|
Patent Litigation
Successful litigation is at the heart of Ropes & Gray's Intellectual Property Group. For over 125 years, we have gone to court to protect our clients' interests. In just the last 10 years alone, the group has been involved in more than 500 IP cases in the U.S. District Courts.
We successfully manage complex patent litigations from beginning to end. Our litigation teams are equally well-equipped to evaluate and assert patents against potential infringers and to defend our clients against charges of infringement. Our strength is not only a mastery of the nuances of patent law, but a thorough understanding of complex, cutting edge technologies. We draw on years of experience and training to conduct successful depositions, work with experts to formulate litigation positions, draft winning motions and provide clear, persuasive arguments at hearings and at trial (both jury and bench trials). The group also has extensive experience preparing for and conducting the claim construction or Markman hearings that are unique to patent law.
We have long been recognized as the right firm to pursue critical, high stakes patent issues. Two landmark cases illustrate this point. The $925 million judgment that was obtained in the early 1990's on behalf of our client Polaroid against Eastman Kodak for infringing on Polaroid's instant camera technology is still the largest patent infringement judgment ever collected. And, on January 23, 2004, Nevada U.S. District Judge Philip Pro ruled in favor of our clients Cognex and Symbol Technologies, manufacturers of machine vision systems and bar code readers, in their lawsuit against the Lemelson Medical Education & Research Foundation. The Court ruled that Lemelson's 14 patents in suit were unenforceable under the equitable doctrine of prosecution laches. The Court also held that the patents in suit were invalid for lack of enablement, and that Cognex and Symbol did not infringe the patents.
One of our strengths is our depth of talent, including a strong roster of first chair trial lawyers backed by experienced young attorneys and paralegals.
Representative Experience
-
Abbott Laboratories and TheraSense v. Becton, Dickinson & Co. and Nova Biomedical Corp.: We represented BD and Nova in an infringement case involving four patents relating to test strips that diabetic patients use to monitor their blood glucose levels throughout the day. The accused strips were made by Nova and sold by BD. In June 2008, Federal District Court Judge William Alsup, after a six day bench trial, held that the asserted claims of one of the four patents at issue were invalid as obvious. Judge Alsup further held that BD and Nova proved that Abbott committed inequitable conduct when it withheld from the USPTO statements that it had made to the European Patent Office about its own prior art. Previously, in April 2008, the Court granted two motions for summary judgment, filed by BD and Nova, finding that BD and Nova do not infringe the asserted claims of two other patents in suit, and that several of the claims of one of those patents are invalid based on another Abbott prior art patent. In August 2008, a San Francisco federal jury knocked out the asserted claims of the last of the four patents in suit as also invalid.
-
Merit v. JVL: In 2003, Merit filed a patent infringement suit accusing JVL's entire product line of infringing three Merit patents, just as Merit began to lose its dominant market share to JVL and JVL’s innovative products and games. Merit sought a permanent injunction to prevent JVL from marketing its products. In response to the complaint, JVL immediately redesigned its products and continued to redesign its products as Merit changed its infringement theories. In June 2008, a federal jury agreed that none of JVL’s current products infringed any Merit patent and denied Merit's demand for nearly $24 million in lost profits, awarding instead approximately $1.6 million in reasonable royalties for infringement by JVL's past products, all of which were discontinued by 2006.
-
Control Systems International v. Fisher-Rosemount Systems, Inc.: On June 20, 2005, Fisher brought suit against CSI, alleging patent infringement. CSI counterclaimed. In May 2008, a federal court granted summary judgment in favor of Fisher. The Court also rejected CSI’s validity and unenforceability challenges and granted summary judgment dismissing CSI's counterclaim.
-
K.W. Muth et al v. Gentex Corp.: Gentex was granted summary judgment of non-infringement on one patent. After a two-week bench trial on the second patent, the court ruled that Muth’s patent was invalid, unenforceable and not infringed.
-
Purdue Pharma L.P. v. Endo Pharmaceuticals, Inc.: Litigation relating to Purdue’s patents for pain reliever Oxycontin®. Obtained reversal on appeal of a finding that Purdue’s patents were unenforceable, resulting in a remand and settlement by which Endo agreed to withdraw its generic drug from the market. In January 2008, the District Court reversed its 2004 decision and found that the Purdue patents were not unenforceable for inequitable conduct.
-
Transmeta v. Intel: Obtained $250 million settlement for Transmeta in patent infringement case relating to 11 Transmeta patents and 7 Intel patents on various computer processor power-saving and architectural technologies. The settlement has been recognized as the top damage settlement of 2007, and the case has been cited as on of the three "big cases" by IP Law & Business.
-
Aerotel v. IDT: Obtained $30 million settlement for Aerotel in patent infringement action against IDT in the Southern District of New York for infringing Aerotel's ′275 patent, which is directed to methods and systems of making prepaid telephone calls.
-
Massachusetts Eye and Ear Infirmary v. QLT Phototherapeutics, Inc.: Obtained jury verdict of unjust enrichment and unfair business practices relating to surgical treatment of macular degeneration, resulting in a damages award of a 3.01% royalty on more than $2 billion sales and attorneys’ fees for MEEI. The District Court recently denied a motion to set aside the verdict. This case is currently on appeal in the 1st Circuit Court in Massachusetts.
-
AstraZeneca Pharmaceuticals L.P. v. Mayne Pharma (USA), Inc.: Obtained judgment of validity, enforceability and infringement by generic drug manufacturer of patents relating to AstraZeneca’s injectable anesthetic DIPRIVAN®, and an injunction barring entry of generic product into the market.
-
Praxair Inc. v. ATMI: Represented Praxair in two litigations involving patents in the field of storage and dispensing of industrial gases. Obtained judgment after jury trial that Praxair’s patents were infringed, and obtained summary judgment that ATMI’s patents were invalid in view of prior art.
-
E-Pass Technologies Inc. v. Palm Source, Inc.: Obtained summary judgment of noninfringement in favor of Palm Source in case involving electronic cards for storing and displaying data.
- Symbol Technologies et al. v. Lemelson Foundation: This case is widely viewed to be the biggest “defense” win in U.S. patent litigation history. Obtained judgment of noninfringement, invalidity, and unenforceability against Lemelson’s patents in the field of bar code and machine vision technology, ending a 15-year dispute with American industry in which Lemelson had collected more than $1.5 billion from more than 1,000 companies.
©2008 Ropes & Gray LLP. All rights reserved.
|