ARTHUR I. NEUSTADT is a founding member and a named partner in the firm. He has led the firm's Litigation practice for many years and has been actively involved in intellectual property (IP) litigation in courts throughout the United States for more than 35 years. He has successfully tried jury and bench cases in varied areas of technology before the federal district courts and argued appeals before the Supreme Court, the Federal Circuit and the regional circuit courts of appeal. Mr. Neustadt has lectured widely, both domestically and internationally, on intellectual property litigation. His most famous case is the landmark Festo v. SMC case, which extended over a twenty year period, in which he successfully argued before the Supreme Court of the United States and twice before the en banc Federal Circuit.
His more recent cases include Ajinomoto v. ADM (multimillion-dollar damages judgment for mutation genetics and recombinant DNA patent), Li v. Toshiba (early semiconductor patent held inequitably procured and attorney fees awarded), Loral Fairchild v. Toshiba (early CCD patent held invalid and not infringed), Medtronic v. Guidant (pioneer reissue patent for treatment of congestive heart failure held valid over recapture challenge), CPI v. St. Jude (jury verdict of patent validity for implantable cardiac defibrillator patent reinstated), Tokyo Keiso v. SMC (volume flowmeter patent held invalid as obvious), and Saint-Gobain v. Xinyi (windshield patents held valid and infringed, double damages and attorney fees awarded).
Mr. Neustadt has been designated by Legal Times as one of the top Washington, D.C. area intellectual property attorneys. Chambers USA has referred to him as a top Washington, D.C. area intellectual property attorney, describing him as "an inspirational and highly creative attorney," "a true landmark setter," "known to get great settlements quickly due in part to the good grasp he has of the dynamics of litigation" and "according to competitors, 'proficient at identifying issues and working with a cost-benefit approach.'" Mr. Neustadt has also been selected by his peers for inclusion in Best Lawyers in America, has been named as a Super Lawyer and was selected as a finalist in the Lawdragon 500 Leading Lawyers in America. He has also served on the Intellectual Property Advisory Committee to the U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware.
Professional Affiliations
American Bar Association, Sections on Litigation; Patent, Trademark and Copyright Law
American Intellectual Property Law Association (AIPLA)
The District of Columbia Bar Association, Sections on Litigation; Computer Law; Patent, Trademark and Copyright Law
Federal Circuit Bar Association
ITC Trial Lawyers Association
Virginia State Bar Association, Section on Patent, Trademark and Copyright Law
Experience
Representative Matters
Saint-Gobain Corp. v. Xinyi Glass N.A., Inc., 2010 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 36129 (N.D. Ohio April 13, 2010) (windshield patents held valid and infringed; double damages and attorney fees awarded). Cardiac Pacemakers, Inc. v. St. Jude Medical, Inc., 576 F.3d 1348 (Fed. Cir. 2009) (en banc) (implantable cardiac defibrillator patent held valid; invalidity ruling reversed).
GPS Industries Inc. v. Altex Corp., 2009 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 67480 (N.D. Tex. July 27, 2009) (global positioning system (GPS) patent action dismissed for lack of standing).
Tokyo Keiso v. SMC, 533 F. Supp.2d 1047 (C.D. Cal. 2007) (volume flow meter patent held invalid, affirmed by Federal Circuit).
Medtronic v. Guidant, 465 F.3d 1360 (Fed. Cir. (2006) (pioneer patent for treatment of congestive heart failure held valid).
Cardiac Pacemakers, Inc. v. St. Jude Medical, Inc., 381 F.3d 1371 (Fed. Cir. 2004) (implantable cardiac defibrillator patent held valid; jury verdict reinstated).
Festo Corp. v. Shoketsu Kinzuko Kogyo Kabushiko Co., 344 F.3d 1359 (Fed. Cir. 2003) en banc (rebuttable presumption of abandonment of claim coverage defined).
Festo Corp. v. Shoketsu Kinzuko Kogyo Kabushiko Co., 535 US 722 (2002) (new standard set for prosecution history estoppel to limit doctrine of equivalents).
Loral Fairchild v. Matsushita Elec. Industrial, 208 F. Supp. 2d 344 (E.D.N.Y. 2002) (Rader, J.) (early charge coupled device (CCD) patent held invalid and not infringed).
Ajinomoto Co. v. Archer-Daniels-Midland Co., 228 F.3d 1338 (Fed. Cir. 2000) (multi-million dollar damages award for mutation genetics and recombinant DNA patent).
Li Second Family Limited Partnership v. Toshiba Corp., 231 F.3d 1373 (Fed. Cir. 2000) (early semiconductor patent held inequitably procured, attorney fees awarded).
Festo Corp. v. Shoketsu Kinzuko Kogyo Kabushiko Co., 234 F.3d 558 (Fed. Cir. 2000) (en banc) (new standard set for prosecution history estoppel to limit doctrine of equivalents).
Biacore v. Thermo Bio-Analysis Corp., 79 F. Supp. 2d 422 (D. Del. 1999) (affinity biosensor patent held valid and infringed; affirmed by Federal Circuit).
Shoketsu Kinzuko Kogyo Kabushiko Co. v. Festo Corp., 520 U.S. 1111 (1997) (petition for writ of certiorari granted; Federal Circuit decision vacated and case remanded (GVR)).
Valutron N.V. v. NCR Corp., 33 U.S.P.Q.2d 1986 (S.D. Ohio 1992) (electronic accounting system patent action barred by laches; affirmed by Federal Circuit).
Geovision Inc. v. Geovision Corp., 928 F.2d 387 (Fed. Cir. 1991) (geographical information computer display service mark awarded priority).
Car-Freshner Corp. v. Scentex, Inc., 927 F.2d 594 (2d Cir. 1991) (settlement agreement enforced).
NRM Corp. v. Kobe Steel, Ltd., C86-157Y (N.D. Ohio 1987) (tire press patent held non-infringed and inequitably procured).
Jamesbury Corp. v. Litton Industrial Products, Inc., 756 F.2d 1556 (Fed. Cir. 1985) (pioneer ball valve patent held valid).
NCR Corp. v. ELCO Corp., 228 U.S.P.Q. 55 (9th Cir. 1985) (liability for failure to defend patent infringement action).
Loctite Corp. v. Ultraseal Ltd., 781 F.2d 861 (Fed. Cir. 1985) (anaerobic impregnant patent claims construed).
Mississippi Chemical Co. v. Swift Agricultural Chemicals Co., 717 F.2d 1374 (Fed. Cir. 1983) (collateral estoppel petition for writ of mandamus granted).
Nippon Electric Glass Co., Ltd. v. Sheldon, 539 F. Supp. 542 (S.D.N.Y. 1982) (x-ray protection patent held invalid).
Dayton-Hudson Corp. v. Dart Drug Corp. 221 U.S.P.Q. 288 (D.D.C. 1982) (junior user entitled to continued use of target mark).
Fund for Government Investors, Inc. v. Government Investors Trust, 215 U.S.P.Q. 54 (E.D. Va. 1981) (money market mutual fund service mark held not confusing).
Jamesbury Corp. v. United States, 207 U.S.P.Q. 131 (Cl. Ct. 1980) (infringement damages for pioneer ball valve patent widely used in nuclear submarine fleet).
Jamesbury Corp. v. Litton Industrial Products, Inc., 586 F.2d 917 (2d Cir. 1978) ("overclaiming" invalidity defense overruled).
Uniflow Mfg. Co. v. King-Sealey Thermos Co., 428 F.2d 335 (6th Cir. 1970) (attorney fee award reversed).
Accolades
Martindale-Hubbell® AV® Preeminent™ 5.0 out of 5 rating
Best of the Best (2004-2006)
Best Lawyers in America (2006-2012)
Chambers USA (2004-2010), designated one of the top intellectual property attorneys in Virginia
Lawdragon 500 Leading Lawyers in America, finalist (2007-2010)
Legal Times (2003), designated one of the top intellectual property attorneys in the Washington, D.C. area
Patent Law Expert (1999-2005)
Virginia Super Lawyer (2007-2010)
Washington, D.C. Super Lawyer (2007-2010)
Resources
News
Seven Oblon Spivak Attorneys Named To Best Lawyers 2012
Thursday, September 15, 2011
Chambers USA 2011 Again Ranks Oblon, Spivak Among Top IP Firms in Northern Virginia
Tuesday, June 14, 2011
Federal Circuit Affirms Dismissal of Suit Against Oblon, Spivak Client SkyHawke Technologies
Thursday, June 9, 2011
ITC Rules in Favor of SMC Corporation By Invalidating Competitor's Patent
Tuesday, March 22, 2011
Seven Oblon, Spivak Attorneys Named To Washington, DC's Best Lawyers 2011
Friday, October 29, 2010
Federal Circuit Rules for Solvay Against Honeywell in Patent Infringement Lawsuit
Wednesday, October 13, 2010
Chambers USA 2010 Ranks Oblon, Spivak Among Top IP Firms in Northern Virginia
Wednesday, June 23, 2010
Saint-Gobain Wins Enhanced Damages of $21.9 Million, Plus Attorney Fees and Costs Against Xinyi
Wednesday, March 31, 2010
Saint-Gobain Wins $10.9 Million Verdict Against Xinyi
Wednesday, November 11, 2009
Court Dismisses Patent Infringement Case Against SkyHawke for Lack of Standing
Friday, July 31, 2009
Chambers USA 2009 Ranks Oblon, Spivak Among Top IP Firms in Northern Virginia
Friday, June 12, 2009
Federal Circuit Finds In Favor Of SMC Affirming Summary Judgment Of Obviousness
Monday, January 12, 2009
Chambers USA 2008 Ranks Oblon, Spivak Among Top Intellectual Property Firms in Northern Virginia
Wednesday, June 18, 2008
Federal Circuit Again Finds in Favor of SMC in Landmark Festo Case
Friday, July 6, 2007
Chambers USA 2007 Ranks Oblon, Spivak #1 Again Among Intellectual Property Firms in Northern Virginia
Thursday, July 5, 2007
Oblon, Spivak's Arthur Neustadt Named to "The Best Lawyers in America" for 2006
Friday, February 3, 2006
Medtronic, Inc. v. Guidant Corporation
Tuesday, August 2, 2005
Landmark Festo Case Update: District Court Finds for SMC
Tuesday, June 21, 2005
Oblon, Spivak Ranks #1 on Chambers USA List of Intellectual Property Firms in Northern Virginia; Arthur Neustadt and Charles Gholz Named Top IP Attorneys
Friday, June 3, 2005
Oblon, Spivak's Moot Court Room Featured on the March 2005 Cover of The Lawyers Magazine
Thursday, March 31, 2005
Oblon, Spivak Ranks #2 on Chambers USA List of Top Intellectual Property Practices in Virginia; Arthur Neustadt is Named Top IP Attorney
Monday, April 19, 2004
Oblon, Spivak's Arthur Neustadt Selected As One Of The Top IP Lawyers in the Washington, D.C. Area
Monday, October 13, 2003
Festo v. SMC Resources
Wednesday, January 1, 2003
Toshiba Corporation v. Loral Fairchild Corporation
Friday, December 21, 2001
Festo Corporation vs. Shoketsu Kinzoku Kogyo Kabushiki Co., Ltd., a/k/a SMC Corporation, and SMC Pneumatics, Inc.
Monday, November 1, 1999
Events
Oblon, Spivak Celebrates 40 Years
Monday, February 9, 2009