Munck Wilson Scores $58.7 million Jury Win in Plano for TAOS

© 2015 The Texas Lawbook.

By Mark Curriden

(March 9) – A Plano jury has ordered a California company to pay $58.7 million to Texas Advanced Optoelectronic Solutions [TAOS] for violations of contract and illegally using its patented light sensor technology.

The nine-person federal jury deliberated for nearly seven hours before ruling Friday that Intersil Corp. committed patent infringement and breach of contract when it used TAOS’s technology that allows flat panel video displays to adjust brightness based on surrounding ambient light levels.

The jury ordered Intersil Corp. to pay TAOS $48.7 million in actual damages and $10 million in punitive damages for trade secret misappropriation and tortuous interference.

Lawyers for Intersil said in court Friday that they plan to appeal the verdict.

TAOS, a Plano-based semiconductor manufacturer, sued Intersil in 2008 for breach of contract, patent infringement and misappropriation of trade secrets.

TAOS chief executive officer Kirk Laney told jurors that TAOS and Intersil discussed merging in 2004. As part of the negotiations, TAOS provided Intersil officials with confidential documents about its patented dual diode ambient light sensor, which allows electronic devices to extend battery life and provide optimum viewing in diverse lighting conditions, Laney said.

When no merger agreement was reached, Intersil sent TAOS a certificate of destruction showing that the trade secret information provide by TAOS had been eliminated, said Michael McCabe, a Dallas partner at Munck Wilson Mandala, which represents TAOS in the litigation.

“Two years later, in 2006, Intersil introduced a product that clearly used technology developed by our client,” McCabe said. “That same year, Intersil again claimed that they had destroyed the documents we provided to them, but this time claimed that they had developed the same technology even before we provided it to them, which we were able to show was silly.”

During the four-week trial, TAOS also told jurors that Intersil used the company’s confidential pricing information to undercut TAOS and win supply contracts for the second-generation iPhone 3g and iPod Touch, according to McCabe.

In closing arguments, lawyers for Intersil challenged the validity of the TAOS patent and the damage amounts sought by TAOS.

McCabe said his team argued that even though technology and patent disputes can be complex, the facts in this case were not.

“Intersil had the opportunity and ability to buy TAOS, but instead chose to embark on a course of conduct that involved lying, cheating and stealing,” Jamil Alibhai, a partner with Munck Wilson, told jurors in closing arguments.

The case is Texas Advanced Optoelectronic Solutions Inc. v Intersil Corp., No. 4:08-CV-451.

© 2015 The Texas Lawbook. Content of The Texas Lawbook is controlled and protected by specific licensing agreements with our subscribers and under federal copyright laws. Any distribution of this content without the consent of The Texas Lawbook is prohibited.

If you see any inaccuracy in any article in The Texas Lawbook, please contact us. Our goal is content that is 100% true and accurate. Thank you.