Print PDF

You searched for: “View All”

Showing 80 - 90 of 250 results. View All

Sort By: Title | Date

Pages: << < 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 > >>


We advised 3D printer makers, digital design exchanges, materials companies, and other industry players on legal issues unique to 3D printing.

Finnegan represented the patent owner in infringement litigation against a former reseller of an additively manufactured product, which was making and selling infringing versions of the client’s products.

The firm provides Phillips 66 in-depth patent prosecution and counseling services, including filing applications, and reviewing and responding to office actions and observations filed by third parties at the European Patent Office. Formerly part of ConocoPhillips, Phillips 66 produces natural gas liquids and petrochemicals.

Finnegan represented an LG Electronics (“LGE”) subsidiary involved in iris recognition technology in a patent infringement case. The patentee accused LGE of violating a license agreement, misappropriating trade secrets, and infringing the patentee’s U.S. patents. Both sides filed antitrust and unfair competition counterclaims. The patentee also filed foreign corrupt practices act claims after losing several large foreign public tenders involving the technology to LGE. Finnegan was lead counsel on both the intellectual property (patent and trade secret) and the antitrust and unfair competition claims, and secured an extremely favorable resolution of all claims, enabling LGE to purchase the critical software and continue using the underlying technology.

We advised a company that sells materials for use with 3D printers on its use of trademarks owned by 3D printer companies for which it sells such materials

Finnegan represented Metropolitan Regional Information Systems, Inc. (“MRIS”) against antitrust counterclaims to MRIS’s claims for trademark and copyright infringement related to real estate listings. Finnegan successfully obtained summary judgment of the original antitrust counterclaims and the amended counterclaims.

Finnegan has successfully defended API and its engine oil certification program in numerous district court cases and before the TTAB. In one instance, we launched a multipart, simultaneous attack on twelve defendants, filing counterfeiting, trademark infringement, and false advertising claims in two different federal courts. We obtained multiple preliminary and permanent injunctions with each defendant agreeing to settlement. In another case, defendants falsely claimed their engine oil was licensed by API to use the API engine oil quality certification marks, which denotes an oil meets the stringent API engine oil performance standards. Ultimately, the defendants admitted to counterfeiting API’s engine oil quality certification marks and making false performance claims; they agreed to a 10-year ban on bottling or marketing any engine oil for diesel engines and for use in gasoline engines in cars, vans, trucks, and motorcycles; and they paid API’s litigation costs.

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. 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.

We helped various companies protect their 3D printing-related technology with patents, including a developer of software and systems for securely streaming digital files for 3D printing, a developer of post-3D printing processing technology, materials developers, and with a patent a developer of compositions and methods for improving objects made by material extrusion.

eSpeed and Cantor Fitzgerald claimed that Finnegan clients ICAP, the world’s largest electronic interdealer broker, and OMX, a Swedish technology company, infringed a patent related to the electronic trading of U.S. Treasury securities. When eSpeed appealed from a finding that its patent was invalid and unenforceable, we secured a favorable judgment for our clients, with the Federal Circuit holding eSpeed’s patent unenforceable for inequitable conduct.


Showing 80 - 90 of 250 results. View All

Sort By: Title | Date

Pages: << < 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 > >>