Cabello Hall Zinda, PLLC

07/07/2025

We are pleased to announce that David Cabello and Stephen Zinda were individually rated by Chambers for 2025. Chambers is the leading authority in legal rankings; it is the “gold” standard that many clients rely on to help select counsel. The rating process is rigorous and involves interviews with dozens of firm clients, as well as an independent analysis of the firm and its attorneys.

06/23/2025

We are pleased to announce that Cabello Hall Zinda has been given a Band 6 rating by the prestigious Chambers and Partners USA Guide for 2025. The Band 6 rating places Cabello Hall Zinda—a boutique firm with 14 attorneys—alongside intellectual property attorneys at some of the largest, most prestigious big firms in the country This is a testament to the exceptional advocacy provided by our attorneys and further evidence that top-tier advocacy does not require big firms or big firm rates.

05/04/2025

We are pleased to announce that the U.S. Patent Trial and Appeal Board has DENIED Apple’s petitions for inter partes review, which challenged the validity of our client’s patent directed toward gesture-based control of terminal devices.

Led by James Hall, our post grant team prepared comprehensive preliminary responses identifying weaknesses in the petitions. Based on the responses, the Board found “significant weaknesses” in the petition and ultimately denied institution.

The patent is currently being asserted against Apple in Haptic, Inc. v. Apple, Inc., No. 3-24-cv-02296 (N.D. Cal.).

Over the past two years, our firm is 12-0 against Apple in post grant proceedings, which is a testament to the talent of our post grant attorneys.

04/08/2025

We are pleased to announce that the U.S. Patent Trial and Appeal Board has denied Samsung’s petitions for inter partes review, which challenged the validity of two patents directed towards media measurement technology.

Led by Stephen Zinda, the post grant team prepared comprehensive preliminary responses identifying weaknesses in the petitions. Based on those responses, the Board determined that Samsung failed to demonstrate a reasonable likelihood that any challenged claim was unpatentable and DENIED institution of both petitions.

This victory comes on the heels of the team defeating six IPR petitions filed by Roku against several of the same patents. The patents are currently being asserted against Samsung in Anonymous Media Research Holdings, LLC v. Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd., 2-23-cv-00439 (E.D. Tex.). Trial is set for September 8, 2025.

02/14/2025

Congratulations to Cabello Hall Zinda’s post grant proceedings team for securing six wins in inter partes reviews (“IPRs”) initiated by media giant Roku. Roku filed IPR petitions with the Patent Trial and Appeal Board challenging the validity of six different patents owned by Anonymous Media Research. The patents are directed toward novel media-measurement technologies. Led by Stephen Zinda and James Hall, the post grant team worked diligently to prepare comprehensive preliminary responses identifying weaknesses in the petitions. Based on the arguments and evidence presented in the preliminary responses, the Board determined that Roku failed to demonstrate a reasonable likelihood that any challenged claim was unpatentable and DENIED institution of all six petitions. This is phenomenal result for Anonymous, particularly in light of the current 70%+ institution rate for IPRs. The patents are currently being asserted against Roku in Anonymous Media Research Holdings, LLC v. Roku, Inc., 3-24-cv-01471 (N.D. Cal.).

View this file, and add comments too.

12/20/2024

Congratulations to the CHZ litigation team for its precedent-setting win before the Federal Circuit Court of Appeals in PS Products Inc. v. Panther Trading Co. Inc., 2023-1665 (Fed. Cir. Dec. 6, 2024). Our team was defending a district court’s issuance of sanctions pursuant to its inherent authority, on top of the full award of attorney fees and costs already granted by the court under 35 U.S.C. § 285. In a well-reasoned precedential opinion, the Federal Circuit established that a “district court can impose sanctions under its inherent power in addition to awarding attorney fees and costs under § 285.” PS Products Inc. v. Panther Trading Co. Inc., 2023-1665 (Fed. Cir. Dec. 6, 2024). In a principal article published by Law360, lead attorney Stephen Zinda is quoted as saying he is “pleased that the Federal Circuit issued this as a precedential opinion, which clearly [establishes] that district courts can impose sanctions pursuant to their inherent power in addition to awarding attorney fees and costs” and that this new precedent will “undoubtedly help district courts address and deter frivolous patent suits filed solely for the purpose of extracting nuisance settlements.” https://www.law360.com/ip/articles/2270407/fed-circ-backs-25k-sanction-in-stun-device-design-ip-suit. https://www.law360.com/ip/articles/2270407/fed-circ-backs-25k-sanction-in-stun-device-design-ip-suit. The decision is also discussed in articles published by Patently-O (https://patentlyo.com/patent/2024/12/sanctions-courts-inherent.html) and Bloomberg Law (https://news.bloomberglaw.com/ip-law/federal-circuit-affirms-sanctions-against-design-patent-owner).

07/12/2024

We are thrilled to welcome Emery Richards to our talented team of attorneys!

06/04/2024

We are pleased to announce that Super Lawyers has recognized David Cabello (left) and Stephen Zinda (right) as Super Lawyers, and Munira Jesani (center) as a Rising Star. Each year, no more than five percent of lawyers in Texas are selected by the research team at Super Lawyers to receive these honors. The annual selections are made using a multiphase process that includes a statewide survey of lawyers, an independent research evaluation of candidates and peer reviews by practice area. This is well-deserved recognition of the experience and expertise our top-tier team of attorneys bring to the table for clients, particularly in the area of intellectual property law.”

04/09/2024

We are pleased to announce that we have achieved complete victory on behalf of Identity Security, LLC in a long-running battle against Apple before the U.S. Patent Office. As a brief overview, in 2021, Apple filed an inter partes review (IPR) petition challenging each of Identity Security’s four asserted patents. Based on the arguments and evidence presented in our preliminary response, the Patent Trial and Appeal Board denied all four petitions on the merits, finding that Apple had failed to show a reasonable likelihood of success in showing that any challenged claim was unpatentable. The Board also denied all four of Apple’s requests for rehearing.



Apple then filed six requests for ex parte reexamination with the USPTO against the asserted patents, alleging a substantial question of patentability based on prior art not asserted in the IPRs. While the USPTO instituted re-exam proceedings based on Apple’s petitions, based on the arguments and evidence we presented after institution (without amending any claims), the Examiner ultimately concluded that none of the claims were unpatentable. The patentability of all claims as originally issued was then confirmed in ex parte reexamination certificates.



These results reflect years of hard work and dedication by our team and further demonstrate the innovative nature of Identity Security’s technology.

01/10/2024

Cabello Hall Zinda wins another IPR decision.
https://www.chzfirm.com/post/cabello-hall-zinda-wins-another-ipr-decision

01/05/2024

We are excited to announce that Stephanie Holden is joining our talented team of attorneys! www.CHZFirm.com

09/06/2023

We are pleased to announce that on August 21, 2023, the Patent Trial and Appeal Board of the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office issued a decision DENYING institution of an Inter Partes Review petition filed by Ericsson against our client Koninklijke KPN N.V.’s patent. KPN’s patent is directed towards a novel way of transmitting machine-to-machine data in core network signalling messages, allowing for fast and efficient transmission of data in machine-to-machine environments. In denying institution, the Board found our arguments and evidence compelling that Ericsson failed to demonstrate that the asserted prior art anticipated or rendered obvious any claim of KPN’s patent. The patent at issue is currently being asserted against Ericsson, in Case No. 2:22-cv-00282 (E.D. Tex.) filed July 25, 2022.
A copy of the decision can be viewed here:
https://s3-us-west-1.amazonaws.com/ptab-filings/IPR2023-00524/13