|
Services Available
We understand that the realities of litigation can be daunting, but we work with clients to find enterprising solutions that are both cost-effective and case-effective. Historically, fewer than four percent of district court patent cases ever go to trial. Thus, while we litigate with a potential trial or appeal in mind, our vision is to resolve each case successfully as soon and as economically as possible. This may mean pursuing litigation alternatives, such as licensing, mediation, or arbitration, or a companion proceeding before another court or administrative agency, such as the PTO. Or you may decide that settlement is the best resolution.
As a case proceeds, we can adjust our deployment of resources as needed. There are multiple ways to approach any given IP case. The most important factor is that we remain flexible and committed to your goals throughout.
Representative Engagements
Broadcom and Altima Communications–successfully defending four separate patents in a complex case
Finnegan defended Broadcom’s Altima subsidiary against Intel’s patent infringement allegations based on four separate patents in two different ITC actions and two different district court cases. Intel withdrew the first patent before trial when we found invalidating prior art. The second patent we proved invalid at trial, and Intel did not seek an appeal. For the third patent, we proved that 14 of 18 claims were invalid and our clients were entitled to use any pattern of solder balls other than a “bulI’s-eye” pattern. And the ITC’s decision in Intel’s favor on the fourth patent was later rejected in the district court case when the judge issued a published decision in Altima’s favor on all claim construction issues.
Changing the native coding sequence of corn takes deep technological experience; so does protecting the patents
When Monsanto brought suits asserting patents relating to genetically engineered corn against Syngenta Seeds, Syngenta turned to Finnegan and relied on our legal skills, strategic planning, and deep scientific background to make the strongest arguments. We succeeded in transferring one of the cases to the District of Delaware so suits could be consolidated. That court agreed with Syngenta’s defense and motions for summary judgment, holding one of Monsanto’s patents invalid and the other not infringed, and the Federal Circuit affirmed both decisions.
Gold Peak Battery Company avoids trial and maintains a competitive position
Finnegan defended four different affiliates of GP Batteries International Ltd. in an alkaline battery patent infringement case filed by Eveready at the International Trade Commission against 26 respondents. SEC records indicated that Duracell had previously paid Eveready $20 million for a license under the Eveready patent and that Rayovac and Panasonic had also been forced into paying Eveready a royalty for their alkaline batteries. Working closely with the Chairman of the Board, we devised a defense that resulted in a settlement agreement prior to trial that other respondents characterized as a "walk-away" deal.
Owner of patents for advance processor design obtains favorable settlement with Intel
In a case that was settled ”on the courthouse steps,” Finnegan was able to obtain for its client BIAX Corporation a favorable settlement with Intel. During claim construction, BIAX’s construction prevailed on the issues important for infringement, which helped lead to the favorable settlement.
Protecting System General’s product line
Finnegan represented System General as a respondent in an investigation involving power supply controllers found in many modern electronic devices. Complainant Power Integrations asserted infringement of four patents against System General’s entire product line. But the patent that threatened all of System General’s products was withdrawn when we found invalidating prior art, and another patent was withdrawn before trial.
Protecting the patents of a household name
The market for high-end, large-capacity, technologically advanced washing machines is intensely competitive. When LG entered the U.S.market, Whirlpool, Maytag, and Fischer & Paykel each sued LG, claiming LG’s washers infringed their patents. Not one prevailed, and LG remains in this important market. In each case, we employed an aggressive pretrial strategy based on team work. The asserted Fischer & Paykel patent stands rejected in a reexamination. The Maytag case was settled, as were two other infringement actions between Whirlpool and LG. In the third Whirlpool action, the judge granted summary judgment of no infringement on one patent and invalidity of the other patent.
Protecting the trademark of a household name
When LG’s “Life’s Good” and “LG Life’s Good” corporate taglines were challenged, the company turned to Finnegan. On the eve of the trial, the plaintiff agreed to dismiss with prejudice all claims. The “Life’s Good” campaign and mark continue to run globally for a wide range of products. The firm has also protected and defended some of LG’s most critical patents.
Sony Corporation cleared of infringement charges on two patents involving charge-coupled devices
Finnegan successfully defended Sony Corporation against Loral Fairchild Corporation’s claims for infringement of two patents on charge-coupled devices (CCDs), first obtaining a judgment of no infringement as a matter of law in the district court and then maintaining that judgment on appeal to the Federal Circuit. Following a jury verdict that Loral’s patents were valid and infringed under the doctrine of equivalents, the district court granted Sony’s motions that infringement of one patent was precluded by prosecution history estoppel and that infringement of the other patent could not stand under a proper claim interpretation. On a certified appeal to the Federal Circuit, the court upheld the judgment that Sony did not infringe either of Loral’s patents.
Successful defense of the Toyota MATRIX trademark
Matrix Motor Company, Inc. alleged that the Toyota MATRIX passenger car infringed the MATRIX trademark allegedly used for race cars and related components and parts. The plaintiff sought an injunction and damages, but the judge granted our motion for summary judgment, finding no likelihood of confusion between the parties’ respective uses of the MATRIX mark.
Successfully defending GTECH against infringement accusations
Finnegan client GTECH Corporation was sued in the Eastern District of Texas for patent infringement by Flashmark Technologies and various individuals. GTECH sells lottery terminals and tickets, and Flashmark accused the company of infringing a patent related to document cancellation. The court issued its Markman decision, construing the claims in a way that precluded a finding of infringement against GTECH. Following this decision, the parties filed a stipulation of noninfringement.
Summary judgment allows Home Diagnostics Inc. to meet the needs of diabetics
Home Diagnostics Inc. (HDI) is one of the largest cobranders of blood glucose products for diabetics and offers low-cost alternatives to products offered by competitors. After a three-year battle with Roche, the district court granted a summary judgment of noninfringement in favor of HDI, concluding that no reasonable juror could find that HDI products infringed Roche’s patent relating to blood glucose monitors.
U.S. market remains open for TEAC Corporation
We defended TEAC in an ITC case brought by Tandon Industries involving the head assemblies in floppy disk drives. While a temporary exclusion order was granted against all respondents, we later established that TEAC's head assemblies were not covered by the patent. The matter was favorably settled on behalf of TEAC before the hearing on permanent relief, and the noninfringement position we devised was successfully asserted by the remaining respondent. That noninfringement defense was adopted by the judge, the full ITC, and ultimately, the Federal Circuit.
VeriSign is cleared of infringement allegations on SSL protocol
We successfully defended VeriSign, Inc. in a lawsuit brought by Leon Stambler. The suit alleged infringement of three patents asserted against the Internet security protocol known as SSL and against VeriSign’s digital certificates and payment gateway technology. Stambler was seeking damages and an injunction, claiming that every Internet communication secured using the industry standard SSL protocol infringed his patents. We obtained a summary judgment on one patent, and the jury returned a verdict of no infringement of two of the Stambler patents.
When the patent for Zyprexa® and $2 billion in annual revenue were on the line, Eli Lilly turned to Finnegan
This ANDA case involved Zenith and two other generic drug manufacturers that attempted to invalidate Lilly’s patent and thereby open the market for generic sales. The lengthy trial involved complex technical and legal issues—calling upon our deep experience in both areas. Lilly prevailed in the district court on all issues, protecting its exclusive marketing rights and a large revenue stream. The Federal Circuit later affirmed the lower court’s decision, which upheld Lilly’s patent on its blockbuster drug.
Winbond Electronics prevails in complex ITC case
We defended Winbond against Oak Technology’s patent infringement claims concerning controller chips for optical disks. After we successfully defended against Oak’s motions for summary judgment, we filed a motion to compel production of Oak’s attorney-client communications based on the crime/fraud exception, and the case was promptly settled without a trial.
|
RSS | Blog | Advertising Opportunities | Site Map | Contact Us