Douglas E. Lumish

Lumish and his team often function as relief pitchers in some highly complex cases.

"We've taken over a lot of these cases that aren't going to settle and are heading to trial," he said. "We've been able to fit in well."

In December 2011, Lumish was hired by Google Inc. and YouTube to replace former counsel seven weeks before a scheduled trial against Eolas and the U.C. Regents.

They claimed to have invented the "interactive Web" and alleged that nearly all modern webpages infringe their asserted patents.

As co-lead trial counsel for the defense in its jury trial in Tyler, Texas, Lumish gave the opening and closing statements. Eolas Technologies Inc. v. Adobe, CV 09-00446-LED (E.D. Tex.).

Working with Kasowitz partner Jeff Homrig and Jennifer Doan of Haltom & Doan LLP in Texerkana, Texas, Lumish this year achieved a complete defense verdict after only 2½ hours of deliberation.

The first phase of the trial was limited to damages. The jury found the patent invalid, and the judge upheld the verdict. Because of the invalidity finding, none of the other infringement claims were ultimately tried.

The damages sought against the defense group were about $600 million, with about half of that being sought from Google and YouTube.

Key to Lumish's strategy in such cases is communicating arcane details to a jury.

"It's getting away from the fancy, overly manufactured animation that sometimes can be helpful to explain complex issues," he said. "I try to get the jury to understand about the people, not just the source code. It's difficult for them to follow a story without some of the human elements."

In another significant matter, in February 2011, about six weeks prior to trial, Lumish secured a victory for clients Hitachi and Shenzhen Excelstor by invalidating a patent asserted by the Massachusetts Institute of Technology and its licensee, MagSil. MagSil v. Hitachi Global Storage Technologies Inc., CV 08-0940 (D.Del.).

At stake was more than $600 million in damages, with about half being sought from Google and YouTube. In August, an appellate court affirmed the lower court's decision.

In such cases, Lumish said, "If you claim things too broadly, it's at your own peril. You can lose it."

- PAT BRODERICK