Experience

Consumer Products

About

Consumer Products is part of our work in Consumer Goods and Services.

Protecting everyday products

The universe of consumer products is constantly expanding and evolving as companies invent, manufacture, and brand products that strive to be smarter, faster, healthier, greener, sleeker, or just more fun. The array of product choices available across the globe has created fierce competition for shelf space, mindshare, and consumer loyalty. Protecting the products’ underlying intellectual property and brand value is critical to their long- term success. Finnegan’s consumer product experience spans cosmetics, food and beverage, health and beauty, nutrition, sports equipment, electronics, and more. We have a long history of working with these diverse industries and understand the fast pace of development and improvements, the changing needs of consumers, and the power of a strong brand.

Understanding the law, science, and technology

As a full-service intellectual property law firm, Finnegan works with innovative companies of all sizes, including Fortune 100, Global 1000, and public and private organizations in the broad consumer products industry. Our experience with retail and consumer products includes both durable and nondurable goods and related services:

Apparel, shoes, and accessories
Automobiles and motorcycles
Books and publishing
Consumer electronics and software
Cosmetics and health products
Food and beverage
Home goods
Media and entertainment
Pharmaceuticals
Recreational and sports equipment
Tires and auto parts

We help with:

Developing and managing a comprehensive IP portfolio by obtaining patent and brand protection in the United States and abroad
Writing opinions and providing ongoing counseling for new and evolving products
Analyzing the competitive landscape and advising clients regarding the freedom to develop new products
Developing licensing programs
Conducting due diligence investigations
Protecting against infringement through litigation or other dispute resolution options
Advising on trade secret protection and litigating misappropriation
Providing trademark and copyright services and advertising protection

Everyone in this industry

Experience

Obtained complete victory against Carrum on appeal of the District of Delaware’s claim construction to the Federal Circuit following Carrum’s stipulation of non-infringement under the claim construction, thereby exonerating BMW’s ACC system, first sold in 2000, against Carrum’s 2004 patents. Invalidated several asserted claims through post-grant efforts before the U.S. Patent Office, including IPRs and EPRs, and pursued claims through proceedings before the Eastern District of Virginia to vindicate BMW’s patent challenges.

1:18-cv-01645, D. Del., Judge Andrews
21-1435, 24-1480, Fed. Cir., Judges Clevenger, Cunningham, Lourie, Moore, Prost, Taranto
IPR2019-00902, -00903, -00904, -00905, -00927, 00928, PTAB, Judges Browne, Scanlon, Tornquist
90/019,010, CRU

Represented LG Electronics in Investigation concerning certain media technologies in smartphones and televisions, home theater systems, Blu-ray disc players, and tablets. Following trial, all four asserted patents were found not infringed and/or invalid.

337-TA-882, ITC, Judge Shaw

Advised a cycling-focused startup on the preparation and prosecution of a foundational patent application, which played a key role in its acquisition by a global leader in GPS-enabled technology across fitness, outdoor, marine, automotive, and aviation markets.

Resolved litigation spanning three continents faced by video game company by negotiating a global settlement.

Represented B/E Aerospace in pursuing infringement claims against Safran and defending multiple post-grant challenges by Safran at the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office, for design of aircraft monuments. Secured favorable settlement of all claims.

2:19-cv-01480, C.D. Cal., Judge Wu

Argued on appeal at the Fourth Circuit that a trademark application for the design of Timberland’s classic 6-inch “Icon” boot should not have been refused by the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board (TTAB). The appeal is pending.

23-1150, 4th Cir.