professionalIMG

Marguerite McConihe

Associate vCard


Education

  • Vermont Law School (JD)
  • Vermont Law School (MSt, Environmental Law)
  • George Washington University (BS, Environmental Science; Biology)

Bar Admissions

  • California
  • Maryland
  • Massachusetts
  • United States District Court for the Northern District of California

Marguerite is a seasoned litigator and intellectual property transactional attorney who counsels clients in maximizing the value of their intellectual property and technology assets, including trade secrets, patents, copyrights, and trademarks.  She has an emphasis on representing technology companies, particularly in the hardware, software, internet, semiconductor, biotechnology, and medical device industries. Representative matters include: licensing transactions, acquisitions and divestitures, collaborations, joint ventures, strategic alliances and arrangements in connection with private equity, M&A and other corporate transactions.

Marguerite has achieved victories on behalf of both patent owners and accused infringers in complex litigation at both the International Trade Commission and federal district courts.

Representative Matters

Federal District Courts

  • Preservation Wellness Technologies LLC v. NextGen Healthcare Information Systems LLC (E.D. Tex. - 2:15-cv-01562) – Represented the defendant in a single-patent case involving a medical records system. Prior to answering the complaint, the court granted our client’s motion to dismiss on the basis that the patent claims were drawn to patent-ineligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. § 101.

  • Message Notification Technologies LLC v. Unify Inc. F/K/A Siemens Enterprise Communications (D. De.– 1:13cv1883) – Represented the defendant in a single-patent case involving automated e-mail notification technology.  The case settled on terms favorable to our client after nearly two years of litigation.

  • Clouding IP, LLC v. Siemens Enterprise Communications, Inc. (D. De. – 1:13cv1457) Represented global communications software and services company in defending patent infringement action regarding cloud computing. Case settled favorably.

  • Presqriber, LLC v. NextGen Healthcare Information Systems, LLC. (E.D. Tex. – 6:14cv00458) Successfully represented national healthcare technology company in defending patent infringement action.

  • Polartec LLC, et al. v. Lamour Global, Inc. (D. Mass. – 1:14cv10017) Obtained favorable settlement for international clothing company in patent infringement action.

  • Cardsoft (Assignment for the Benefit of Creditors), LLC v. The Gores Group, LLC, et al. (E.D. Tex. – 2:12cv00325) Defended patent infringement action involving patents related to electronic point-of-sale systems. Case settled on favorable terms.

International Trade Commission

  • Certain Graphics Systems, Components Thereof, and Consumer Products Containing the Same (337-TA-1044) Filed an ITC complaint on behalf of Advanced Micro Devices (AMD). The patented technology covers graphics processing technology employed by smart devices such as televisions and handsets. Respondents include LG, VIZIO, MediaTek, and Sigma Designs. The evidentiary hearing is scheduled for early December 2017.

  • Certain Computing or Graphics Systems, Components Thereof, and Vehicles Containing Same (337-TA-984) Represent owner of portfolio of graphics processing and microprocessor patents as Complainant in an ITC investigation adverse to a number of automotive manufacturers, and infotainment system and chip suppliers. Respondents include Honda, Toyota, BMW, Audi, Volkswagen, NVIDIA, Texas Instruments, Renesas, Harman International, and Fujitsu-Ten. The investigation instituted in January of 2016 and resolved favorably prior to the conclusion of expert discovery in August of 2016.

  • Certain Communications or Computing Devices and Components Thereof (337-TA-925) Represented owner of portfolio of communications and computing patents from former enterprise communications business unit of large multinational innovation company. An ITC investigation was instituted in August 2014 as to respondent entities Apple, Samsung Electronics, LG Electronics and HTC Corporation. Google participated as an intervenor. The investigation resolved prior to evidentiary hearing in June of 2015.

  • Certain Consumer Electronics with Display and Processing Capabilities (337-TA-884) Represented owners of the patent portfolio of the original Silicon Graphics, now known as Graphics Properties Holdings, as complainant in the ITC. Investigation was instituted in June 2013 and among the respondent entities were Panasonic, Toshiba, Vizio, and ZTE. Most respondents settled. After an evidentiary hearing held over several days in May 2014, on August 29, 2014 Mintz Levin successfully obtained a recommendation for a Limited Exclusion Order against the remaining respondent, which chose to settle while Commission review of the Administrative Law Judge’s Initial Determination was pending.

  • Certain Consumer Electronics and Display Devices and Products Containing Same (337-TA-836) Represented owners of the patent portfolio of the original Silicon Graphics, now known as Graphics Properties Holdings, as complainant in the ITC, and as plaintiff in multiple parallel District of Delaware cases. Cases were filed between late 2011 and early 2012, and all were resolved by the end of January 2013. The technology at issue relates to LCD panels, central processor units, graphics processing units, and other microprocessor technology. Successfully licensed all respondents, including some of the largest and most recognized names in the converged device space — Apple, LG, Research in Motion, Samsung, and Sony.