A San Jose jury dished out plenty of questions but no damages to Good Technology Corp. in a patent infringement and false-advertising case against a mobile enterprise security competitor.
Sunnyvale-based Good Technology had been seeking about $50 million from Mountain View’s MobileIron Inc. for infringement of four patents and for marketing materials critical of Good Technology’s products. An Orrick, Herrington & Sutcliffe team led by Neel Chatterjee persuaded a jury that MobileIron did not infringe three of the patents, and that two of them were invalid for obviousness to boot. U.S. Magistrate Judge Paul Grewal had previously ruled a fourth Good Technology patent invalid on summary judgment.
This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.
To view this content, please continue to their sites.
Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law are third party online distributors of the broad collection of current and archived versions of ALM's legal news publications. LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law customers are able to access and use ALM's content, including content from the National Law Journal, The American Lawyer, Legaltech News, The New York Law Journal, and Corporate Counsel, as well as other sources of legal information.
For questions call 1-877-256-2472 or contact us at [email protected]
