Print PDF

You searched for: “View All”

Showing 100 - 110 of 248 results. View All

Sort By: Title | Date

Pages: << < 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 > >>


Finnegan successfully represented Eli Lilly in a litigation against Genentech and the Regents of the University of California (UC) regarding Eli Lilly’s Humulin® insulin product, the first biotechnology product to be marketed in the United States. We obtained judgment, affirmed on appeal, that UC’s patents were either not infringed or invalid under the written description requirement of 35 U.S.C. § 112.

In response to litigations brought by CreateAds for a computerized “visual design” solutions patent, Google and Yahoo! asked Finnegan to file an inter partes review (IPR) petition to challenge the claims of the asserted patent. The petition addressed all 20 claims of the patent, based on seven different grounds of prior art, and included a declaration from the author of a prior art Master’s Thesis Paper deposited in the MIT library. The IPR was coordinated with the underlying CreateAds consolidated litigations, in which Finnegan also played a significant role in briefing a summary judgment motion to dispose of the patent under 35 U.S.C. 101. After limited discovery and twice rejecting CreateAds’ claim construction proposals, the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) issued a final written decision finding all 20 claims unpatentable in view of the prior art and maintaining all seven instituted grounds advanced by the Finnegan team.

Finnegan client iFly Holdings LLC (iFly) served Indoor Skydiving Germany GMBH (ISG) with a complaint in the Eastern District of Texas, alleging infringement of its patent directed to vertical wind tunnels used for simulated skydiving. ISG then petitioned the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) to institute an inter partes review (IPR) of iFly’s patent claims as anticipated and obvious in view of several references. Finnegan secured a total non-institution win for iFly through arguments raised in its patent owner’s preliminary response, including that ISG failed to demonstrate the references it cited against iFly’s patent were prior art printed publications, that other prior art did not teach or suggest claim features relating to the staging area of the vertical wind tunnel, and that ISG did not provide adequate reasoning to support its obviousness grounds. The PTAB denied institution on all grounds, concluding that the petition failed to show a reasonable likelihood of success that any challenged claim was unpatentable.

Finnegan client Health Diagnostic Laboratory, Inc. (HDL) served Boston Health Diagnostics Corporation with a complaint in the Eastern District of Virginia, alleging infringement of its patent directed to methods of predicting the risk of developing diabetes based on a model HDL developed using unique biomarker combinations. Boston Heart immediately petitioned the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) to institute an inter partes review (IPR) challenging HDL’s asserted claims as anticipated and obvious in view of several prior art references. Finnegan secured a non-institution decision for HDL through arguments raised in its patent owner’s preliminary response that Boston Heart failed to demonstrate the prior art taught the diagnostic model using the claimed biomarker panels. The PTAB denied institution on all grounds, concluding that the petition failed to adequately explain how the cited references disclose the model as claimed.

On behalf of Minnesota Mining and Manufacturing Co., we provoked an interference in the PTO between 3M’s patent application and a patent issued to Adhesives Research, Inc. The subject matter was a type of transdermal drug delivery system that uses an adhesive composition, and both parties introduced evidence of actual reduction to practice. We were successful in obtaining an award of priority against the patentee in the PTO and thereafter prevailed in a Section 146 action for review of the PTO decision brought by the losing patentee in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia.

Finnegan defended Korea-based client SK Innovation (SKI) in a patent infringement suit against plaintiff Celgard LLC in the Western District of North Carolina, where Celgard is located. After extensive jurisdictional discovery, the court granted SKI’s motion to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction and denied Celgard’s motion for preliminary injunction. Finnegan also obtained relief from the court for SKI after it was discovered that Celgard sent SKI confidential information to Celgard’s Korean counsel in unrelated Korean proceedings between the parties. The relief included prohibition of further transmission of SKI confidential information to Celgard’s Korean counsel and a bar against each of Celgard’s Korean attorneys who viewed SKI confidential information from further work on the Korean proceedings. Celgard appealed the district court’s dismissal of the case to the Federal Circuit. Finnegan represented SKI in the appeal as well. After full briefing and an oral argument, the Federal Circuit affirmed the district court’s dismissal of the case, securing SKI’s victory on the issue of personal jurisdiction.

A jury in the Southern District of New York found five defendants liable for infringing Finnegan clients Koninklijke Philips Electronics N.V. and U.S. Philips’ valid patent related to the basic structure for optical storage media devices, or CD-Discs.  Each of the defendants had signed a contract with Philips to license the pool of patents covering CD-Disc technology.  Philips filed a breach of contract and patent infringement suit against the defendants when they stopped paying royalties while continuing to manufacture discs.  The jury victory followed Philips’ successful motions for summary judgment relating to various breach of contract and patent issues.  A damages trial will follow.

The Central District of California entered judgment invalidating all claims that Lochner Technologies—a non-practicing entity—had asserted against Finnegan client Toshiba America Information Systems, Inc.  On summary judgment and before the parties engaged in costly discovery, the judge found the claims invalid for lacking a sufficient written description and for failing to claim what the inventors regarded as their invention.  The court previously issued a favorable claim construction ruling that eliminated most accused products from the case.  The invalidity ruling disposed of the remaining issues.  Initially, Lochner had asserted its patent against twenty-two defendants.  Most settled, but Toshiba and Vizio, Inc. fought until the invalidity ruling brought the district court case to a close.

The Superior Court of California, Santa Clara, granted summary judgment in favor of Finnegan client RichWave Technology Corporation in a trade-secret misappropriation case involving wireless communication technology. The court’s judgment resolved all of plaintiff Epic Communication’s claims for trade-secret misappropriation, fraud and misrepresentation, conspiracy, and unfair competition. Finnegan took over the representation of the two remaining defendants after the case had been pending for four years. In reviewing the record, we formulated an argument not asserted by the previous counsel and established that the plaintiff’s agreement with a third party provides a complete release for our clients. Within two months after taking over the case, Finnegan filed a motion for summary judgment based on the agreement, and three months after that, the court granted summary judgment that the agreement released both defendants.

Following a two-week trial, a jury in the Northern District of California returned a unanimous defense verdict in favor of Finnegan clients ABBYY USA Software House, Inc. (of Milpitas, California), ABBYY Software, Ltd. (of Nicosia, Cyprus), ABBYY Production LLC (of Moscow, Russia), and Lexmark International, Inc. (of Lexington, Kentucky). Nuance Communications, Inc., had accused the ABBYY companies of infringing two patents directed to optical character recognition (OCR) software and a third patent directed to distributed document processing over a computer network. Nuance also sued Lexmark, a former Nuance customer, after it stopped using Nuance products and began using ABBYY’s OCR software. In addition, Nuance alleged that ABBYY infringed its trade dress for software packaging used for retail and internet sales. Prior to trial, Nuance sought more than $260 million in damages from the defendants. Nuance also alleged willful infringement and sought treble damages and attorneys’ fees from the defendants. The jury rejected Nuance’s infringement allegations in their entirety, returning a verdict of no infringement for all three Nuance patents and that Nuance’s alleged trade dress was not protectable. The Federal Circuit affirmed the district court’s judgment.


Showing 100 - 110 of 248 results. View All

Sort By: Title | Date

Pages: << < 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 > >>