Morris Manning & Martin, LLP

John Fry

John P. Fry

Senior Counsel
Phone: 404.504.7728
Fax: 404.365.9532
[email protected]
Join my LinkedIn network
vCard

John P. Fry is a senior counsel in the Technology and Intellectual Property Litigation Practice. He is a former member of the Management Committee, the former Chair of the Litigation Department and the Technology and Intellectual Property Litigation Practice Group Leader.

Mr. Fry practices primarily in the areas of patent, trademark and copyright infringement, unfair competition and trade secret litigation with a secondary emphasis on the strategic acquisition and management of intellectual property, particularly in the international context, and on complex patent, trademark and copyright license agreements, technology and software development agreements and concept evaluation agreements. He also counsels clients on antitrust issues, particularly in the area of the antitrust implications of intellectual property enforcement and licensing. He also counsels clients on laws and regulations applicable to UAS/UAV/Drone operations as well as on IP strategies relating to enabling UAS/UAV/Drone technologies. Mr. Fry’s practice covers a wide variety of industries, including information technology, electronics, electrical distribution, telecommunications, manufacturing and chemical. 

Mr. Fry served on the Board of Directors of Big Brothers Big Sisters of Metro Atlanta from 2003 to 2009. In 2010, Mr. Fry retired as a Captain from the U.S. Navy after 30 years of combined Active and Reserve Service. 

Representative Experience

  • In re Androgel Antitrust Litigation, (ND GA) (serving as local counsel for a defendant in the consolidated antitrust class action and FTC antitrust action concerning a reverse payment settlement between a brand name pharmaceutical company (the patentee) and a generic competitor)
  • Cardsoft, Inc. et al v. Verifone Holdings, Inc. et al., (ED TX) (representing Ingenico Corp., Ingenico Inc., Ingenico S.A. in a patent suit related to point of sale terminals and a programming technique of using a specialized virtual machine; obtained verdict of no infringement after a one-week jury trial; the case is currently on-going)
  • Telecomm Innovations LLC v. Ingenico S.A., et al., (D DE) (represented Ingenico in a patent infringement suit involving communications network noise reduction; case settled on highly favorable terms)
  • Memory Integrity LLC v. Hisense International Co. Ltd., et al., (D DE) (represented Hisense in a patent infringement suit involving ARM-based processors with snoop control on snoop filtering units)
  • Cyberfone System, LLC v. Federal Express Corporation, et al., (D DE) (represented UPS and Ingenico in a patent infringement suit involving specialized operating system like technology for devices with minimal storage space and computing capacity; obtained a highly favorable claim construction ruling and case settled for substantially less than the original demand)
  • HSM Portfolio v. Fujitsu, et al., (D DE) (represented ProMOS in a patent infringement suit involving microship technology)
  • CEATS, Inc. et al v. Continental Airlines, Inc. et al., (ED TX) (represented defendants Malaysia Airline System Berhad, Caribbean Airlines, Ltd., and Alia - The Royal Jordanian Airlines Co. on behalf of SITA Information Network Computing U.S.A., Inc. in a patent infringement case involving web page mouse over functionality; concluded with highly favorable settlement)
  • Protegrity Corp. v. nuBridges, Inc., (DCT) (presently representing nuBridges, Inc., a subsidiary of Liaison Technologies, Inc. in a patent infringement case involving database encryption and security systems and methods)
  • TQP Development, LLC v. Allianz Life Insurance Company of North America et al., (ED TX) (representing SunTrust Banks as defendant in a patent infringement suit involving encrypted data transmissions over a network; the case is currently on-going)
  • SIPCO, LLC v. Energate, Inc. et al, (ED TX) (represented defendant SmartSynch, Inc. in a patent suit related to monitoring and controlling remote devices and wireless communication network; obtained highly favorable settlement)
  • TQP Development, LLC v. Ticketmaster Entertainment, Inc., et al., (ED TX) (represented United Parcel Service in a patent infringement suit involving encrypted data transmissions over a network; obtained highly favorable settlement)
  • WIAV Networks, LLC v. 3COM Corporation, et al., (ED TX) (represented two defendants in a patent infringement suit involving mesh network protocols and roaming protocols in a packet communication network; case successfully transferred to NOCA and dismissed against clients)
  • TruSeal Technologies, Inc. v. Beijing Huali Architecture Decoration Co., Ltd., (D NV) (represented Huali in a patent infringement suit involving polymer based sealant systems for insulated glass windows)
  • Truseal Technologies Inc v. GGK Distribution LLC et al., (ND TX) (represented GGK in a patent infringement suit involving polymer based sealant systems for insulated glass windows)
  • EON Corp. IP Holdings, LLC v. Skytel Corporation et al., (ED TX) (represented defendant SmartSynch in a patent suit involving wireless telecommunications protocols and system infrastructure for remote communications and data collection; obtained highly favorable settlement)
  • Whetstone Electronics, LLC v. Epson America, Inc. et al., (EDTX) (represented defendant Founder Electronics in a patent suit involving computer interface cards for printers)
  • Wisefame International LTD, et al v. FKA Distributing Co. d/b/a HoMedics, (ED MI) (represented plaintiff Wisefame in a patent suit involving electromechanical control systems for back massage devices; obtained settlement for all relief requested in prayer for relief)
  • Alexsam v. Datastream Card Svcs. Ltd., et al., (ED TX) (represented the defendant in a patent infringement suit involving systems for activating and recharging prepaid debit cards and accounts; concluded with highly favorable settlement)
  • EWI v. PRE Solutions, (ED TX) (represented the defendant in a patent infringement suit involving delivery of prepaid wireless and other prepaid functionality; concluded with highly favorable settlement)
  • In the Matter of Certain Ground Fault Circuit Interrupters and Devices Containing Same, (U.S.I.T.C.) (represented respondent manufacturer in ITC investigation relating to ground fault circuit interrupters, completed two week trial and obtained highly favorable final Commission order and Federal Circuit opinion)
  • Ricoh Co. Ltd. v. General Plastic Indus. Co., Ltd., (D NJ) (represented the defendant in a patent infringement suit involving numerous copier toner bottle patents, obtaining summary judgment of non-infringement on certain claims and highly favorable settlement of remaining claims)
  • Leviton Mfg. Co., Inc. v. Zheijiang Dongzheng Elec. Co., Ltd., (D NM) (represented the defendant in a pair of patent infringement suits involving ground fault circuit interrupters; obtaining summary judgment of non-infringement in one case and a highly favorable Markman ruling in the second, which resulted in a highly favorable settlement)
  • EBS Dealing Resources, Ltd. v. Intercontinental Exchange, Inc., (SD NY) (represented the defendant in a patent infringement action involving computerized trading systems and the related telecommunications systems to support the trading systems, obtaining highly favorable settlement for client after Markman ruling)
  • Cenzic, Inc. v. Spi Dynamics, Inc., (ND GA and ED VA) (represented Cenzic in a pair of patent infringement cases involving testing the vulnerability of networks or websites through fault injections; the cases settled on very favorable terms through a cross license)
  • Interface, Inc. et al v. Mannington Mills, Inc., (ND GA) (represented the defendant in a patent infringement action involving carpet tiles; the case settled on highly favorable terms through a cross license)
  • In re Dippin’ Dots, Inc., (ND GA) (represented a group of defendants in patent infringement suit involving a method of making ice cream; summary judgment order eliminating all liability for the client reported at 249 F. Supp. 2d 1346 (ND GA 2003); following a two week trial, obtained a jury verdict in favor of client finding the patent in suit invalid, that it had been obtained by fraud on the Patent Office and that the plaintiff had violated the antitrust laws by attempting to enforce the fraudulently obtained patent; summary judgment in favor of defendants on trademark and trade dress claims upheld on appeal at 369 F.3d 1197 (11th Cir. 2004); patent invalidity, unenforceability and non-infringement upheld on appeal; defendants awarded $2 million in attorneys’ fees)
  • Softcard v. VISA USA Inc. and Target Corporation, (ND GA) (represented the defendants in a patent infringement suit involving Smart Card technology, electronic coupons and the telecommunications systems for issuing, tracking and redeeming electronic coupons; obtained a highly favorable claim construction in a 98 page opinion; case settled on highly favorable terms following the filing of summary judgment motions)
  • University of Texas and M.D. Anderson Cancer Center v. CTI, Inc., et al., (ED TN) (represented the defendants in a patent infringement suit involving positron emission tomography detector design and obtained a favorable Markman ruling and summary judgment of non-infringement)
  • United Parcel Service v. Motive Communications, (AAA Arbitration) (represented UPS in a $6 million dispute involving the failed development of shipping support software)

Accolades

  • Atlanta Bar Association (Board Member, Chair, Intellectual Property Law Section)
  • Georgia Bar Association (Patent, Trademark and Copyright and Antitrust Law Sections)
  • American Bar Association (Intellectual Property Law and Antitrust Law Sections)
  • Federal Circuit Bar Association
  • American Intellectual Property Law Association
  • Licensing Executives Society
  • Listed, The Best Lawyers in America for Intellectual Property (2003 – 2019), Patent Litigation (2003 – 2019) and Trade Secrets (2019)
  • Law (2016)
  • Listed, Chambers USA: America’s Leading Lawyers for Business - as a top lawyer in Intellectual Property (2009 – 2018)
  • Listed, IAM Patent 1000 for litigation and licensing (2013 – 2014)
  • Listed, Georgia Super Lawyer (2004 – 2007 and 2009 – 2018)
  • Selected, Georgia's Best Lawyers (2009 – 2012)
  • Named, Georgia Trend’s Legal Elite (2006)

The Latest from John Fry