Monte Cooper

Of Counsel
Intellectual Property

Monte Cooper, of counsel in the Silicon Valley office, is a member of the Intellectual Property Group.  He focuses his practice on patent and copyright litigation, particularly contexts that involve computer software and hardware, as well as network-related applications. 

Mr. Cooper's experience in patent litigation includes wireless telephony; mesh networking; biometric security systems;  Digital Signal Processing (DSP); Voice over Internet Protocol (VoIP) software and hardware; ball grid array (BGA) inspection devices; Distributed Antenna Systems (DAS); online payment and security mechanisms; IEEE 802.3 Ethernet network applications; semiconductor designs for DRAMs, ASICs, Power MOSFETS, and FPGAs; Internet routing and Power-over-Ethernet systems; online distribution methodologies; Web-caching;  Internet content delivery software; GDS II layout design tools; ATM packet-switching platforms; satellite television “smart card” security systems; and electronic television program guide software and hardware. 

Mr. Cooper's substantial background in copyright issues includes contexts involving social networks, the Internet, graphical user interfaces (GUIs), MySQL databases, HTML and PHP scripting, CGI programming, the design and functionality of computer operating systems and semiconductor chip mask work protection.  He likewise has represented clients in significant antitrust, trade secrets and trademark litigation.   Mr. Cooper further has extensively counseled companies and individuals extensively on the licensing of their intellectual property, particularly with respect to portfolios containing Standards Essential Patents ("SEPs") encumbered by obligations to license the patents on Fair, Reasonable and Non-Discriminatory ("FRAND") terms.  Mr. Cooper likewise has counseled companies and individuals with respect to both privacy issues and celebrity rights of publicity. 

Mr. Cooper also regularly contributes to Orrick's pro bono programs, including particularly with respect to appellate issues and Supreme Court practice.  He also frequently authors client alerts and other publications apprising the legal and business communities of significant developments in intellectual property law.  He is one of the editors of Orrick's popular Northern California IP Blog:  http://blogs.orrick.com/norcal-ip/

The following are representative of Mr. Cooper’s engagements with Orrick.

  • Facebook.  Mr. Cooper was one of the principal attorneys who defended the popular social network Facebook and its creator, Mark Zuckerberg, in a high profile and widely-publicized lawsuit involving allegations of copyright infringement, trade secrets misappropriation, and related claims brought in the District of Massachusetts.  The plaintiffs included Cameron Winklevoss, Tyler Winkelvoss, and Divya Narenda, three former Harvard students who created their own competitive Web site originally called "HarvardConnection," and later called "ConnectU."  Mr. Cooper also represented Facebook and Mr. Zuckerberg in their own independent lawsuit in California against ConnectU and related parties based on violations of the Federal CAN-SPAM Act, and California Penal Code Section 502(c).  See Facebook, Inc. v. ConnectU LLC, 489 F. Supp.2d 1087 (N.D. Cal. 2007).  Both cases settled, after which Mr. Cooper was heavily involved in collateral proceedings related to that settlement.  He participated as one of the key members of an Orrick appellate team that attained a widely-publicized ruling from the Ninth Circuit affirming the enforceability of the settlement.  See Facebook, Inc. v. Pacific Northwest Software, Inc., 640 F.3d 1034 (9th Cir. 2011). Mr. Cooper also was one of Orrick's team of lawyers who represented Facebook in another highly publicized lawsuit against Power Ventures, Inc. and its founder Steve Vachani.  In that case, Facebook received summary judgment of liability on its claims for violations of the CAN-SPAM Act, the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act, and California Penal Code Section 502, and ultimately recieved a judgment against both defendants for more than US$3,000,000, as well as a permanent injunction enjoining further violations of the laws by both Power Ventures and Vachani. Facebook v. Power Ventures, Inc., 844 F. Supp. 2d 1025 (N.D. Cal. 2012) (granting summary judgment), later proceedings granting damages and permanent injunction,   2013 WL 5372341 (N.D. Cal. Sept. 25, 2013).
  • Cisco Systems.  Mr. Cooper defended Cisco in the Eastern District of Michigan concerning allegations that the company's hubs and IP Phone products infringed claims of a patent directed to an anti-theft system for continuously monitoring pieces of computer equipment connected to a network.  He was involved actively in identifying relevant prior art, working with expert witnesses and presenting arguments to both the Court and a Special Master.  As a result of the team's efforts, the principal independent apparatus claim asserted in the case was found to be invalid on several independent grounds, and also non-infringed.  See Chrimar Systems, Inc. v. Cisco Systems, Inc., 318 F.Supp.2d 476 (E.D.Mich 2004).  The case settled following this published ruling.
  • VMware and EMC Corporation. Mr. Cooper was one of the team of lawyers who represented virtualization software leader VMware in multi-defendant patent litigation in the Eastern District of Texas.  The team that included Mr. Cooper defended VMware from claims brought by Aloft Media LLC alleging that VMWare's vCenter CapacityIQ virtual appliance infringed various claims in two patents, each of which was directed to collaborative decision-making.  The case settled even before VMware was required to engage in any discovery.  He also currently is representing VMware in two different patent litigation matters brought by MOSAID, Inc. and Clouding IP LLC in the District of Delaware.  In the former action,  MOSAID claims VMware's Gemfire software product infringes multiple patents directed to network distributed caching mechanisms.  In the Clouding IP matter, the plaintiff has alleged infringement by VMware and EMC of ten patents originally assigned to Symantec Corporation by virtue of VMware and EMC offering a variety of virtualization and cloud computing products.
  • Vident.  Mr. Cooper was one of the principal attorneys who served as litigation counsel for Vident, a distributor of high-quality, prefabricated artificial teeth, in private antitrust litigation with Dentsply International, Inc. in the Central District of California.  In 2008, after Vident prevailed on a motion to apply collateral estoppel against Dentsply, the Court entered judgment in favor of Vident against Dentsply in the amount of US$18 million on the antitrust claim.  Prior to then, Mr. Cooper served as Vident’s counsel in a major antitrust action brought by the United States Department of Justice in the District of Delaware against Dentsply. See United States v. Dentsply Int'l, Inc., 399 F.3d 181 (3d Cir. 2005).  In the DOJ action, Mr. Cooper represented Vident in all aspects of the case, which involved allegations that Dentsply’s exclusive dealing contracts with dental dealers violated the Sherman and Clayton Acts.  In that role, Mr. Cooper defended company executives during their depositions and also represented Vident’s president during his appearance at trial.  Early in the case, Mr. Cooper’s own testimony was even cited by the Court as a principal reason why Dentsply’s in-house lawyer would not be permitted access to any confidential third-party information.  See United States v. Dentsply Int’l, Inc., 187 F.R.D. 152, 161 & n.9 (D. Del. 1999).  
  • Yahoo!, Inc. and Inktomi Corporation.  Mr. Cooper was significantly involved in the defense of Yahoo!'s wholly owned subsidiary, Inktomi Corporation, in a multiple-defendant/multiple-patent infringement case.  This case concerned Inktomi's “Web caching” services.  The case settled after Inktomi obtained favorable rulings on a variety of issues, including interpretations of both the plaintiff's “Rule 11” pre-filing obligations, and the adequacy of the plaintiff’s infringement contentions under the unique Patent Local Rules adopted in the Northern District of California.  See Network Caching Technologies, L.L.C. v. Novell, 67 U.S.P.Q.2d 1034 (N.D. Cal. 2002).  Mr. Cooper also defended Yahoo! and its subsidiary Inktomi in a multidefendant patent infringement case that involved Yahoo!'s and Inktomi’s Web caching technology and software products.  The case settled shortly after the team obtained key summary judgment rulings in favor of Yahoo! holding that two of the claims at issue were non-infringed, and one was invalid as non-enabled.  See Teknowledge Corp. v. Akamai Tech., Inc., 73 U.S.P.Q.2d 1021 (N.D. Cal. 2004).
  • NextG Networks, Inc.  Mr. Cooper represented NextG Networks, Inc. in its successful efforts to enforce against NewPath Networks LLC a pioneer patent related to radio frequency (RF) communication network architectures employed within Distributed Antenna Systems.  The case settled shortly after NextG received from the Chief Judge of the Northern District of California a favorable patent claim construction ruling in which the Court elected not to adopt a single one of NewPath's proposed interpretations for the disputed terms.  See NextG Networks, Inc. v. NewPath Networks LLC, 2009 WL 1226556 (N.D. Cal. 2009).
  • KLA-Tencor Corporation and Nvidia Corporation.  Mr. Cooper is one of Orrick's attorneys currently representing KLA-Tencor's wholly-owned subsidiaries ICOS Vision Systems Corporation, N.V. and ICOS Vision Systems Inc., as well as Nvidia Corporation, in multipatent declaratory judgment litigation in the Southern District of New York.  The defendant-patent owner is Scanner Technologies Corporation.  In the actions, which center on ICOS' ball grid array inspection technology, Mr. Cooper's efforts have already proven integral in defeating Scanner's efforts to dismiss all of the declaratory judgment actions, and also in proving that ICOS is entitled to an implied license preventing Scanner from seeking damages for any products in existence as of March of 2009. See ICOS Vision Sys. Corp. N.V. v. Scanner Tech. Corp., 2012 WL 512641 (S.D.N.Y. 2012) (Order granting ICOS summary judgment on its implied license claims); ICOS Vision Sys. Corp. N.V. v. Scanner Tech. Corp., 699 F.Supp.2d 664, 2010 WL 1223454 (S.D.N.Y. 2010) (Order denying Scanner's motion to dismiss).
  • Gamefly, Inc.  Mr. Cooper had a lead role in representing Gamefly, Inc., from allegations that its popular videogame delivery service infringed patents related to online rental queue notification methods.  In the multidefendant case originally filed in the Eastern District of Oklahoma, Mr. Cooper was one of the attorneys who ultimately convinced the Court to transfer the matter to California. See Media Queue LLC v. Netlfix, Inc., 2009 WL 464456 (E.D. Okla. 2009).  He also led successful settlement negotiations with the plaintiff which resulted in the early dismissal of Gamefly from the litigation.  
  • D-Link Systems, Inc., and PowerDsine Ltd.  Mr. Cooper held the lead role in representing both D-Link Systems, Inc. and PowerDsine Ltd., a wholly owned subsidiary of Microsemi Corporation, in separate patent infringement lawsuits pending in the Eastern District of Michigan with Chrimar Systems, Inc. Both cases involved the standardization of Power-over-Ethernet (POE) technology, which is employed in such popular applications as IP Phones.  Mr. Cooper secured from the District Court both a favorable claim construction ruling, and subsequently a critical recommendation on application of collateral estoppel from an appointed special master.  See Chrimar Systems, Inc. v. PowerDsine Ltd., 2008 WL 2966470 (E.D. Mich. 2008) (Memorandum on Claim Construction);  Chrimar Systems, Inc. v. PowerDsine Ltd., 2009 WL 6337978 (E.D. Mich. 2009) (Report and Recommendation of Special Master Concerning Defendants' Motion for Application of Collateral Estoppel on Prior Art References).  Following both of those rulings, both Microsemi and D-Link settled.
  • UPEK, Inc.  Mr. Cooper was one of Orrick's team of attorneys who represented UPEK, Inc., a leader in the design and manufacturing of biometric fingerprint scanners, in multi-patent infringement litigation against AuthenTec, Inc. in the Northern District of California.  See UPEK, Inc. v. AuthenTec, Inc., 2010 WL 1485995 (N.D. Cal. 2010) (Order denying AuthenTec's motions for summary judgment).  The case settled following the merger of the two companies involved in the litigation.
  • Charles Schwab & Co. and CyberTrader, Inc.  Mr. Cooper was a member of the team that defended both Charles Schwab & Co. and its subsidiary CyberTrader, Inc., as well as Chicago-based Terra Nova Trading, LLC, in a patent infringement case filed by a Montana-based software company.  The case included five other defendants, all of whom were directly or indirectly involved in online investment or brokering services, and related to a software patent that was directed to customizable electronic kiosks.  The case settled favorably for all three Defendants that Mr. Cooper represented shortly after the team filed a motion for summary judgment and presented claim construction positions during a one-day Markman hearing.
  • Fujitsu.  Mr. Cooper represented Fujitsu, Ltd., in significant, multinational cross-license negotiations with a major United States technology company relating to both companies' extensive patent portfolios.  The cross-license evaluations involved each company's numerous semiconductor patents and technologies related to manufacturing design, analog device methodologies, Digital Signal Processing, SRAM composition, semiconductor fabrication and CDMA applications, among others.  The negotiations also required extensive prior art evaluation.  As a result of more than a year of negotiations and evaluations of more than 100 United States, Japanese, and European patents, a successful international cross-license agreement was reached.  Mr. Cooper also was on the team of Orrick lawyers that represented Fujitsu Computer Products of America, Inc., and Fujitsu Computer Systems Corp. in multidefendant patent litigation brought by Stormedia Texas, LLC in the Eastern District of Texas, Marshall Division, concerning the companies' hard disk drive products.  The case settled favorably for both defendants, even before a Markman hearing was held.
  • Xoft, Inc.  Mr. Cooper was one of the principal team members of Orrick's representation of Xoft, Inc., in declaratory judgment patent litigation with Cytyc Corporation and Proxima Therapeutics, Inc., in the San Jose Division of the Northern District of California.  The lawsuit concerned a revolutionary electronic brachytherapy system designed for cancer therapy, which utilized an X-ray source as opposed to a radionuclide for treatment.  Mr. Cooper assisted with all aspects of the case, including defending the company's CEO and marketing director at their depositions, and taking the depositions of several inventors with extensive backgrounds in high-energy physics and biomedical engineering. The case settled after Xoft received a favorable Markman ruling.  Xoft, Inc. v. Cytyc Corp., 2007 WL 1241990 (N.D. Cal. 2007).  Mr. Cooper also was one of the attorneys who defended Xoft and its parent company ICAD, Inc. in the District of Delaware from allegations brought by Carl Zeiss Meditec, Inc. and Carl Zeiss Surgical Gmbh that various Xoft products infringe claims in four patents which the Zeiss entities claim to own.  That case settled favorably for Xoft after the parties presented Markman arguments to the Court.
  • eBay Inc. and PayPal, Inc.  Mr. Cooper defended eBay Inc. and its subsidiary PayPal, Inc. in a high-profile patent infringement action brought by AT&T in Delaware.  The case involved the companies' popular online payment mechanisms.  Mr. Cooper was a key member of the team that defended the companies, particularly with respect to their invalidity defenses.  The case settled favorably.
  • NITGen Co., Ltd.  Mr. Cooper was an integral part of a team that represented NITGen Co. Ltd., a developer of biometrics technology based in South Korea, in a complex AAA arbitration against SecuGen Corporation.  The result of that arbitration was a major victory for NITGen.  More than 25 claims and counterclaims were at issue, including patent, copyright, trade secrets, trade libel, trademark and contract claims, as well as claims for breach of fiduciary duty, accounting fraud, money laundering and embezzlement.  The arbitrator ordered a net award to NITGen of more than US$3.3 million, while also terminating an onerous technology license that was the framework for most of SecuGen's own claims.  The arbitrator also concluded that a corporate officer of SecuGen engaged in embezzlement and further held that two patents owned by SecuGen were not infringed by any NITGen biometric device as a result of shop rights.
  • Firetide, Inc.  Mr. Cooper was one of Orrick's lead lawyers in defending Firetide, Inc., from allegations of patent infringement directed at Firetide's wireless mesh products brought by Linex Technologies, Inc. in multidefendant litigation in the Eastern District of Texas.  As a result of Mr. Cooper's efforts, the case settled favorably for Firetide even before a Markman hearing was held.
  • HearMe.  Mr. Cooper was a principal member in the representation of the plaintiff HearMe (formerly known as Mpath).  In the action, HearMe asserted that multiple claims of two patents covering upper-level protocol solutions were infringed by VoIP software used by Lipstream Networks, Inc.  The case settled after two separate multiday Markman hearings resulted in HearMe obtaining a favorable ruling from the Court construing certain of the relevant claims.
  • Net.com (aka Network Equipment Technologies, Inc.).  Mr. Cooper was part of the team that represented plaintiff Net.com in a trade secrets case involving the company's proprietary “intelligent network edge” switches.  Net.com obtained a stipulated injunction (a) limiting ex-employees’ job duties for defined time periods; (b) precluding the use or disclosure of trade secrets; and (c) imposing a neutral third-party evaluator to monitor compliance.

Before joining Orrick, Mr. Cooper was employed as an intellectual property litigation associate by Christie, Parker & Hale, LLP, in Pasadena, California.  At that firm, he represented such clients as Kawasaki, Gemstar Development Corporation, StarSight Telecast, Haas Automation, Inc. and Discus Dental, Inc. in extensive patent, trademark and copyright litigation.  Prior to that, he was employed as a litigation associate by Moss & O’Dell, P.C., in Denver, Colorado.  He also served as a law clerk to the Hon. Zita L. Weinshienk, United States District Court Judge for the District of Colorado.

Monte Cooper
Speeches
Select Publications
Admitted In
  • California
  • Colorado
Court Admissions
Supreme Court of the United States
    United States Courts of Appeals
    • Federal Circuit
    • First Circuit
    • Ninth Circuit
    • Tenth Circuit
    United States District Court
    • Northern District of California
    • Central District of California
    • Eastern District of California
    • Southern District of California
    • District of Colorado
    • Eastern District of Texas

    Education
    • J.D., Order of the Coif, University of Colorado at Boulder Law School, 1991
    • B.A., with honors, History, Duke University, 1986
    Honors
    Clerkships
    • Hon. Zita L. Weinshienk, United States District Court Judge for the District of Colorado (1991-1993).
    Memberships
    • State Bar of California
    • Colorado Bar Association
    • Sedona Conference, Working Group 10, Best Practices in Patent Litigation (Core Drafting Committee)
    • Intellectual Property Owners Association
    • Licensing Executives International
    • Silicon Valley Intellectual Property Inn of Court

    Please do not include any confidential, secret or otherwise sensitive information concerning any potential or actual legal matter in this e-mail message. Unsolicited e-mails do not create an attorney-client relationship and confidential or secret information included in such e-mails cannot be protected from disclosure. Orrick does not have a duty or a legal obligation to keep confidential any information that you provide to us. Also, please note that our attorneys do not seek to practice law in any jurisdiction in which they are not properly authorized to do so.

    By clicking "OK" below, you understand and agree that Orrick will have no duty to keep confidential any information you provide.

    OK
    Cancel