Sullivan & Cromwell LLP

The Intellectual Property and Technology Litigation Group advises clients on a broad range of intellectual property (IP) and technology issues confronting today’s businesses. The Group combines trial experience with a background in handling complex intellectual property disputes, including those that raise competition law issues. The Firm’s litigation work includes enforcing patents, trademarks and other IP rights and defending against claims of infringement.
 
The Group skillfully and clearly communicates the most complex technical issues to judges and juries. Lawyers in the IP and Technology Litigation Group also have pre-eminent reputations in antitrust and international competition law issues, as well as substantial and successful trial experience.
 
In addition to litigation and transactional work, the IP and Technology Group works closely with clients on IP strategy and day-to-day issues including assessing and formulating plans to address to defensive IP risks, IP monetization opportunities, development of licensing programs, strategic portfolio acquisitions and divestitures, and open-source code issues.

SELECTED REPRESENTATIONS

Recent Sullivan & Cromwell intellectual property litigation victories include representations of:

• CA, in its successful action in the Eastern District of New York against Rocket Software.
   
• The Clearing House Payments Company, the operator of some of the country’s major payments systems, in a successful patent litigation in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Texas brought by DataTreasury, asserting violation of patents involving electronic check imaging activities.
   
• Collective Brands (formerly Payless ShoeSource), in handling post-trial briefing, strategy and settlement negotiations in connection with a trademark infringement lawsuit brought by Adidas in the District of Oregon, as well as settling its dispute with another major footwear manufacturer.
   
• Dolby International, the Swedish subsidiary of Dolby Laboratories, in a successful patent infringement action brought against Research in Motion, the maker of the popular Blackberry smartphone, regarding patents covering an advanced method of audio compression.
   
• Dyson, in achieving a favorable settlement in 2011 following summary judgment briefing and court-ordered mediation in a litigation brought by BISSELL Homecare against Dyson in the Western District of Michigan related to patents covering cyclonic vacuum cleaner technology.
   
• Dyson, in obtaining dismissal on summary judgment of a patent infringement claim brought by Oreck against Dyson in the Eastern District of Louisiana. After eliminating the patent claim, Dyson and Oreck settled the remaining false advertising claims.
   
• Dyson, in a patent infringement action in which the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit affirmed a district court’s decision granting Dyson’s motion for summary judgment, holding that Dyson did not infringe a vacuum cleaner patent for which an inventor sought substantial damages.
   
• Dyson, in achieving a favorable settlement following a five-day patent infringement trial against Hoover in the District of Delaware.
   
• Eisai, in a patent infringement action to protect Eisai’s patent on a lucrative anti-ulcer drug against a generic manufacturer. The Southern District of New York granted one motion for summary judgment in favor of Eisai and another in part. Following a bench trial, the court entered judgment for Eisai on validity and infringement.
   
• Financial Accounting Standards Board—the principal private sector organization for establishing financial accounting standards in the United States—and its governing body, in an action brought by Silicon Economics (SEI) relating to SEI’s patented method of financial accounting.
   
• General Electric, LG Electronics, Mitsubishi Electric, Samsung Electronics, Thomson Licensing, the Trustees of Columbia University in the City of New York, U.S. Philips and Victor Co. of Japan, in an action filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York against Hong Kong-based Lenovo Group and its U.S. subsidiary, Lenovo (United States) for willfully infringing the plaintiffs’ patents that are essential to the MPEG-2 digital video compression standard.
   
• IntercontinentalExchange, in an intellectual property action brought by the New York Mercantile Exchange alleging copyright infringement and violation of federal trademark laws.
   
• j2 Global Communications, in asserting Lanham Act trademark infringement, patent infringement and false advertising claims in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California.
   
• MPEG-LA, the world’s leading patent pool administrator and long-standing S&C client, in various successful patent infringement actions.
   

The Am Law Litigation Daily named the partner in charge of MPEG-LA “Litigator of the Week” in 2010 for his successful role in its settlement during trial of an action pertaining to its MPEG-2 patent portfolio licensing program.

• MPEG-2 and ATSC patent owners, in an action that was among the first patent infringement cases in the United States concerning the technology for digital television mandated by Congress. The Firm also successfully advised multiple patent owners in various patent infringement actions brought in Germany involving MPEG-2 digital video compression patents.
   
• Novo Nordisk, in successfully obtaining a dismissal in two consolidated patent infringement actions brought by Novo’s competitor Sanofi-Aventis, as well as a highly favorable settlement in a separate patent infringement action brought by Novo against Sanofi-Aventis.
   
• Novo Nordisk, in a decision denying a preliminary injunction motion made by Sanofi-Aventis. The court rejected every claim in Sanofi-Aventis’s motion alleging Novo made false statements under the Lanham Act.
   
• Philips, in achieving pretrial results in connection with the assertion of patents related to recordable compact discs. The district court found Philips’ patents to be infringed, dismissed defendants’ affirmative defenses and counterclaims, including an antitrust counterclaim seeking damages of approximately $1 billion. On the morning of the trial scheduled to determine damages to be paid to Philips, defendants agreed to pay substantial royalties to Philips.
   
• Philips, in obtaining a highly favorable settlement with Imation and Moser Baer in connection with patent infringement and tortious interference claims and counterclaims filed by Philips related to optical media products, including recordable and rewritable CDs and DVDs. In addition, S&C has obtained repeated victories on behalf of Philips in various IP litigation matters, including favorable settlement of patent infringement suits related to commercial dealings with Lighting Science Group in multiple venues, patent infringement lawsuits involving a universal remote control patent, and an International Trade Commission investigation surrounding patents related to its recordable and rewritable compact disc technology.
   
• Security Mutual Life Insurance Company of New York and Archway Technology Services, in the coordination of posttrial proceedings and the potential appeal of an adverse jury verdict in a trade secret misappropriation suit brought by Member Services (S&C was retained on this matter after the trial concluded).
   
• Sony, Philips, Columbia University, Mitsubishi, Matsushita and others, in a successful trial in German district court in December 2006 in which S&C acted as “instructing” counsel. The court found that the defendant, a manufacturer of DVDs, had infringed the patents-in-suit, and it dismissed the defendant’s antitrust claims.

Sullivan & Cromwell is committed to fostering a diverse and inclusive work environment. We believe that diversity is vital to the Firm’s ability to provide our clients with the highest level of service. Accordingly, the Firm’s culture and policies value the unique abilities and perspectives of every individual and support diversity in its broadest sense, including race, gender, ethnicity, sexual orientation, gender identity, gender expression, disability and religious affiliation. 

The Firm’s Diversity Committee, which is charged with assisting in the development of a diverse and inclusive workforce, is comprised of lawyers who hold positions of leadership and influence within the Firm. A member of the Firm’s Management Committee co-chairs the Diversity Committee. Other members of the Diversity Committee include the Firm’s senior chairman, practice group managing partners, hiring partners, assigning partners, chairs of the Firm’s associate affinity networks, and chairs of the Women’s Initiative Committee. The Firm also has a Diversity Management Department (“DMD”), which is charged with developing, implementing and coordinating the Firm’s diversity and inclusion initiatives, events and programs. Realizing the importance of an integrated approach, the DMD works closely with our Recruiting, Professional Development and Legal Personnel Departments to monitor the effectiveness of our extensive diversity initiatives and programs to further the Firm’s mission.

This ongoing commitment has led to great results, including the increased diversity of our partnership. As of January 1, 2013, the Firm had elected thirty-nine partners worldwide in the prior six years; of these thirty-nine partners, thirteen are women, eleven are minorities, and one is openly gay.

In its most recent rankings, Vault listed S&C as among the “20 Best Law Firms for LGBT Diversity.” In addition, MultiCultural Law magazine has named S&C to its annual lists of the “Top 100 Law Firms for Women” and “Top 100 Law Firms for Diversity” for several years, including most recently in 2012. Click here for Diversity Recognitions.

In addition, our lawyers have diverse backgrounds; they speak over 30 languages fluently and they come from approximately 40 different countries and 150 different law schools.