Print PDF

You searched for: “View All”

Showing 60 - 70 of 250 results. View All

Sort By: Title | Date

Pages: << < 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 > >>


LG Electronics received a favorable decision in a washing machine patent infringement case tried in the U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware. Following a four-day trial, a Delaware jury determined that three LG patents related to direct-drive front-load washing machine technology are valid and infringed by certain washing machines made by Daewoo and sold by Daewoo and its business partners in the United States.

The verdict confirms LG's innovative leadership in the direct-drive front-load washing machine field. LG’s patented technology provides consumers with large-capacity, high-spin-speed washers that produce low noise and vibration. LG's leadership and patented innovations have led to LG's No. 1 market position in U.S. sales of front-load washing machines from 2007 to the present. This trial dealt only with liability issues (validity and infringement) and the case settled soon after trial.

An administrative law judge with the U.S. International Trade Commission (ITC) found that cold cathode fluorescent light ("CCFL") inverter circuits produced by Finnegan client Monolithic Power Systems do not infringe a patent owned by complainant O2 Micro.  O2 Micro had previously withdrawn infringement allegations based on three other patents earlier in the case.  The ALJ also found that laptop computers and flat screen monitors incorporating the accused MPS chips sold by Finnegan clients ASUSTeK Computer and ASUS Computer International did not infringe the same patent.  Further, the ALJ found that O2 Micro's own products do not practice the patented technology and, as a result, there was no domestic industry, a necessary showing in an ITC case.  MPS and its customers were, therefore, found to have not violated Section 337.

Bear Creek Technologies, Inc. filed suit in the Eastern District of Virginia against Finnegan client Verizon, along with numerous other major telecommunications companies, alleging infringement of a patent that Bear Creek claimed generally related to Voice-over-Internet Protocol (VoIP) technology. After a Markman hearing, the court transferred the case to the District of Delaware for consolidated pretrial proceedings with the other defendants in a multi-district litigation (MDL). The Delaware court decided to stay the proceedings pending a third-party reexamination of the patent-in-suit. After nearly five years of litigation, Finnegan secured a dismissal of the suit against Verizon with prejudice, without the need for dispositive motions or a trial.

In an important decision for companies bidding on government contracts or supplying bidders on government contracts, Judge Freda L. Wolfson of the District of New Jersey issued an order granting summary judgment of immunity from infringement in favor of Finnegan client Accuride Corporation.  Accuride was accused of infringing a patent on an automotive wheel for use with an onboard tire inflation system.  Accuride supplied the accused wheel to companies bidding on a U.S. Army solicitation for a military all-terrain vehicle (M-ATV) intended to better protect U.S. soldiers, sailors, airman, and marines in Afghanistan from roadside bombs and improvised explosive devices (IEDs).  In a detailed 29-page opinion, Judge Wolfson found that the U.S. Government had implicitly authorized and consented to liability for any potentially infringing onboard tire inflation system when wheels were supplied in the bidding phase of the M-ATV military contract.  Specifically, Judge Wolfson found that Accuride was immune from any liability for patent infringement under 28 U.S.C. § 1498(a), which is the federal statute that provides that claims for patent infringement occurring in government contracts must be against government and must be brought in the Court of Federal Claims.

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit upheld a jury decision in the U.S. District Court for the District of Arizona in favor of Finnegan client DuPont Air Products NanoMaterials, LLC (DA NanoMaterials), holding that various tungsten Chemical Mechanical Planarization (CMP) slurries sold by DA Nanomaterials do not infringe Cabot Microelectronic’s patents.  Tungsten CMP is a process used in semiconductor manufacturing.

Finnegan secured a victory for Juniper Networks in the Northern District of California against Florida-based Juniper Media in a trademark infringement and cybersquatting law suit. Defendant moved to dismiss (or to transfer) the trademark infringement and cybersquatting case claiming lack of jurisdiction on the grounds that its website was a passive website and the majority of the company’s operations were based in Florida. Judge William Alsup ruled in Juniper Networks’ favor finding that the Defendant’s repeated representations of being located in, or having connections with, Silicon Valley in its Twitter account, its Linked In page, and its CEO’s personal web pages was sufficient to demonstrate that it expressly aimed its activities at the Northern District. The investigative efforts of our inhouse investigation team were critical to building the case for personal jurisdiction. Following Juniper Networks’ win on the jurisdictional issue, the parties ultimately reached a settlement pursuant to which Juniper Media agreed to change its name, abandon its trademark applications, and transfer its domain names to the client. The case was ultimately dismissed following the defendant’s completion of all phase-out activities.

Finnegan represented Mitsubishi Heavy Industries, Ltd. and Mitsubishi Power Systems America, Inc. against General Electric in a U.S. International Trade Commission investigation. The ITC ruled in favor Mitsubishi, terminating a Section 337 investigation based on a General Electric complaint alleging patent infringement by Mitsubishi’s 2.4 Megawatt variable speed wind turbines. The Commission ruling of no violation overturned an earlier finding by an ITC administrative law judge that two of GE’s patents had been violated.

We assisted our client Elan Pharmaceuticals in obtaining a judgment against Paradissis based on the benefit of the earlier filing date of Elan’s foreign priority application. The subject involved controlled-release pharmaceutical formulation for once-per-day administration.

We assisted our client in developing and negotiating an arrangement for pooling essential patents for an adopted standard. We created contracts by which the client became the agent for the patent owners in granting licenses to all applicants on a RAND basis.

Nearly a year after accusing firm client FedEx of patent infringement in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California, Big Baboon, Inc. of Sunnyvale, California, agreed to dismiss its claims against FedEx.  The stipulated dismissal came after Finnegan attorneys persuaded Big Baboon that its accusations were baseless. 


Showing 60 - 70 of 250 results. View All

Sort By: Title | Date

Pages: << < 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 > >>