Stan Gibson is an experienced trial lawyer, who has focused on high-stakes cases involving complicated technology and bet-the-company cases in the entertainment industry.
Stan obtained a $16.7 million arbitration award after a six-month arbitration that involved the engineering and design of direct broadcast satellites and satellite launch vehicles.
Stan tried to a jury Intraspace v. Lockheed Martin/Loral in San Jose and obtained a $8.5 million verdict for our client. With an aptitude for technology and patents, Stan went on to handle complex cases involving technology in the fields of computerized telescopes, automotive design, Internet search engines, exercise equipment and medical devices, among others.
Stan recently was one of the principal trial lawyers in Medtronic v. Michelson, in which his client Dr. Gary Michelson won $570 million after a multi-month jury trial in Memphis, Tennessee. The case was resolved as part of a $1.35 billion dollar acquisition of the Michelson patent portfolio, which the Los Angeles Times reported as the largest acquisition of patents in history.
Representative Experience:
- Lead trial counsel on behalf of Key Brand Entertainment Inc. in a matter against Live Nation involving the £90 million sale of theatres in the United Kingdom (case settled) and in an arbitration over the sale of certain theatres in Toronto, Canada (the matter is currently pending).
- Lead trial counsel in numerous patent cases around the country, including a case against Boston Scientific over angioplasty catheters that settled favorably the day before jury selection
- Represented the inventor of revolutionary medical devices, instruments and methods for spinal fusion surgery, in a three-month breach of contract and patent infringement trial, resulting in a total verdict valued at approximately $570 million, including $400 million in punitive damages
- Lead trial counsel on behalf of defendant Diskeeper Corporation in a patent infringement action brought by Uniloc. Uniloc dismissed the case with prejudice with no payment by Diskeeper.
- Lead trial counsel in a jury trial against one of the largest aerospace companies in the United States; after a five week trial, the jury awarded $8.5 million in favor of Stan's client
- Successfully represented an aerospace company in an arbitration in which the arbitrators awarded the client $17 million in damages
- Represented the leading designer of Hawaiian jewelry in a copyright and trade dress infringement claim against a rival jewelry company. After a bench trial, the Court awarded the client $2.3 million in disgorgement (representing all of the defendants' gross sales) on the trade dress claim and approximately $700,000 in attorneys' fees finding that the case was exceptional. The Ninth Circuit affirmed the award in its entirety
- Represented the manufacturer of telescopes involving software technology patents for the operation of telescopes; defeated preliminary injunction and obtained summary judgment in favor of client who was a defendant in patent infringement case brought by main competitor
- Successfully represented the owner of a major league baseball team in a Title VII discrimination case, in which the jury returned a defense verdict and the District Court awarded attorneys' fees and costs against the plaintiff
- For a list of Stan's representative patent and technology cases, click here.
Stan Gibson is an experienced trial lawyer, who has focused on high-stakes cases involving complicated technology.
As part of his practice, Stan concentrates on the intricacies of document retention in the electronic age, from counseling and advising clients on best practices for records retention, preserving and retrieving e-documents efficiently and cost effectively, to the mechanics of conducting e-discovery through the litigation process and trial.
Stan has used e-discovery to achieve significant results for his clients, including most recently in the Medtronic v. Michelson case that resulted in a $570 million verdict for his client. In that case, millions of pages of e-documents were reviewed using cutting edge e-discovery search and retrieval techniques, which led directly to "smoking gun" evidence that Stan used to examine witnesses in front of the jury.
REPRESENTATIVE PATENT AND TECHNOLOGY CASES
Stan Gibson, an experienced technology and IP trial lawyer, represents inventors, manufacturers, owners and others in litigation centering on complicated technology. A partner at Jeffer Mangels Butler & Mitchell LLP (JMBM) in Los Angeles, Stan represents both defendants and plaintiffs and has litigated dozens of cases on behalf of his clients, taking many of them to trial. Although most cases settle, Stan's ability to take cases to trial enhances their value and drives favorable verdicts and settlements.
Stan's litigation practice is national in scope, involving major cases in federal courts and arbitrations throughout the United States. Whether Stan is representing an individual or a company, a start-up enterprise or a mature business, he dedicates his time and energy to formulating effective litigation strategy, taking and defending key depositions and winning the trial. Although many matters do not need more than one or two experienced and aggressive lawyers with a smart strategy, Stan draws on JMBM's highly experienced litigation and IP teams when necessary.
Stan is also a co-founder of the Firm's Discovery Technology Group, specializing in advising clients on managing electronic information and e-discovery. Stan's recent representative cases include the following:
Cases Involving Medical Devices
Medtronic v. Michelson (W.D. Tenn. 2004)
Unpaid royalties, breach of contract, patent infringement
Stan Gibson was one of the lead trial lawyers representing the inventor of revolutionary spinal fusion technology and the company he founded in a dispute over unpaid royalties, the scope of certain contracts and patent infringement. After a five-month jury trial, the jury found in favor of Dr. Michelson, awarding $110 million in damages, $60 million in patent infringement damages and $400 million in punitive damages. Medtronic subsequently acquired Dr. Michelson's patents and technology for $1.35 billion.
SciCoTec v. Boston Scientific (E.D. Tex. 2009)
Patent infringement
Represented the inventor of a revolutionary design change in angioplasty catheters, used in the most advanced catheters for angioplasty procedures. Client brought a patent infringement suit against Boston Scientific, which settled the day before jury selection.
Frey v. Medtronic (D. Col. 2011)
Breach of Contract
Represent medical doctor/inventor in dispute over royalties for patented technology.
Lenox MacLaren v. Medtronic (D. Col./Arbitration 2009)
Patent infringement, breach of contract
Represented a medical device manufacturer in patent infringement and breach of contract action against Medtronic pertaining to a device used in spinal fusion surgery. Arbitration award in favor of client.
Terray v. Zimmer (Chicago - Arbitration 2009)
Breach of contract
Represented manufacturer of plates used to treat fractures in trauma cases. Patented plates were manufactured by Zimmer internally in breach of contract. Arbitration award in favor of client.
Computers/Internet/Software Cases
Hospital Systems Corp. v. Diamedx, Inc. (E.D. Tex. 2010)
Patent infringement
Represented the defendant, Intuitive, in a patent infringement case over the use of software magnification technology. Case settled with a motion to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction pending.
Uniloc USA, Inc. v. Cyberlink Corp. (E.D. Tex. 2010)
Patent infringement
Represents Diskeeper Corporation in a patent infringement case over the use of activation software. Uniloc dismissed the case with prejudice with no payment from Diskeeper.
Meade v. Celestron/Celestron v. Meade (C.D. Cal. 2003)
Patent infringement
Represented Celestron in a patent infringement dispute over software used to control the positioning of amateur telescopes. After Meade's attempt at a preliminary injunction was denied and with Celestron's motion for summary judgment pending, case settled on favorable terms.
EMG v. Apple (E.D. Tex. 2009)
Patent infringement
Represented the owner of patents covering, among other things, a simplified navigation system for browsing the Internet on a mobile device or television. Case settled.
EMG v. Microsoft (E.D. Tex. 2009)
Patent infringement
Represented the owner of patents covering, among other things, a simplified navigation system for browsing the Internet on a mobile device or television. Case settled.
EMG v. Dr. Pepper (E.D. Tex. 2011)
Patent Infringement
Represent the owner of patents covering, among other things, a simplified navigation system for browsing the Internet on a mobile device or television. Case is currently pending.
Landmark v. Zale (E.D. Tex.2009)
Patent infringement
Represented Landmark in patent litigation over patents covering, among other things, the sale of goods and products over the Internet. All defendants settled before filing an answer.
Landmark v. Aeropostale (E.D. Tex. 2009)
Patent infringement
Represented Landmark in patent litigation over patents covering, among other things, the sale of goods and products over the Internet. Case settled.
Landmark Technology v. Blockbuster (E.D. Tex. 2010)
Patent infringement
Represented Landmark in patent litigation over patents covering, among other things, the sale of goods and products over the Internet. Case settled.
Landmark v. BJs (E.D. Tex 2010)
Patent infringement
Represented Landmark in patent litigation over patents covering, among other things, the sale of goods and products over the Internet. Case is currently pending.
Landmark Technology v. Cinemark (E.D. Tex. 2011)
Patent Infringement
Represented Landmark in patent litigation over patents covering, among other things, the sale of goods and products over the Internet. Case is currently pending.
Interactive Software v. Artafact (D. Mass. 2009)
Patent infringement
Represent Artafact in patent infringement case centered on the technology for online focus groups. Successfully stayed the case pending re-examination of the patent at issue.
Playboy v. Netscape and Excite (C.D. Cal./Ninth Circuit 2000-2004)
Internet advertising
In one of the first cases involving key word advertising on the Internet, served as technology litigation attorney representing Netscape and Excite in a lawsuit brought by Playboy. Obtained summary judgment on behalf of Netscape and Excite, which was subsequently appealed to the Ninth Circuit and the Ninth Circuit remanded to the district court for a determination as to whether Playboy could show a likelihood of consumer confusion. Playboy Enterprises v. Netscape Communications, 354 F.2d 1020 (9th Cir. 2004).
Satellite Technology
Intraspace Satellite Corporation v. Continental Satellite Corporation (Arbitration)
Breach of contract
Represented a small satellite manufacturer in a breach of contract action in which the defendant, Continental Satellite Corporation, failed to pay milestone payments upon termination of a satellite manufacturing contract due under a termination for convenience clause. During a six month arbitration, we presented testimony of the client and experts proving that the client had performed a significant amount of reliable engineering work. At the conclusion of the arbitration, the arbitrator awarded $16.7 million, which was later confirmed by the Court in a judgment against Continental.
Intraspace Satellite Corporation v. Lockheed Martin (Santa Clara 2001)
Contract interference
Represented Intraspace in a case against Lockheed Martin for intentional interference with contractual relationships in which Lockheed had Intraspace's contract to build four direct broadcast satellites terminated so that it could give the contract to its own subsidiary. After proving that Intraspace had the ability to manufacture the satellites, the jury found that Lockheed had interfered with the contract and awarded Intraspace $8.5 million in damages.
Intraspace v. Loral and Rainbow DBS (Santa Clara 2001)
Fraudulent transfer and alter ego
Lead trial attorney in action for fraudulent transfer and alter ego against Loral and Rainbow DBS, a subsidiary of Cablevision and joint venture with Loral. Case centered on the transfer of a valuable FCC license out of a subsidiary of Loral and into Rainbow DBS. The case settled a couple of weeks before trial with a favorable result for the client.
Other Technology
Sealant Systems International v. TEK Global (S.D. N.Y 2010/N.D. Cal. 2011)
Patent infringement
Represent the defendant in a patent infringement case over an onboard tire repair system. Case was successfully transferred from New York. Case is currently pending.
Pure Fishing v. Shimano (D. S.C./Columbia Division 2010)
Patent infringement
Represent the defendant in a patent infringement case over fishing line. Case is currently pending.
4522958 Canada v. KY Wholesale (E.D. Cal 2009)
Patent infringement
Represent the plaintiff in a patent infringement case over hedge trimmers. Case is currently pending.
Large Audience Display Systems, LLC v. The Los Angeles Lakers (E.D. Tex. 2010 C.D. Cal. 2011)
Patent infringement
Represent The Los Angeles Lakers, Inc. in a patent infringement case over the use of screen technology. Case was successfully transferred to the Central District of California. Case is currently pending.
Nautilus v. Icon (W.D. Wash./D. Utah 2007)
Patent infringement and trademark infringement
Represented Nautilus in a lawsuit over the Bowflex exercise machine in patent and trademark disputes against its competitor, Icon Health & Fitness. After a trial and two appeals to the Federal Circuit, the case settled before a second trial and while the second appeal to the Federal Circuit was pending.
Park Smith v. Smith & Noble (S.D.N.Y. 2006)
Design patent infringement
Patent lawyer representing the defendant in a design patent infringement case. Case settled on favorable terms with no discovery or depositions taking place.
Peregrine Pharmaceuticals v. Cancer Therapeutic (Orange County 2008)
Breach of contract
Technology counsel representing defendant in breach of contact case over revolutionary cancer drug for treating lung cancer. Case is still pending.
Straman v. Volkswagen of America (Orange County 2003)
Antitrust and unfair competition
Represented Volkswagen of America in antitrust and unfair competition case brought by modifiers of Volkswagen New Beetles into convertibles. Case involved proving that re-engineering of New Beetles was not safe and did not meet federal safety standards. Case settled favorably after expert discovery.
Contact Us
I am committed to enforcing and defending the technology, patent and intellectual property rights of my clients. I would be pleased to discuss your technology and your legal issues, and invite you to contact me.
Stan Gibson
SGibson@JMBM.com
310.201.3548