Candice Decaire focuses her practice on patent litigation. She has experience with intellectual property litigation concerning patents, trademarks, copyright, and trade secrets, complex commercial litigation, class actions, and professional liability litigation. She was recognized as a 2010 Georgia "Rising Star" and a 2011 Georgia "Super Lawyer" in the area of Intellectual Property Litigation by SuperLawyers magazine. Professional & Community Activities Atlanta Bar Association, Member Georgia Bar Association, Diversity Committee, Member Georgia Lawyers for the Arts, Member Intellectual Property Owners' Association, Member International Trade Commission Trial Lawyers' Association, Member Industries Banking & Credit Unions; Health & Life Sciences; Technology & Software; Entertainment, Media & Sports; Telecommunications Experience Mohawk Industries Inc. and Shaw Industries Inc. v. Interface Inc., Represented Interface Inc. in a suit filed by two competitors alleging that Interface had "falsely marked" certain carpet tiles and thus was subject to more than $800 million dollars in penalties. Simultaneously, the two competitors were also defending against patent infringement claims filed by Interface. Both parties settled with Interface on the eve of trial, on confidential terms favorable to Interface.
Mohawk Industries, Inc. and Shaw Industries, Inc. v. Interface, Inc., No. 4:07-cv-212 (N.D. Ga. 2008). Rembrandt Techs., LP v. Charter Commc'ns, Inc., In re Rembrandt Techs. LP, The firm served as lead counsel on behalf of CoxCom, Inc. in two suits brought by Rembrandt in the Eastern District of Texas and other districts on nine patents related to the technology involved in the delivery of cable services. We persuaded the judicial panel on multi-district litigation to consolidate, for pre-trial purposes, numerous proceedings and transfer the matter to the District of Delaware. A Markman order from the first case in the series was subsequently vacated by the transferee judge, thus limiting the plaintiffs to a single claim construction. Case pending. (Originally assigned to Judge Ward; transferred to Judge Davis).
Rembrandt Techs., LP v. Charter Commc'ns, Inc., No. 06-223 (E.D. Tex. filed June 1, 2006), In re Rembrandt Techs. LP Patent Litig., No. 07-01848 (D. Del. filed June 21, 2007). Patent infringement for leading carpet tile manufacturer, Served as lead counsel for a leading manufacturer of carpet tiles in four cases, consolidated for pretrial purposes, concerning the client's allegations of patent infringement, and the accused infringers' claims of invalidity, unenforceability, and patent misuse, as well as allegations that our client infringed a patent. After discovery revealed invalidity issues, the firm succeeded in obtaining dismissal of the infringement allegations against our client. The Markman ruling on our client's patent, which issued after additional briefing by the parties on draft orders from the court, was favorable to our client. Our client successfully rebuffed its opponents' attempts to obtain summary judgment invalidating the patent. The case ultimately settled on the eve of trial, on confidential terms favorable to our client. The Coca Cola Co. v. PepsiCo Inc., et al., Represented Pepsi-Cola Co. and PepsiCo in a patent infringement suit brought by Coca-Cola in the Northern District of Georgia involving bag-in-box technology used to store and dispense syrup used to create soft drinks in soda fountains. The court granted Pepsi's Motion for Summary Judgment, finding that the technology was substantially different from what was described in the Coke patent. PepsiCo's use of this technology did not infringe Coke's technology described in the asserted patent, and therefore, did not infringe the patent.
The Coca Cola Co. v. PepsiCo Inc., et al., 500 F. Supp.2d 1364 (N.D. Ga. 2007). Appeal to the International Trade Commission*, Represented respondent in successful appeal to the International Trade Commission of administrative law judge's ruling finding a violation of Section 337 of the Tariff Act. The Commission reversed the administrative law judge's holding, finding that the respondent had not infringed the complainant's intellectual property rights. This decision was upheld on appeal to the Federal Circuit. Karl Storz Endoscopy-Am., Inc. v. Stryker Inc., Represents Smith & Nephew Endoscopy-Andover in a patent infringement litigation brought by KarlStorz Endoscopy-America Inc. that includes several patents directed to systems for controlling operating room equipment. Case pending.
Karl Storz Endoscopy-Am., Inc. v. Stryker, Inc., No. 07-02702 (W.D. Tenn. filed Nov. 2, 2007). Patent litigation for an industry leader in medical devices, The firm serves as lead counsel on behalf of an industry leader in patent infringement litigation involving control systems for endoscopic equipment. Case is pending in the W. District of Tennessee. *Experience gained by attorney prior to joining Kilpatrick Townsend Publications 20 January 2011, Hanging Up The Empty Suits
Source: Law360, Articles 14 June 2010, Federal Circuit Puts a Lid on Solo Cup False Marking Suit, Legal Alerts 14 January 2010, Intellectual Property Innovations Class: The Changing Landscape of False Marking and Inequitable Conduct Defenses, Podcasts 07 January 2010, Federal Circuit Raises Stakes in Patent "False Marking" Cases, Legal Alerts 19 October 2009, Patent Marking: Get It Right, or Beware of the Bounty Hunter
Source: Daily Report, Articles 15 May 2008, Recent Trend Increases Risk of Exposure to Patent "False Marking" Claims, Legal Alerts 11 October 2007, Intellectual Property Innovations Class: Implications of McKesson and Seagate: Disclosure Obligations and Willful Infringement, Podcasts News 02 March 2011, Kilpatrick Townsend Once Again Achieves Top Recognition in 2011 Georgia Super Lawyers, News Releases 04 March 2010, Kilpatrick Stockton Ranked Number One in Five 2010 Georgia Super Lawyer Categories, News Releases Events 04 October 2007, IP Innovations Class: Implications of McKesson and Seagate: Disclosure Obligations and Willful Infringement, Events |