Our Website Uses Cookies 

We and the third parties that provide content, functionality, or business services on our website may use cookies to collect information about your browsing activities in order to provide you with more relevant content and promotional materials, on and off the website, and help us understand your interests and improve the website.

For more information, please contact us or consult our Privacy Notice.

Your binder contains too many pages, the maximum is 40.

We are unable to add this page to your binder, please try again later.

This page has been added to your binder.

Stanley Young uses his 30 years of experience to achieve the best results for his clients in intellectual property and other high stakes disputes. He has represented companies in the telecommunications, computer, electronics, semiconductor, software and financial services industries in all phases of federal and state court litigation, arbitration and International Trade Commission investigations. He is a partner in the firm’s Palo Alto office, of which he was Managing Partner from 2008 to 2014. He is listed in Best Lawyers in America for intellectual property and patent litigation and as a Northern California Super Lawyer.

  • Motorola v. Lemko, et al. and Huawei v. Motorola (N.D. Ill.). Represented Huawei Technologies in trade secret lawsuits against Motorola Solutions involving wireless base station technology; obtained a preliminary injunction preventing the transfer of confidential information in the context of a corporate acquisition.
  • O2 Micro v. Beyond Innovation (BiTEK), 521 F.3d 1351 (Fed. Cir. 2008). Represented appellant in overturning on appeal a verdict of infringement of three patents asserted against inverter controllers used in the backlighting of LCD screens. The Federal Circuit’s decision describes the duty of a district court judge to construe a patent claim term where that construction will decide the outcome of the case.
  • In re Certain Light-Emitting Diodes And Products Containing Same, ITC Investigation 337-TA-785. Defended Samsung Electronics in an International Trade Commission litigation over patents on light conversion techniques and LED package structures.
  • Atmel Corporation v. Silicon Storage Technology (N.D. Cal.). Represented plaintiff in a patent infringement case involving semiconductor technology. Jury trial involving a charge pump patent resulted in judgment of more than $36 million in plaintiff's favor, which was affirmed on appeal.
  • Safeclick LLC v. Visa International Service Association and Visa U.S.A., Inc. (N.D. Cal.). Represented defendants in a lawsuit over a patent alleged to cover the Verified by Visa service for authenticating the identity of a payment cardholder in an on-line transaction. Defendants won summary judgment of non-infringement. Obtained affirmance on appeal. Case No. 06-1182 (Fed. Cir. 2006).
  • International Trade Commission Investigations re Wireless Devices with 3G and/or 4G Capabilities, Nos. 337-TA-800 and 337-TA-868, and related Federal District Court Cases in Delaware. Defended Huawei Technologies in litigation brought by InterDigital over patents on wireless communications technologies and in an arbitration over royalty rates.
  • Huawei District Court Patent Cases. Defense of Huawei in lawsuits brought in the Eastern District of Texas by Maxell, Fundamental Innovations and PanOptis, involving patents on various cell phone functionalities.
  • In re Certain Electronic Devices, Including Handheld Wireless Communications Devices, Investigations Nos. 337-TA-667 and 337-TA-673. Represented Samsung in an International Trade Commission investigation involving patents on interrupt control circuitry and interprocessor communications asserted against cell phones and televisions.
  • In re Carbon and Alloy Steel Products, Investigation No. 337-TA-1002. Represented Baosteel against trade secret misappropriation claim brought and dismissed by U.S. Steel in the International Trade Commission.
  • In re Certain Flash Memory Controllers, Drives, Memory Cards, and Media Players and Products Containing Same, Investigation No. 337-TA-619. Represented several respondents in an International Trade Commission action relating to patents asserted against flash memory controllers and devices, brought by SanDisk Corporation.
  • MedioStream, Inc. v. Acer America, et al. (E.D. Tex.). Represented DVD authoring software manufacturer Sonic Solutions in defending lawsuit involving patents on recording video onto disc, as well as trade secret and other claims.
  • Disc Link Corporation v. Oracle Corporation, et al. (E.D. Tex.). Defended seven companies against patent that was asserted against CD-Roms containing software with links to websites.
  • QUALCOMM Corporation v. Broadcom Corporation (S.D. Cal.). Represented wireless communications technology company in patent litigation over patents on video compression and wireless communications technologies.
  • In the Matter of Certain EPROM, EEPROM, Flash Memory, etc., Investigation No. 337-TA-395. Represented the complainant in an International Trade Commission action relating to patents on EEPROM and Flash memory circuits and memory cell designs. After trial, complainant obtained an exclusion order, affirmed on appeal, prohibiting the importation into the United States of infringing chips and circuit boards containing the same.
  • Cisco Systems Inc. v. Huawei Technologies, Co., Ltd. (E.D. Texas). Represented defendant in a copyright, patent and trade secret case relating to router software.
  • Visa U.S.A. Inc. v. VeriSign, Inc. (N.D. Cal. and Santa Clara County Superior Court). Represented plaintiff in a declaratory relief action for non-infringement of trademark, and in a trade secret misappropriation action, involving service for authenticating identity of a payment card holder in an online transaction.
  • Starpay.com v. Visa International Service Association and Visa U.S.A., Inc. (N.D. Texas). Represented defendants in a patent and trade secret case involving payment card holder identity authentication technology.
  • Harrington v. SHOP.COM (D. Colo.). Represented the defendant in a patent case involving online shopping.
  • Computer Associates International, Inc. v. TJB Ventures, Inc. (N.D. Cal.). Represented plaintiff in a copyright, trade secret and contract action involving mainframe software. Obtained a preliminary injunction against use and dissemination of the client’s software.
  • Hon Hai Precision Industry Ltd. and High Hopes Enterprises v. Avanex Corporation (Alameda County Superior Court). Represented electronics component manufacturer in a contract action relating to acquisition of a third company.
  • Pavilion Technologies, Inc. v. Pegasus Technologies, Inc. (S.D. Tex.). Represented a maker of power plant control software in defending against a claim of infringement of 26 neural network and other process control patents.
  • Phonometrics, Inc. v. Four Seasons Hotels (S.D. Fla.). Represented Four Seasons in a patent infringement action involving automatic call tracking and billing technology for the hotel industry. Summary judgment for client affirmed on appeal.
  • CyberMedia, Inc. v. Symantec Corporation (N.D. Cal.). Represented defendant in a copyright and trade secret dispute over an uninstaller program for personal computers.
  • Intervention Inc. v. Symantec Corporation; Intervention Inc. v. Vertisoft Systems (San Francisco Superior Court and Cal. Ct. App., First District). Defended two software companies against a claim that the packaging of software sold in retail stores violated the California unfair competition statute.  Judgment for defendants in consolidated cases affirmed on appeal.
  • Carmel Software Engineering v. Central Point Software (D. Ore.). Represented defendant and counterclaim plaintiff on breach of contract claims over personal computer anti-virus software and counterclaims for source code misappropriation. Summary adjudication was granted for defendant on most claims, followed by settlement.
  • Sonic Solutions v. Spruce Technologies, Inc. (N.D. Cal.). Represented plaintiff in a copyright and trade secret action between two manufacturers of software for authoring DVDs.
  • Kumon U.S.A. v. Daekyo America, Inc. and Daekyo Co., Ltd. (C.D. Cal.). Represented defendant in a copyright action involving mathematics education worksheets.
  • Oracle Corporation v. Delphi Corporation (San Mateo County Superior Court). Represented defendant in a breach of contract case involving a software maintenance agreement.
  • A.D. One v. The Basketball Marketing Co. (N.D. Cal.). Represented plaintiff in a trademark infringement action involving footwear.
  • Hunting World v. Yuki Enterprise, Inc. (N.D. Cal.). Represented plaintiff in a trade dress and trademark counterfeiting case involving luxury handbags and associated products.  Plaintiff obtained judgment and injunction.
  • U.S. Robotics Coordination Proceeding (Santa Clara County Superior Court). Represented modem manufacturer in case brought under California unfair competition statute relating to speed of modem.
  • Advanced Micro Devices v. Atmel Corporation and Seeq Technology v. Atmel (N.D. Cal.). Represented a chip designer and manufacturer specializing in non-volatile memories, particularly EPROMS, EEPROMs, and flash memories, and programmable logic devices (PLD's). These cases involved a PLD circuit patent and an EEPROM cell patent.
  • General Instrument Corporation v. Atmel Corporation (S.D. N.Y.); and Atmel Corporation v. General Instrument Corporation (S.D. N.Y.). Represented Atmel in litigation concerning disputes arising out of a development agreement with General Instrument. The issues related to EPROM and EEPROM processes and circuit design.
  • Intel Corp. v. Chips and Technologies, Inc., Texas Instruments (N.D. Cal.). Represented Texas Instruments and Chips and Technologies in patent infringement action brought by Intel. The patents related to the memory management system in the Intel 386 microprocessor and a breakpoint apparatus for system debugging.
  • Melendres v. Arpaio. Represents class of Latinos in Maricopa County, Arizona in racial profiling civil rights case. Obtained injunctive relief, including appointment of a federal monitor to oversee reform, and obtained affirmance on appeal. 989 F.Supp.2d 822 (D. Ariz. 2013) and 784 F.3d 1254 (9th Cir. 2015).