Darin Snyder

When it comes to legal prowess, Darin Snyder’s name is synonymous with success. He has built a formidable reputation in the legal community, tackling some of the most complex and high-stakes cases. And at the heart of his impressive portfolio lies a true tech giant: Google.

As lead counsel, Snyder was tasked with defending three related patent cases that AGIS Software Development filed against Google, Waze and Samsung.

These cases asserted a total of six patents against more than 50 Google products and services, as well as hundreds of Samsung products and services. The stakes were high and Snyder and his team were committed to defending their clients.

“All three of the defendants in the matter garnered quite a bit of attention in the press because of the lengthy and somewhat complicated effort to get the case moved out of the Eastern District of Texas and into the Northern District of California,” Snyder said. “The case had been filed several years ago and was initially very big. It had accused more than 50 different products from Google, Waze and Samsung. The case was narrowed as a result of challenges that were filed with the Patent and Trademark Office.”

“We filed a motion to transfer early in the case, and the court did not rule on it,” Snyder said. “A few months before trial, the court denied the motion to transfer, so we asked the federal circuit for a writ of mandamus ordering that the district court had made a mistake and that the cases should be transferred to the Northern District of California, but that process takes some time.”

“Last year in the Eastern District of Texas, the Federal Circuit issued an order finding that the trial court had made a mistake and ordering that the cases all be transferred to the Northern District of California, and that’s where those cases are now pending,” he said. “AGIS has since filed additional litigations in the International Trade Commission and in other district courts, but I think it’s noteworthy because we’ve made some law in the federal circuit on the proper standards for directions to transfer to the proper venue.”

Following the Federal Circuit’s decision, all trial dates were vacated, and the cases were transferred to the Northern District in California. The court called the Eastern District of Texas court’s refusal to move the cases “patently erroneous.”

—Douglas Saunders