Richard S. Taffet

For more than 40 years, Richard has tried cases in state and federal courts, as well as in arbitration proceedings; represented clients’ interests in appeals to numerous federal courts of appeal and the US Supreme Court; and advised clients in connection with a broad range of competition and intellectual property matters. Richard also regularly assists clients in matters before the US Department of Justice and Federal Trade Commission, as well as foreign competition and other regulatory bodies, including in European and Asian jurisdictions.

Richard is recognized as a leading counsel and thought leader in connection with matters involving technology standards development. Richard has represented standard development organizations (SDOs) and technology consortia, as well as participants in such bodies, in connection with the development and use of SDO patent and intellectual property rights (IPR) policies, licensing and technology transfer strategies, and related commercial and antitrust issues. These representations have included the development of SDO and consortia IPR and patent policies, numerous litigations, advocacy to US and foreign legislative bodies and enforcement and regulatory agencies, and extensive legal and economic writing and speaking endeavors.

Richard is noted in Chambers USA “as a proficient and respected antitrust and IP lawyer,” and recognized for his “excellent strategic views and his ability to always think one step ahead.”

Before joining Morgan Lewis, Richard was a senior litigation partner of another international law firm, where he was a member of the executive board.

Antitrust

• In Re Google Play Store Antitrust Litigation – Representing Google in multi-district litigation regarding Google’s app distribution services; cases currently pending in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California
• FTC v. Qualcomm (Northern District of California and Ninth Circuit) — Representing Qualcomm in connection with claims alleged under Sections 1 and 2 of the Sherman Act and Section 5 of the FTC Act concerning Qualcomm’s licensing and chip supply practices
• In re Qualcomm Antitrust Litigation (Northern District of California and Ninth Circuit) — Defending Qualcomm in putative consumer class action alleging Sherman Act claims concerning Qualcomm’s licensing and chip supply practices
• Broadcom v. QUALCOMM (District of New Jersey) — Represented Qualcomm in monopolization and attempted monopolization case related to wireless technologies
• Verify Smart v. Bank of America, et al. (District of New Jersey and Third Circuit) – Obtained dismissal on the pleadings of action against, inter alia, The Clearing House Payments Company and The Clearing House Association alleging violations of Sections 1 and 2 of the Sherman Act, as well as violations of the federal RICO Act, and common law claims of fraud and misrepresentation, and affirmance on appeal
• Allen v. Verizon (District of New Jersey) — Lead counsel in obtaining dismissal on the pleadings of putative class action alleging violation of Section 1 of the Sherman Act in connection with alleged conspiracy involving eSIM technology
• Gordon v. Amadeus, et al. (Southern District of New York) – Represented Travelport Worldwide Limited and Travelport LP in putative class action alleging claims under Section 1 and 2 of the Sherman Act
• TruePosition v. Ericsson et al (Eastern District of Pennsylvania) — Represented the European Telecommunications Standards Institute in connection with claims alleging abuse of the standards development process
• SD-3C v. Barun Electrical Corp. (Santa Clara Superior Court) — Representing SanDisk in connection with cross-complaint alleging violations of California Cartwright and Unfair Competition Acts, federal RICO Act, and common law violations of fraud and unfair competition
• Oliver v. Panasonic et al. (Northern District of California) — Represented SanDisk Corporation in putative class action asserting claims relating to licensing and standards development by consortium directed to development of flash technologies and products
• PNY v. SanDisk (Northern District of California) — Represented SanDisk in connection with antitrust claims directed to certain licensing conduct
• In re Flash Memory Antitrust Litigation (Northern District of California) — Represented SanDisk in a class action price-fixing case involving flash memory
• In re TFT-LCD Antitrust Litigation (Northern District of California) — Represented Sharp Corp. and Sharp Electronics Corp. in connection with class action cases pending in the Northern District of California related to alleged price fixing of TFT-LCD panels that are used in TVs, computer monitors, laptops, cellphones and other products
• MM Global v. Dow Chemical et al. (District of Connecticut) — Represented plaintiff in resale price maintenance action
• FTC Investigation — Represented subjects of confidential investigations involving standards-setting activities
• DOJ Investigations — Represented subjects and third parties in connection with confidential DOJ investigations in connection with standards setting activities
• DOJ Business Review Letter — Represented The Clearing House Payments Company in connection with favorable Business Review Letter relating to TCH’s real-time RTP® network
• Foreign Competition Law Proceedings — Representing U.S.-based companies in confidential proceedings by the European Commission, Japan Fair Trade Commission and Korean Fair Trade Commission

Intellectual Property

• Sunbeam Products, Inc. v. Hamilton Beach Brands, Inc. et al. (Eastern District of Virginia) — Represented Sunbeam Products, Inc. (d/b/a Jarden Consumer Solutions) as plaintiff in a patent infringement case filed against Homeland Housewares, LLC et al. involving blender patents
• Sharp Corporation v. Dell Inc. (District of New Jersey) — Represented Sharp in trademark infringement action against Dell Computer regarding Dell’s use of the designation “UltraSharp”; Dell used the designation on products that are in direct competition with Sharp, such as monitors, and sells them on its website, where it also sells Sharp flat-panel televisions
• L&L Wings, Inc. v. Marco-Destin, Inc., et al. (Southern District of New York) — Obtained summary judgment for plaintiff on trademark infringement claims involving marks and trade dress used in retail sales
• Audio MPEG et al. v. SanDisk Corporation (Eastern District of Virginia) — Defended SanDisk in connection with patent infringement claims by the Audio MPEG patent pool and in asserting antitrust counterclaims challenging the pool
• SanDisk Corporation v. Lucent Technologies Inc. and Alcatel-Lucent, S.A. (Northern District of California) — Represented SanDisk as declaratory judgment plaintiff in connection with encoding-technology patents
• GIV v. IBM et al. (Eastern District of Virginia) — Represented Lenovo in a patent infringement case involving keyboard cursor control sticks
• International Automated Systems v. IBM et al. (District of Utah) — Represented Lenovo in a patent infringement case involving fingerprint identification systems

Commercial

• Beach Mart, Inc. v. L&L Wings (Eastern District of North Carolina) — Defending L&L Wings in connection with fraud, misrepresentation, and trademark related claims
• Confidential Arbitration — Represented technology company in connection with fraud and breach of contract ICC arbitration proceeding
• Confidential Arbitrations — Defended foreign manufacturer in AAA arbitrations involving breach of warranty relating to oil field pipe manufacturing
• Alliance for Telecommunications Industry Solutions v. Hall et al. (District of Maryland) — Secured a successful jury verdict for plaintiff on claims of breach of fiduciary duty, conversion and tortious interference
• IFAST Ltd. v. Alliance for Telecommunications Industry Solutions (District of Maryland) — Represented defendant in breach of contract and tort action, with action dismissed on the pleadings
• US JVC v. Outdoor Systems (New York Supreme Court) — Represented plaintiff in successful jury trial on breach of contract claim