Ellisen Shelton Turner, P.C.

Since joining Kirkland, Ellisen has been involved in the following matters:

• Represented an emerging bioscience clean energy technology solutions company in defending against patent infringement claims in the Eastern District of California. The case concerned biomass gasifiers that turn waste into high-value energy and biofuels. Based on the Firm’s early motion to dismiss all four asserted patents, the case was completely dismissed with prejudice less than a year after it was filed. The Firm achieved this complete victory for the client without the need for any discovery, trial, or settlement payment. The victory cleared the path for the client’s expanding clean energy projects, including California projects that will convert flammable forestry waste into energy and thus promote good forest management practices in areas at high risk of wildfires.
• Represented Gilead Sciences in antitrust class action litigation alleging an anti-competitive reverse payment arising out of a patent litigation settlement concerning the development and sale of certain HIV treatments. Won dismissal of one set of claims on summary judgment and persuaded the court to hold a standalone trial on plaintiffs’ central claim that Gilead paid Teva to delay launch of generic versions of Gilead’s blockbuster HIV drugs. Settlement achieved with retailer plaintiffs and two classes of direct purchasers during trial. In 2023, a jury returned a complete defense verdict for Gilead, rejecting the plaintiffs’ claims seeking more than $10 billion in damages.
• Represented Abbott Diabetes in global litigation against Dexcom, involving several patents related to continuous glucose monitoring devices for people with diabetes. Secured a jury trial win on several claims in 2023. The parties reached a global settlement in 2024.
• Defended a leading computer and mobile device company in litigation against a patent licensing company that asserted the infringement of patents related to digital rights management (DRM) and sought close to $1 billion in royalties. In March 2021, the jury found infringement and awarded damages to the plaintiff. A bench trial was then held for equitable defenses. In August 2021, the court erased the prior verdict against Kirkland's client, finding the patent unenforceable. Affirmed on appeal.
• Represented a social media company and its subsidiary in litigation brought by a communications company, which alleged the infringement of patents related to technology for producing routing messages for voice over IP communications. In 2022, Judge Albright granted the defendants' motion to transfer the case from the Western District of Texas to the Northern District of California where the defendants' filed motions to dismiss. Kirkland also filed multiple inter partes review petitions on the client's behalf, all of which were instituted. In response, the plaintiff dismissed the case with prejudice and with no payment by the client, while also providing the client with patent rights that extend well-beyond the patents-in-suit. In short, Kirkland's defense of the case was a complete victory for the client, who, for no payment, received substantial rights to a substantial portfolio of the plaintiff's patents.

Prior to joining Kirkland, Ellisen was involved in the following matters:

• Defended a major Norwegian marine geophysical company in two multipatent actions involving seismic exploration technology for acquiring and processing data used to map offshore oil and gas reservoirs. The case settled after the client asserted multiple patent counterclaims and after Ellisen won a string of procedural and substantive motions. 
• Defended one of the largest wireless network operators in the United States in a trademark litigation in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia. Successfully moved to dismiss the litigation on the pleadings — a ruling that the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit upheld in a published opinion on a matter of first impression concerning arbitral rules incorporated by reference in an arbitration agreement.
• Represented a pioneering media technology company in multiple major litigations concerning core patented technology for digital video recorders and video distribution technology, including IPTV and OTT streaming video. Through the resulting litigations, settlements and negotiated licensing transactions, the client's recoveries have exceeded $2 billion.
• Represented one of the world's foremost video and video encoding technology companies in multiple licensing and asset sales transactions and advised on worldwide litigation strategy including litigated matters in Europe and Asia. The resulting negotiated licenses, litigations and asset sale transactions yielded many hundreds of millions in new revenue for the client.
• Represented a global media company with some of the most valuable entertainment and news brands in the world in entertainment litigation matters and advised the company regarding supply agreements, software development agreements, intellectual property transactions, license agreements and due diligence.
• Represented a patent holder in a 17-patent declaratory judgment action involving complex semiconductor processor technology and innovations, including interconnect architectures, thermal monitoring systems, security circuitry and performance optimization used in several hundred billions of dollars of microprocessors and chipsets. Obtained favorable claim construction rulings, defeated two rounds of summary judgment motions and convinced the court to reject every one of the defendant’s Daubert motions. With trial scheduled to begin in a month, the defendant had not managed to remove a single claim of a single patent from the case. After three years of litigation, the defendant agreed to a confidential settlement shortly before trial.
• Represented one of the largest wireless network operators in the United States as a defendant in a patent infringement lawsuit in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York. The case involved near field communications technology in mobile devices, and the Firm took the case over from prior counsel after claim construction. Ellisen’s deposition of the plaintiff's damages expert resulted in her damages theories being completely excluded, leaving the plaintiffs with no damages expert for trial. The case settled soon after the court granted the Daubert motion excluding the plaintiff's expert.
• Represented a patent holder in a set of declaratory relief and infringement actions involving dozens of telecommunications patents that five of the world’s largest technology companies acquired from the estate of Nortel Networks. The complex multidistrict litigation involved dozens of patents and hundreds of counterclaims, and Ellisen also represented the client during parallel bankruptcy proceedings concerning the Nortel estate. The defendants included some of the largest cable companies in the world. The litigations led the dominant supplier in the industry to make one of the largest payments in its history — more than $180 million — in settlement.
• Represented a major manufacturer of aircraft interior products in three IPRs filed against a competitor in the field of aircraft water and waste systems. The USPTO invalidated all three of the competitors’ patents, concluding that they were obvious based on multiple prior art references.
• Represented a small, innovative pharmaceutical company based in San Diego in an ANDA litigation against a generic drug company over a drug used to treat disorders related to excess stomach acid. After a successful infringement trial and an appeal that upheld the validity of multiple claims across the asserted patents, the generic company ceased further distribution of the infringing product. News of the victory caused the client's stock price to soar over 14 percent in one day.
• Represented the patent management and licensing entity for a major university in litigation over complex semiconductor processor technology developed by university professors to improve processor speed and efficiency. Two weeks before trial, the court granted the client's summary judgment motion that the defendant had no license to the patent. The court also denied the defendant’s motion for summary judgment that the patent was invalid for anticipation, adopting the client's construction of a key claim limitation. The court stated that the construction “is fatal to defendant's contention” of anticipation in its motion. Two weeks later, three days before trial, the defendant settled the case for over $100 million. The victory cleared the path to litigate the same patent against another major technology company in a subsequent case that yielded a $506 million judgment.
• Defended a major computer original equipment manufacturer (OEM) and technology company in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Texas in multiple offensive and defensive cases involving patents relating to multiprocessor computer server systems, microprocessor cache memory management technology, computeraided design (CAD) software and a variety of inventions related to high-performance computer architecture. The plaintiff alleged that high-end server systems, representing $2 billion a year in revenues, infringed its patents. Following very favorable rulings, the cases were successfully settled before trial.
• Represented innovative semiconductor technology company in multiple Section 337 investigations in the ITC, and a parallel bankruptcy proceeding, against more than two dozen respondents accused of infringing patents on semiconductor encapsulation techniques and compliant semiconductor packaging architectures. The matters resulted in multiple companies entering into patent license agreements with the Firm’s client.
• Represented a global technology leader as the complainant in a Section 337 investigation in the ITC, where five patents were asserted against a broad array of DRAM and flash memory circuitry imported by the largest memory companies in the world, each of which entered into patent license agreements with the Firm’s client.
• Represented an innovative semiconductor technology company in a series of arbitrations before a three-judge panel and various satellite cases involving royalties due under an agreement licensing both patented and unpatented semiconductor packaging technology and know-how. The resulting arbitral awards and settlements yielded the Firm’s client more than $150 million.
• Defended one of the world's largest video streaming and subscription video on demand companies in patent litigation concerning electronic program guide, media discovery and second screen video technology. Successfully negotiated an innovative license agreement to settle the case after successfully transferring the litigation to the United States District Court for the Central District of California and obtaining favorable patent claim interpretations during dispositive motion practice.
• Represented an innovative semiconductor technology company as plaintiff in a patent and antitrust action involving foundational semiconductor packaging technologies now broadly licensed by manufacturers of smallformat ball grid array products, including the majority of the DRAM industry. After successful claim construction rulings and motion practice, the resulting settlements entitled the client to more than $80 million and significantly larger future royalties.
• Represented one of the world's largest hard disk drive and storage technology companies in disputed bankruptcy proceedings concerning intellectual property licensing issues over patents and other assets purchased in the disk drive industry's largest-ever bankruptcy matter. After the client purchased the assets out of bankruptcy, the Firm successfully obtained a judgment that the client's competitor had no license rights to the patent assets, a ruling that was affirmed by the district court and the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.
• Represented the world's foremost digital stereoscopic projection technology company in bidding for and acquiring multiple significant 3D patent and technology assets during bankruptcy proceeding and in contesting asserted license rights concerning the assets after client's successful bid.