George Manley

Patent Litigation

• VLSI Technology LLC v. Intel Corp (W.D. Tex., N.D. Cal., D. Del.): Defended Intel against a multibillion-dollar patent litigation campaign brought by a non-practicing entity across several federal district courts.*
• NexStep, Inc. v. Comcast Cable Communications, LLC (D. Del.): Defended Comcast against a multipatent suit covering VoIP and customer troubleshooting technologies, among others. Successfully defended the favorable verdict on appeal to the Federal Circuit.*
• In re Certain Mobile Telephones, Tablet Computers with Cellular Connectivity and Smart Watches With Cellular Connectivity, Components Thereof and Products Containing Same (I.T.C.): Defended a technology company against a four-patent Section 337 investigation before the U.S. International Trade Commission covering various 5G technologies.*
• In re Certain Semiconductor Devices Having Layered Dummy Fill, Electronic Devices and Components Thereof (I.T.C.): Defended Skyworks against a Section 337 investigation brought by a non-practicing entity concerning a patent covering semiconductor design.*
• In re Certain Wireless Front-End Modules, Devices Containing the Same and Components Thereof (I.T.C.): Represented Skyworks in a Section 337 investigation brought to halt infringement of five patents relating to Wi-Fi Front End Modules.*

Trademark, False Advertising and Unfair Competition Litigation

• Eli Lilly & Co. v. Compounders: Secured permanent injunctions in multiple litigations concerning violations of the Lanham Act and state prohibitions on deceptive trade practices. The cases involve the defendants’ use of Lilly’s MOUNJARO and ZEPBOUND trademarks to market and sell their own, non-FDA approved drugs, as well as promotion of the sale of those drugs by falsely representing them to prospective customers as having the same indicia of safety, effectiveness and quality as Lilly’s medicines.

*Prior to joining Kirkland

George regularly uses his trial advocacy experience to assist pro bono clients in matters outside the intellectual property context. For instance, George recently represented a class of deaf and hard-of-hearing prisoners in an action against the Massachusetts Department of Correction (MDOC) for violations of the Americans with Disabilities Act, the Rehabilitation Act and the Eighth Amendment. George and his team were able to negotiate a favorable settlement on all but one of the class’s claims and prevailed at trial on the remaining claim.

During trial, George conducted the direct examination of an expert witness who testified about technological accommodations available to MDOC. As the expert witness was deaf, George learned basic American Sign Language to quickly communicate with him during witness preparation sessions and learned to work with court interpreters to ensure that all testimony entered the record clearly and accurately.