Written Written They may be able to "cancel" the rumbling of the tires in a car, or part of the engine noise from a car or a plane. But that is it. If you thought they could do more than that, you were mistaken.You may get better results with earplugs. Ear plugs have undergone a quiet revolution over the last two decades.  For many years, manufacturers produced only wax-cotton plugs; pharmacies  today are filled with silicone, PVC, and polyurethane stopples. In theory, finding the best earplug is as simple as looking for the  highest noise reduction rating (NRR), a laboratory measurement of how  many decibels of sound they block. The Best Earplugs for Sleeping in 2015Written Douglas Currens is correct that noise-cancelling technology is practically useless for snoring. This article explains why. They'll only block out repeating patterns, which include most mechanical sounds (airplane engines, trains, even whining of alarms) but are no good for waveforms that stop & start at random, and unfortunately, that includes snoring.

The primary focus of Brian's practice is patent litigation, for which he is especially well equipped as a registered patent attorney and an engineer. air purifier nitrogen dioxideIn addition to the Eastern District of Texas, Brian has been significantly involved as trial counsel in many patent cases in numerous jurisdictions throughout the country, including the N.D. California, D. Utah, S.D. Florida, and D. Massachusetts. sharp plasmacluster ion air purifier whiteThese cases have involved technologies ranging from complex digital electronics and computer architectures to less complex mechanical devices. germ guardian air purifier canadaFor example, Brian has litigated patent infringement cases concerning BLADE servers, web browsers, a stereotactic breast biopsy machine, software relating to error detection for a computer I/O controller, South Bridge and Super I/O chips connecting to an LPC databus, controllers connecting to an automotive databus, satellite TV receivers, GPS devices, business methods for data mining, electrostatic air purifiers, methods for high speed recording on tape media

, gas turbine technology, and an active vibration isolation system. He has also handled numerous cases involving less complex devices such as a coaxial connector and a windshield wiper blade. In addition to patent litigation, Brian has been involved in a wide variety of intellectual property cases including unfair competition, trademark, copyright, and trade secret cases. In addition to his litigation practice, Brian is experienced in exploiting patent portfolios through licensing. Prior to his legal career, Brian practiced engineering at Southwest Research Institute in San Antonio, Texas, where he designed controls and tools for use with a robotic arm to perform maintenance on high voltage power lines, designed packaging for an automotive computer system, and designed an undersea fiber optic cable for use in off-shore drilling. J.D., with honors, The University of Texas School of Law. B.S. Mechanical Engineering, summa cum laude, Texas A&M University. U.S. Patent and Trademark Office, 1993

U.S. District Court for the District of Colorado U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Texas U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Texas U.S. District Court for the Western District of Texas U.S. Court of Appeals, Federal Circuit Court of Appeals U.S. Court of Appeals, Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals U.S. Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan U.S. District Court for the Central District of California U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California U.S. District Court for the Southern District of California Lead trial counsel representing the defendant VIA Technologies, Inc. in the matter of Opti, Inc. v. Via Technologies, Inc.,Case No. 2:10-CV-00279 before Judge Gilstrap, E.D. Texas.  Opti was seeking $39 million dollars; the jury awarded $2.1 million.  See, e.g., 2014 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 120695; 2014 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 106695; 2013 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 116923;

2012 U.S. Dist. 180834.  Represented J.C. Penney Corp., Inc., a defendant in Eolas Techs. Inc. v. Adobe Sys., Civil Action No. 6:09-CV-446, before Judge Davis, E.D. Texas.  The asserted patents were invalidated by jury after bifurcated trial on validity. Represented Brookstone Company, Inc., Brookstone Stores, Inc., and VF Outdoor, Inc., defendants in David A. Tropp v. Conair Corporation, et al., Civil Action No. 08-CV-4446, before Judge Vitaliano, E.D. See, e.g., 845 F. Supp. 2d 485. Represented VIA Technologies, Inc., a defendant in Opti, Inc. v. Advanced Micro Devices, Inc. et al., Civil Action No. 2:07-CV-278, before Judge Ward, E.D. Texas.  Presented oral argument in Markman hearing concerning claims directed to a multiplexed databus.  See 2009 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 68378.  Negotiated favorable settlement shortly before trial. Represented Protective Optics, Inc., defendant in Panoptx, Inc. v. Protective Optics, Inc., Civil Action No. 06-7610, before Judge Patel, N.D. California. 

Argued and won summary judgment declaring all claims of the asserted patent invalid. See 2007 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 83462. Participated in a two week jury trial, including direct and cross-examination of witnesses, concerning eight patents directed to modules and methods for interfacing a car alarm to an automotive serial databus; presented oral argument in the Markman hearing. Represented  Curotto Can Co., defendant in The Heil Co. v. Curroto Can Co., Civil Action No. 04-1590, before Judge Chesney, N. D. California.  The plaintiff stipulated to summary judgment after Court construed claims in Curotto Can’s favor.  Authored appellate briefs, and Federal Circuit affirmed per curiam.  See 2004 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 23618; 2004 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 5183. Represented Gateway, Inc., defendant in Adams v. Gateway, Inc., Civil Action No. 2:02-CV-106, before Judge Stewart, D. Utah.  The case concerned the alleged infringement of a patent for a software patch for an I/O controller in a personal computer.  

Began trial as the team member responsible for the examination of numerous fact witnesses and technical expert witnesses.  The case settled after the trial began. Obtained settlements for Brookstone Company, Inc. in several cases brought by Sharper Image involving air purifiers. Negotiated a $33 million settlement for Fischer Imaging Corporation, the third largest settlement in a patent infringement case in 2002.  Fischer was the owner of a patent covering a breast biopsy machine. Represented Florida Power Corporation, a defendant in Dow Chemical Co. v. Mee Industries and Florida Power Corp., Civil Action No. 6:00-cv-437, before Judge Presnell, M.D. Florida.  Conducted cross examination of witnesses at evidentiary hearing in opposition to a preliminary injunction that would have shut down numerous critical turbines.  The plaintiff’s motion for preliminary injunction was denied. This patent infringement case concerned water injection technology for gas turbines. Assisted in the bench trial on damages and validity after obtaining partial summary judgment on infringement for the owner of a patent for an active vibration isolation system.