Aaron manages all aspects of patent litigation—performing pre-filing investigations, handling complex discovery, working with fact and expert witnesses, Markman and summary judgment hearings, and preparing and presenting all aspects of his cases for trial. His experiences have spanned a wide array of technologies, with particular emphasis in the telecommunications, networking, consumer electronics and software, medical device, and pharmaceuticals industries. Aaron has managed cases throughout the country, including all of the major trial jurisdictions such as the Eastern District of Texas, Northern District of California, the District of Delaware, the Northern District of Illinois, and the Eastern District of Virginia. Aaron has also handled several matters before the International Trade Commission and Federal Circuit Court of Appeals. Aaron has also has advised clients on intellectual property issues outside of litigation, including procurement, licensing, and monetization of intellectual property.
Sprint v. Comcast (D.Del.) – Trial counsel for Sprint in a patent infringement action in the District of Delaware wherein Sprint asserted two patents related to fiber optical SONET networks. Comcast was represented by Davis Polk and Winston Strawn. After a one-week jury trial, the jury returned a verdict in Sprint’s favor on all issues, finding all claims infringed by all accused networks, and awarding Sprint $27.6 million, the full amount of damages requested by Sprint. Appeal pending.
In re Certain Multimedia Display and Navigation Devices (ITC Inv. No. 337-TA-694) – Represented Garmin in an ITC investigation relating to GPS technology involving three patents and dozens of accused products resulting in a ruling in Garmin’s favor that all claims were not infringed.
ThinkTank, Inc. v. Energizer Holdings, Inc. – Represented Energizer in patent litigation in the Eastern District of Texas involving LED-based battery-powered lamps. Coordinated early non-infringement and invalidity theories, resulting in a stipulated dismissal on all infringement counts just days after fact discovery opened.
Sprint v. Comcast, Cable One, and Time Warner Cable – Represent Sprint in patent litigation involving 12 patents relating to Voice-over-Packet technologies involving calls that ingress from, or egress to, the Public Switched Telephone Network.
SP Technologies, LLC v. Garmin International, Inc., et al. – Represented Garmin in a defense of a widely-licensed patent relating to user interface technologies. Worked with larger team to develop and ultimately prove invalidity of all asserted claims on summary judgment based on prior art navigation system sold by Acura beginning in 1996. See SP Tech., LLC v. Garmin Int’l, Inc., Case No. 08-cv-3248, 2010 WL 2698289 (N.D.Ill. July 7, 2010). The inventor thereafter intervened to challenge the invalidity ruling on appeal, but the District Court was affirmed on all issues. See Boesen v. Garmin Int’l, Inc., 455 F. App’x 974 (Fed. Cir. 2011).
Stryker Medical v. Monster Medic - Represented Stryker in patent infringement matter in the Eastern District of Wisconsin relating to power cot technologies, resulting in favorable settlement.
Sprint v. Cox Communications, Inc., et al. – Represent Sprint in patent litigation involving more than 20 asserted patents covering a wide range of technologies, including, as examples, relating to Voice-over-Packet telephone calls involving the Public Switched Telephone Network, synchronous optical networking architectures, call manager and call software population systems, billing systems, over-the-top video services, and many others (pending).
Monsanto v. DuPont and Pioneer Hybrid – Represented DuPont and Pioneer Hybrid in patent infringement case involving 16 patents related to seed sorting and “chipping” technologies. Case settled.
Comcast v. Sprint (E.D.Pa) – Represent Sprint in patent litigation involving 15 patents relating to telecommunications and cable technology in the District Court of Delaware and the Eastern District of Pennsylvania (pending).
Publications and Presentations
Acts By Many, Infringement By None: A Discussion Of Joint Infringement, March 2011 (Shook, Hardy & Bacon CLE).
Aaron Hankel (student note), On the Road to the Merits in Our Federal System: Is the 'Forum Defendant Rule' a Procedural Speedbump or Jurisdictional Roadblock?, 28 Wash. U. J.L. & Pol’y 427 (2008).