Print PDF

You searched for: “View All”

Showing 10 - 20 of 242 results. View All

Sort By: Title | Date

Pages: << < 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 > >>


Finnegan won a significant victory for Guidant (now Abbott) in the U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware. After a two-week trial, the jury returned a verdict in Guidant’s favor on all counts, finding that all 12 of the asserted patent claims were valid and that all 12 of the accused Medtronic coronary stents infringed the asserted claims. The district court also held that none of the 12 accused Guidant stents infringed any of Medtronic’s four asserted patents and further dismissed Medtronic’s claims against Guidant for trade secret misappropriation and unfair competition.

Finnegan client Abbott Laboratories's motion to enforce a settlement agreement with Medinol Ltd. was granted after the court adopted Abbott's interpretation of a settlement between the parties, which gave Abbott an unrestricted license to Medinol's stent patents. After a two-week jury trial on the validity of Medinol's remaining patent claims (but before the jury verdict was announced), the parties settled. When a disagreement arose over a material term during the drafting of the settlement agreement, Finnegan went back to court to enforce the agreement as the parties had stated on the record.

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

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 advised an international equipment company regarding its launch of a 3D printer. This was the first traditional manufacturing company from outside the 3D printing industry to introduce a 3D printer. This soup-to-nuts project involved developing legal statements for the operating manual, creating of a software user agreement and website terms and conditions, and analyzing agreements with development partners.

We supported a major chemical company’s internal 3D printing task force, which was charged with identifying potential 3D printing markets for its materials, internal uses of additive manufacturing to benefit the company, and risks presented by 3D printing.

Finnegan advised several major industrial companies, including a consumer products company, a food products company, and diversified manufacturing companies, regarding the state of the art of 3D printing technology, including how they could enter the market.

We advised government policymakers regarding the potential effects of 3D printing, including the Comptroller General of the United States and the National Association of Attorneys General.

A major European research institute, represented by Finnegan, has been embroiled in a three year dispute with a major U.S. pharmaceutical company involving patent inventorship and contract interpretation issues.  The three-member arbitration panel has ruled in favor of our client which is now entitled to increased license fees from the pharmaceutical partner.

Xerox Corporation called on Finnegan after a district court found that 3Com/Palm’s line of personal digital assistants (commonly called “Palm Pilots”) did not infringe its patent. We secured a reversal of the district court’s claim construction, which led to a finding of infringement and entry of judgment for Xerox on remand. In a second appeal, we succeeded in obtaining an affirmance of the infringement finding.


Showing 10 - 20 of 242 results. View All

Sort By: Title | Date

Pages: << < 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 > >>