Print PDF

You searched for: “View All”

Showing 40 - 50 of 245 results. View All

Sort By: Title | Date

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


In an ITC Section 337 action between Finnegan client LG Electronics and its competitor Whirlpool, the ITC denied all of Whirlpool’s claims for relief, resulting in a total victory for LG Electronics.  Judge Theodore R. Essex had previously ruled that LG refrigerators are not covered by Whirlpool's U.S. Patent No. 6,082,130.  The ITC later revised the claim interpretation of the ‘130 patent and asked the judge to reconsider the remaining disputed issues based on its new interpretation.  Judge Essex applied the ITC’s interpretation and again found that the ‘130 patent does not cover LG refrigerators and also concluded that all but one of the asserted claims is invalid.  Whirlpool originally claimed that five of its patents covered LG refrigerators.  During the course of the case, Whirlpool withdrew four of those patents prior to the hearing.

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit ruled in favor of Finnegan client Research Corporation Technologies, Inc., affirming the patentability of RCT’s methods for halftoning digital images.  The decision is particularly important because it is the Federal Circuit's first dealing with patentable subject matter under 35 U.S.C. § 101 since the Supreme Court’s landmark Bilski v. Kappos decision.  Chief Judge Rader, writing for a unanimous panel, reversed the district court’s ruling that the claimed halftoning methods were invalid under section 101.  Instead, he wrote, “the invention presents functional and palpable applications in the field of computer technology.”  Following the Supreme Court’s Bilski decision, the Federal Circuit explained that the coarse filter of section 101 excludes only laws of nature, physical phenomena, and “manifestly” abstract claims, and that courts should focus primarily on the patentability criteria of the rest of the Patent Act.

Finnegan represented CSL Behring in an ex parte reexamination and corresponding arbitration proceeding against Baxter and Bayer relating to Factor VIII blood products, securing a favorable settlement for our client.

We represented our client in a litigation involving business competitors in the supply chain management software field.  We obtained reexamination of five of the asserted patents.  Following a Markman hearing, the parties settled this case.

In a case brought by Constellation IP, LLC in the Eastern District of Texas, all of the named defendants except for our client, FedEx, settled before or shortly after the case management conference.  FedEx, on the other hand, defended the case up until approximately two months before trial.  Following a favorable Markman ruling, we completed discovery (fact and expert) and filed multiple summary judgment motions.  We also obtained reexamination of the asserted patent, and the Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences affirmed multiple rejections of the claims based on our invalidity contentions.  The plaintiff sought nearly $1 billion in damages but settled for a small fraction of this demand.

In a Federal Circuit appeal on behalf of client Digital Control, Inc. (DCI), Finnegan was able to obtain a reversal of the district court’s judgment. The reversal paved the way for a favorable settlement, and it also resolved an important issue on what is “material” information in prosecuting patent applications in the PTO. The patents at issue in the case were fundamental to DCI’s business and involved electronic locating equipment for horizontal drilling devices.

After a jury verdict against Conair for infringement of a patent on a safety mechanism in a hairdryer, the district court increased the damages and entered a judgment of over $46 million. On appeal, Finnegan achieved a total victory for Conair by obtaining a reversal of the infringement finding in the Federal Circuit.

Finnegan represented the plaintiff in Massachusetts and California federal courts in a long-running copyright battle between two social networking websites. The case established new law on subject matter jurisdiction over copyright claims in federal court.

When the developer of a wireless-networking technology found that its relationship with a joint venture partner had failed, Finnegan represented the developer in a copyright litigation in the Eastern District of Pennsylvania.

Finnegan represented patent owner Philips in reexamination proceedings for a patent covering the JPEG image coding standard. All of the claims challenged by the third-party requester were confirmed valid. The patent has also been asserted by Finnegan for Philips in separate district court litigations against Kodak and Samsung. The district court denied Kodak’s request to stay the Philips case against it pending the reexamination.


Showing 40 - 50 of 245 results. View All

Sort By: Title | Date

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