such as SK Innovation, Huawei, Samsung, and Atmel in district court and International Trade Commission disputes over electric vehicle battery, cellular, semiconductor process and circuit patents. Many of his cases have involved patents alleged to be essential under wireless communications and other standards and the obligations that arise from the standardization process, including for licensing under fair, reasonable and non-discriminatory (FRAND) terms. Stan also led a successful defense of a Chinese steel company in another ITC dispute over alleged steel manufacturing trade secrets.
In 2008, Stan won a much-cited Federal Circuit case, O2 Micro v. Beyond Innovation, involving inverter controller patents, establishing that a judge must resolve a case-deciding claim construction dispute rather than leaving it to a jury. In a notable pro bono case, he led a litigation that halted racial profiling against Hispanics by Arizona Sheriff Joe Arpaio, for which California Lawyer recognized him as a California Lawyer of the Year in 2014.
Stan is listed in Best Lawyers in America for intellectual property and patent litigation and as a Northern California Super Lawyer.
In the Matter of Certain Pouch-Type Battery Cells, Battery Modules, and Battery Packs, and Products Containing the Same, ITC Investigation 337-TA-1179. Represented SK Innovation in a patent infringement case against electric vehicle battery products of LG Chem.
Motorola v. Lemko, et al. and Huawei v. Motorola (N.D. Ill.). Represented Huawei Technologies in trade secret lawsuits against Motorola Solutions involving wireless base station technology; obtained a preliminary injunction preventing the transfer of confidential information in the context of a corporate acquisition.
O2 Micro v. Beyond Innovation (BiTEK), 521 F.3d 1351 (Fed. Cir. 2008). Represented appellant in overturning on appeal a verdict of infringement of three patents asserted against inverter controllers used in the backlighting of LCD screens. The Federal Circuit’s decision describes the duty of a district court judge to construe a simple English phrase in a patent claim (“only if”) where that construction will decide the outcome of the case.
Castlemorton v. Juniper Networks (W.D. Texas). Represented Juniper in patent case directed at IEEE 802.11 b and g networking equipment.
In re Certain Light-Emitting Diodes And Products Containing Same, ITC Investigation 337-TA-785. Defended Samsung Electronics in an International Trade Commission litigation brought by OSRAM over patents on light conversion techniques and LED package structures.
Atmel Corporation v. Silicon Storage Technology (N.D. Cal.). Represented plaintiff in a patent infringement case involving semiconductor technology. Jury trial involving a charge pump patent resulted in judgment of more than $36 million in plaintiff's favor, which was affirmed on appeal.
Safeclick LLC v. Visa International Service Association and Visa U.S.A., Inc. (N.D. Cal.). Represented defendants in a lawsuit over a patent alleged to cover the Verified by Visa service for authenticating the identity of a payment cardholder in an on-line transaction. Defendants won summary judgment of non-infringement. Obtained affirmance on appeal. Case No. 06-1182 (Fed. Cir. 2006).
International Trade Commission Investigations re Wireless Devices with 3G and/or 4G Capabilities, Nos. 337-TA-800 and 337-TA-868, and related Federal District Court Cases in Delaware. Defended Huawei Technologies in litigation brought by InterDigital over patents on wireless communications technologies and FRAND obligations, and in an arbitration over royalty rates.
Huawei District Court Patent Cases. Defense of Huawei in lawsuits against its cellphone products brought in the Eastern District of Texas by:
Maxell, over patents on video, power saving, network selection and handover.
Fundamental Innovations, over patents on charging over USB.
PanOptis, over patents asserted against LTE cellular functionalities and video compression, and also involving the relationship between U.S. and Chinese judicial proceedings over FRAND obligations.
In re Certain Electronic Devices, Including Handheld Wireless Communications Devices, Investigations Nos. 337-TA-667 and 337-TA-673. Represented Samsung in an International Trade Commission investigation involving patents on interrupt control circuitry and interprocessor communications asserted against cell phones and televisions.
In re Carbon and Alloy Steel Products, Investigation No. 337-TA-1002. Represented Baosteel against trade secret misappropriation claim brought and dismissed by U.S. Steel in the International Trade Commission.
In re Certain Flash Memory Controllers, Drives, Memory Cards, and Media Players and Products Containing Same, Investigation No. 337-TA-619. Represented several respondents in an International Trade Commission action relating to patents asserted against flash memory controllers and devices, brought by SanDisk Corporation.
MedioStream, Inc. v. Sonic Solutions (E.D. Tex.). Represented DVD authoring software manufacturer Sonic Solutions in defending lawsuit involving patents on recording video onto disc, as well as trade secret and other claims.
Disc Link Corporation v. Oracle Corporation, et al. (E.D. Tex.). Defended seven companies against patent that was asserted against CD-Roms containing software with links to websites.
QUALCOMM Corporation v. Broadcom Corporation (S.D. Cal.). Represented wireless communications technology company in patent litigation over patents on video compression and wireless communications technologies.
In the Matter of Certain EPROM, EEPROM, Flash Memory, etc., Investigation No. 337-TA-395. Represented the complainant in an International Trade Commission action relating to patents on EEPROM and Flash memory circuits and memory cell designs. After trial, complainant obtained an exclusion order, affirmed on appeal, prohibiting the importation into the United States of infringing chips and circuit boards containing the same.
Cisco Systems Inc. v. Huawei Technologies, Co., Ltd. (E.D. Texas). Represented defendant in a copyright, patent and trade secret case relating to router software.
Visa U.S.A. Inc. v. VeriSign, Inc. (N.D. Cal. and Santa Clara County Superior Court). Represented plaintiff in a declaratory relief action for non-infringement of trademark, and in a trade secret misappropriation action, involving service for authenticating identity of a payment card holder in an online transaction.
Starpay.com v. Visa International Service Association and Visa U.S.A., Inc. (N.D. Texas). Represented defendants in a patent and trade secret case involving payment card holder identity authentication technology.
Harrington v. SHOP.COM (D. Colo.). Represented the defendant in a patent case involving online shopping.
Computer Associates International, Inc. v. TJB Ventures, Inc. (N.D. Cal.). Represented plaintiff in a copyright, trade secret and contract action involving mainframe software. Obtained a preliminary injunction against use and dissemination of the client’s software.
Pavilion Technologies, Inc. v. Pegasus Technologies, Inc. (S.D. Tex.). Represented a maker of power plant control software in defending against a claim of infringement of 26 neural network and other process control patents.
Phonometrics, Inc. v. Four Seasons Hotels (S.D. Fla.). Represented Four Seasons in a patent infringement action involving automatic call tracking and billing technology for the hotel industry. Summary judgment for client affirmed on appeal.
CyberMedia, Inc. v. Symantec Corporation (N.D. Cal.). Represented defendant in a copyright and trade secret dispute over an uninstaller program for personal computers.
Intervention Inc. v. Symantec Corporation; Intervention Inc. v. Vertisoft Systems (San Francisco Superior Court and Cal. Ct. App., First District). Defended two software companies against a claim that the packaging of software sold in retail stores violated the California unfair competition statute. Judgment for defendants in consolidated cases affirmed on appeal.
Carmel Software Engineering v. Central Point Software (D. Ore.). Represented defendant and counterclaim plaintiff on breach of contract claims over personal computer anti-virus software and counterclaims for source code misappropriation. Summary adjudication was granted for defendant on most claims, followed by settlement.
Sonic Solutions v. Spruce Technologies, Inc. (N.D. Cal.). Represented plaintiff in a copyright and trade secret action between two manufacturers of software for authoring DVDs.
Kumon U.S.A. v. Daekyo America, Inc. and Daekyo Co., Ltd. (C.D. Cal.). Represented defendant in a copyright action involving mathematics education worksheets.
Advanced Micro Devices v. Atmel Corporation and Seeq Technology v. Atmel (N.D. Cal.). Represented a chip designer and manufacturer specializing in non-volatile memories, particularly EPROMS, EEPROMs, and flash memories, and programmable logic devices (PLD's). These cases involved a PLD circuit patent and an EEPROM cell patent.
General Instrument Corporation v. Atmel Corporation (S.D. N.Y.); and Atmel Corporation v. General Instrument Corporation (S.D. N.Y.). Represented Atmel in litigation concerning disputes arising out of a development agreement with General Instrument. The issues related to EPROM and EEPROM processes and circuit design.
Intel Corp. v. Chips and Technologies, Inc., Texas Instruments (N.D. Cal.). Represented Texas Instruments and Chips and Technologies in patent infringement action brought by Intel. The patents related to the memory management system in the Intel 386 microprocessor and a breakpoint apparatus for system debugging.
Melendres v. Arpaio. Represents class of Latinos in Maricopa County, Arizona in racial profiling civil rights case. Obtained injunctive relief, including appointment of a federal monitor to oversee reform, and obtained affirmance on appeal. 989 F.Supp.2d 822 (D. Ariz. 2013) and 784 F.3d 1254 (9th Cir. 2015).
Northern California Super Lawyer, Intellectual Property Litigation
(2015-2020)
Named by California Lawyer magazine as an Attorney of the Year in 2014 for success in pro bono civil rights case Melendres v. Arpaio, 784 F.3d 1254 (9th Cir. 2015).
Legal 500 US, Intellectual Property - Patent Litigation: International Trade Commission and Litigation - Trade Secrets (2012)
Back
