PROFESSIONALS

Orville R. Cockings

Partner
T: 908.518.6397
F: 908.654.7866
E: ocockings@lernerdavid.com
20 Commerce Drive
Cranford, NJ 07016
vCard

Back

Back

Real World Expertise

Prior to becoming a lawyer, Orville worked for close to 10 years as an engineer at Bell Communications Research, Inc., the research and development arm of the Regional Bell Operating Companies (the “Baby Bells”). During that time, he worked on many of the technologies that have become mainstays driving today’s e‑commerce and mobile broadband services. Those technologies included wireless communication systems, switching systems, optics, digital circuits, network protocols and other areas within electrical engineering.

Orville not only has practical exposure to technology, but also spent his early patent career as in‑house counsel at Bellcore, where he engaged directly with inventors and management. This experience enables him to understand firsthand the real world pressures on technology corporations and the need for solution driven legal advice. While in-house, Orville worked with clients on a wide variety of matters, such as due diligence, including as part of spin-outs, developing portfolios with inventors at the forefront of various technologies, negotiating licenses and generally supporting business units within the company to meet their bottom line goals.

Orville’s real world practical exposure to technology and in-house client counseling is an asset in dealing with clients, judges, juries, expert witnesses and adversaries.

Orville has maintained a diverse practice including patent procurement, prosecution, opinion work, litigation and client counseling. His comfort with technology enables him to quickly get up to speed on complex legal and technical issues. His in-house legal experience is an ever present reminder that clients want solutions that balance business needs with legal protection. Orville has worked with both large and small clients in developing strategies and solutions tailored to their intellectual property needs.

In addition to his law practice, Orville was a lead barrister at the John C. Lifland American Inn of Court. He has also served as co-chair of the Intellectual Property Committee in the Business Law Section of the New Jersey State Bar Association.

Real World Expertise

Orville’s real world practical exposure to technology and in-house client counseling is an asset in dealing with clients, judges, juries, expert witnesses and adversaries.

In addition to his law practice, Orville is a lead barrister at the John C. Lifland American Inn of Court. He has also served as co-chair of the Intellectual Property Committee in the Business Law Section of the New Jersey State Bar Association.

Overview

Real World Expertise

Prior to becoming a lawyer, Orville worked for close to 10 years as an engineer at Bell Communications Research, Inc., the research and development arm of the Regional Bell Operating Companies (the “Baby Bells”). During that time, he worked on many of the technologies that have become mainstays driving today’s e‑commerce and mobile broadband services. Those technologies included wireless communication systems, switching systems, optics, digital circuits, network protocols and other areas within electrical engineering.

Orville not only has practical exposure to technology, but also spent his early patent career as in‑house counsel at Bellcore, where he engaged directly with inventors and management. This experience enables him to understand firsthand the real world pressures on technology corporations and the need for solution driven legal advice. While in-house, Orville worked with clients on a wide variety of matters, such as due diligence, including as part of spin-outs, developing portfolios with inventors at the forefront of various technologies, negotiating licenses and generally supporting business units within the company to meet their bottom line goals.

Orville’s real world practical exposure to technology and in-house client counseling is an asset in dealing with clients, judges, juries, expert witnesses and adversaries.

Orville has maintained a diverse practice including patent procurement, prosecution, opinion work, litigation and client counseling. His comfort with technology enables him to quickly get up to speed on complex legal and technical issues. His in-house legal experience is an ever present reminder that clients want solutions that balance business needs with legal protection. Orville has worked with both large and small clients in developing strategies and solutions tailored to their intellectual property needs.

In addition to his law practice, Orville was a lead barrister at the John C. Lifland American Inn of Court. He has also served as co-chair of the Intellectual Property Committee in the Business Law Section of the New Jersey State Bar Association.

Practices
Admissions

1999, New Jersey
1999, New York
1998, United States Patent & Trademark Office
Education

J.D., Seton Hall University Law School, 1998
M.E., Electrical Engineering, Cornell University, 1988
B.E., Electrical Engineering, cum laude, City College of New York, 1987
Successes

Lerner David Succeeds in Having IPR Instituted on Behalf of MVG, Inc.

On October 12, 2016, Lerner David received a decision from the Patent Trial and Appeal Board instituting Inter Partes Review on behalf of MVG against an ETS-Lindgren patent (IPR2016-00879). The patent, U.S. Patent No. 8,331,869, generally relates to complex radiation pattern measurements for testing the radiated performance of wireless devices. The Board found that MVG had made a showing that all challenged claims of the patents were either anticipated or obvious in light of the prior art. Indeed, the Board decided that the IPR should be instituted on all seven different grounds requested by MVG, including different combinations of prior art against many of the same claims.

PTAB Denies Petition for IPR of Lambeth Magnetic Structures

In a decision in favor of Lambeth Magnetic Structure, the Patent Trial and Appeal Board denied TDK Corporation’s request for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent 7,128,988 (IPR2016-00013). The ‘988 patent relates to magnetic structures used in devices such as memories. In its decision on April 12, 2016, the Board decided that TDK had not met its burden to show a reasonable likelihood that TDK would prevail with respect to at least one challenged claim. Instead, the Board ruled in Lerner David’s and Lambeth’s favor in finding that the petitioner provided insufficient evidence to show certain claim limitations were taught or suggested by the prior art.

Lerner David Wins Transfer of Patent Lawsuit

Lerner David represents MVG, Inc. of Kennesaw, Georgia that sells antenna measurement systems. MVG is a subsidiary of Microwave Vision, a global group of high-tech companies developing technologies for measurement solutions, antennas, advanced positioning systems, absorbing materials and shielding for anechoic chambers. ETS Lindgren, Inc., a competitor with its home base in Austin, Texas, sued MVG in the United States District Court for the Western District of Texas for infringement of U.S. Patent 8,331,869 for an antenna measurement system generically known as a “MIMO” system. Lerner David promptly challenged jurisdiction and moved to have this suit transferred to Atlanta, Georgia where MVG is based. On November 4, 2015, Judge Sam Sparks of the United States District Court for the Western District of Texas in a memorandum opinion granted MVG’s motion, finding no jurisdiction over MVG in the Western District of Texas and transferring the case to the Northern District of Georgia. The decision is reported as ETS Lindgren, Inc. v. MVG, Inc., 2015 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 149906 (W.D. Tex. Nov. 4. 2015).

Lerner David Defeats Motion for Summary Judgment of Invalidity In Video Chip Case

On November 7, 2013, Judge Colleen McMahon in the Southern District of New York agreed with arguments advanced by Lerner David and denied the defendants' motion that Advanced Video Technologies LLC's patent was invalid for failure to meet the written description requirement. The patent covers chips that are used in compressing or de-compressing video information. In seeking summary judgment, the three defendants argued that by not challenging the Patent and Trademark Office Examiner's assertion that a claimed feature (which was subsequently deleted from the claim) was not supported by the specification, AVT acquiesced in the Examiner’s conclusion that there was no support for the feature. In denying the motion, Judge McMahon found that defendants had confused the issues of claim construction and lack of written description. Thus, the Court held that the doctrines of prosecution history estoppel and prosecution history waiver were inapplicable to the defendants' motion. The Court likewise found that the doctrine of judicial estoppel, which the defendants also relied upon, was inapplicable. The Court thus denied the defendants’ motion. The consolidated cases are Advanced Video Technologies LLC, v. HTC Corporation and HTC America, Inc.; Research In Motion Ltd., et al.; and Motorola Mobility LLC (Civ. Nos. 11 Civ. 6604(CM); 11 Civ. 8909(CM); 12 Civ. 0918(CM)).

Sony Wins Knock-out Jury Verdict

Sony Corporation and four of its subsidiaries (Sony Computer Entertainment Inc., Sony Computer Entertainment America LLC, Sony Electronics Inc., and Sony Corporation of America) prevailed on all counts of non-infringement and invalidity in a jury trial in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California against Television Interactive Data Corporation ("TVI"). TVI had alleged that Sony's Blu ray players, DVD players, and PlayStation3 consoles infringed claims in four patents related to autoplay of optical discs (DVDs and Blu-ray discs). The asserted patents are U.S. Patent Nos. 5,597,307; 5,795,156; 6,249,863; and 6,418,532. After a three week jury trial, the nine member jury delivered a verdict finding that Sony did not infringe any claim and that all asserted claims were invalid as anticipated and obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art. TVI had requested damages of $84M plus enhanced damages for alleged willful infringement. The jury delivered a knock-out blow to all of TVI's allegations. As reported in the March 28, 2013 edition of IPLaw360 "We felt very strongly from the beginning that there was no infringement, and that the patents were invalid," said Sony's attorney Greg Gewirtz of Lerner David. During closing arguments, Mr. Gewirtz made clear that Sony fought the battle with TVI "because of true justice, true principle" as Sony created and implemented autoplay in optical disc players well before TVI's patents were filed. The lawsuit was first filed in 2009 when TVI sued about a dozen consumer electronics companies alleging that all DVD and Blu-ray players infringed its patents. Sony was the only remaining defendant in the case and was very pleased to confirm its beliefs that its products did not use TVI's technology and that all asserted patent claims were invalid.
Publications
Orville Cockings will be attending the Diversity Banquet sponsored by Seton Hall Law on March 15, 2017. Click here for more information on the event.
Accolades
Affiliations

American Bar Association
Garden State Bar Association
IEEE

Top

Orville R. Cockings

Lerner David Succeeds in Having IPR Instituted on Behalf of MVG, Inc.

PTAB Denies Petition for IPR of Lambeth Magnetic Structures

Lerner David Wins Transfer of Patent Lawsuit

Lerner David Defeats Motion for Summary Judgment of Invalidity In Video Chip Case

Sony Wins Knock-out Jury Verdict