Print PDF

You searched for: “View All”

Showing 30 - 40 of 243 results. View All

Sort By: Title | Date

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


Finnegan is working with AeroMobil to protect its revolutionary technology in Europe, the United States, and around the world. The work includes invention capture, drafting, and prosecution of new applications. Finnegan’s European and U.S. attorneys work closely to coordinate the application drafting and prosecution strategy with foreign counsel around the world.

The market for high-end, large-capacity, technologically advanced washing machines is intensely competitive. When LG entered the U.S. market, Whirlpool and Fischer & Paykel each sued LG, claiming LG’s washers infringed their patents. They did not prevail. Instead, in each case, Finnegan employed an aggressive pretrial strategy that identified strong invalidity defenses. The strength of LG’s prior art defenses caused the opponent in each case to submit the patents to reexamination and stay the cases, pending the reexaminations. When the reexaminations were completed years after the respective lawsuits were initiated, the Fisher & Paykel action was dismissed, and the Whirlpool action was settled at very favorable terms. LG’s washers remain one of the market leaders in the U.S.

When LG’s “Life’s Good” and “LG Life’s Good” corporate taglines were challenged, the company turned to Finnegan. On the eve of the trial, the plaintiff agreed to dismiss with prejudice all claims. The “Life’s Good” campaign and mark continue to run globally for a wide range of products.

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.

We represented Allegheny Ludlum Co. against Allied-Signal in the area of iron-boron-silicon amorphous metal alloys. Despite having junior party status, we proved that the Allegheny inventors were the first to invent and the PTO ruled that they were entitled to the award of priority. Allied-Signal brought a Section 146 action in the U.S. District Court for the District of Connecticut. The parties settled the case after discovery and trial, but before a decision by the court.

We represented Wyeth against Genentech in an interference that related to the treatment of hemophilia. The successful result we achieved allowed Wyeth to secure patent rights to a protein, known as B-domain deleted Factor VIII, which is used to treat hemophilia.

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.

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.

The Eastern District of Virginia ruled in favor of Finnegan clients SplitFish AG, SplitFish Gameware, Inc., and Nabon Corp., granting a preliminary injunction against Bannco Corp. that prohibits Bannco from selling video game controllers that incorporate or use software code copied from our clients' "FragFX" video game controllers. The case is unusual in that the software in question was developed in China and the court applied Chinese law in order to establish that our client was the copyright owner.

Finnegan represents a New England company in the coordination of their patent protection strategies for biofuel technologies. We also counsel this client regarding strategic partnerships and provide landscape analysis.


Showing 30 - 40 of 243 results. View All

Sort By: Title | Date

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