Jennifer C. Tempesta

Partner

Jennifer Tempesta Photo

New York

P: +1.212.408.2571
F: +1.212.259.2571

Litigation Matters

  • In the Matter of Certain Magnetic Data Storage Tapes and Cartridges Containing the Same(International Trade Commission Investigation No. 337-TA – 1012, U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit) - representation of Fujifilm in ITC investigation of Sony's infringement of a number of Fujifilm patents related to magnetic tape data storage technologies.
  • In the Matter of Certain Magnetic Tape Cartridges and Components Thereof (International Trade Commission Investigation No. 337-TA-1036) – representation of Fujifilm in ITC Investigation filed by Sony related to magnetic tape data storage technologies.
  • In the Matter of Certain Magnetic Tape Cartridges and Components Thereof (International Trade Commission Investigation No. 337-TA-1058) – representation of Fujifilm in ITC Investigation filed by Sony related to magnetic tape data storage technologies.
  • In the Matter of Certain Magnetic Data Storage Tapes and Cartridges Containing the Same (II) (International Trade Commission Investigation No. 337-TA-1076) – representation of Fujifilm in ITC Investigation of Sony's infringement of a number of Fujifilm patents related to magnetic tape data storage technologies.
  • In the Matter of Certain Nanopores and Products Containing Same (International Trade Commission Investigation No. 337-TA-991) – represented respondent, Oxford Nanopore, in patent infringement investigation relating to nanopores.
  • Adaptix v. AT&T Mobility (various actions in U.S. District Courts for the Northern District of California and the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit) – representation of AT&T in patent infringement actions involving patents asserted against 4G communication protocols.
  • Autronic Plastics, Inc. d/b/a Clear-Vu Lighting v. Apogee Lighting, Inc. et al., (U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York) – Representation of Clear-Vu Lighting in consolidated patent infringement actions related to mass transit LED lighting technologies.
  • Alexsam Inc. v. MasterCard International Incorporated (U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York) – representation of MasterCard in breach of contract action.
  • BlackBerry Corporation and BlackBerry Limited (various actions in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Texas and the Northern District of California) – representation of BlackBerry in numerous defensive infringement actions relating to mobile devices.
  • Blackbird Tech LLC v. Lyft, Inc. (U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware) – representation of Lyft in patent infringement action.
  • Ethypharm, S.A. (various jurisdictions) – represented Ethypharm in numerous Abbreviated New Drug Application litigations relating to fenofibrate and lansoprazole.
  • Fractus, S.A. v. Samsung Electronics Co. et. al. (U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit) – representation of Samsung in a patent infringement action relating to mobile phones.
  • Fujifilm North America Corporation v. Abesons Corp et al. (U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York) – representation of Fujifilm in gray market goods litigation brought against 14 companies accused of importing, advertising and selling gray market FUJIFILM and INSTAX cameras in violation of Section 43 of the Lanham Act.
  • Huvepharma, Inc. v. Associated British Foods, plc et al. (United States District Court for the District of Delaware) – representation of Plaintiff Huvepharma in patent infringement action relating to enzymatic animal feed additives.
  • Huvepharma, Inc. v. EI du Pont de Nemours Co. et al. (United States District Court for the District of Delaware) – representation of Plaintiff Huvepharma in patent infringement action relating to enzymatic animal feed additives.
  • LG Electronics v. ASKO Appliances, Inc. et al. (U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware) – tried patent infringement action on behalf of Defendants in multi-patent infringement litigation concerning washing machine direct-drive technology.
  • Linkable Networks, Inc. v. Mastercard International Incorporated (Supreme Court of the State of New York, Commercial Division, Appellate Division, First Department) – representation of Mastercard in action asserting trade secret misappropriation, breach of contract, and other state law claims.
  • Plasma Physics Corp. et al. v. Chi Mei Optoelectronics Corp. et al. (U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York) – tried patent infringement action on behalf of Plaintiffs involving plasma enhanced chemical vapor deposition.
  • Red Bend Ltd. et al. v. Google Inc. (U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts, U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit) – represented Plaintiffs in patent infringement action relating to updating computer programs.
  • RideShare Displays, Inc. v. Lyft, Inc. (U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware) – representation of Lyft in patent infringement action.
  • Richard A. Williamson v. AT&T, Inc. et al. (U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York) – representation of AT&T in defense of patent infringement allegations relating to delivery of IPTV over a network.
  • Ricky Kamdem-Ouaffo v. PepsiCo et al. (United States District Court for the Southern District of New York and the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit) – representation of PepsiCo in action asserting correction of inventorship, breach of contract, and other state law claims.
  • Samsung Display Co. v. Acacia (United States District Court for the Southern District of New York) – representation of Samsung in breach of contract action.
  • ScentSational Technologies v. PepsiCo et al. (United States District Court for the Southern District of New York, U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit) – representation of PepsiCo in action asserting trade secret misappropriation, breach of contract, and other state law claims.
  • VARTA Microbattery GmbH v. Audio Partnership LLC d/b/a Cambridge Audio (U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Texas) – representation of Cambridge Audio in patent infringement action and related inter partes reviews relating to microbatteries.
  • VARTA Microbattery GmbH v. PEAG LLC d/b/a JLab Audio (U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Texas) – representation of JLab in patent infringement action and related inter partes reviews relating to microbatteries.