Print PDF

You searched for: “View All”

Showing 70 - 80 of 244 results. View All

Sort By: Title | Date

Pages: << < 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 > >>


Finnegan manages portfolios of U.S. and foreign patent applications for Artaic LLC, whose robotic systems create state of the art two-dimensional and three-dimensional mosaics.  The robotic systems use novel combinations of hardware and software for arranging tiles and creating custom designs.

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.

The PTO initiated an interference between a patent application of Finnegan client Genetics Institute and a patent of Stryker Corporation. The PTO awarded judgment to Genetics Institute, thus resolving priority of invention to the disputed subject matter. The interference related to bone morphogenic proteins, which affect bone growth.

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.

We represented the University of Missouri and Covidien (formerly Tyco Healthcare) against C.R. Bard and VasCath, successfully obtaining an award of priority against the patentee in this longrunning interference. Navigating this interference through the PTO, two district courts and two trips to the Federal Circuit, we were able to achieve finality of the award of priority and secure important patent rights for our client. The technology at issue was a type of hemodialysis catheter for removing toxins from the blood of patients with kidney failure.

We advised major industrial companies on how to address challenges to their profitable parts businesses that are under pressure from replacement and customized parts that may be 3D printed by customers and others, including developing patent claiming strategies and ways to adapt their business models.

Finnegan defended The Hillman Group against charges that it monopolized or attempted to monopolize in the key duplication marketplace. Finnegan negotiated a favorable settlement of the claims.

Shortly after Subaru launched its newest vehicle named the “Crosstrek,” Trek Bicycle filed suit for trademark infringement, trademark dilution, and unfair competition of its “Trek” and numerous “Trek-formative” trademarks. Trek and Subaru had been long-standing partners in a professional mountain bike team. As such, in addition to its assertions of trademark infringement and dilution, Trek also alleged that Subaru’s “Crosstrek” name breached the existing sponsorship agreement. Trek moved for a preliminary injunction. Faced with the possibility of rebranding its new vehicle, Subaru turned to Finnegan. Finnegan put together a team that could handle expedited discovery (which was virtually case-comprehensive and involved extensive ESI document discovery and many fact and Rule 30(b)(6) depositions), working with experts to conduct likelihood of confusion and dilution surveys, calculate harm and damages, and study linguistic usage of the word “trek,” as well as obtaining and managing documents produced from dozens of third-party subpoenas. Finnegan uncovered facts leading to a counterclaim for genericness, abandonment, and fraud, as well important facts undermining the alleged strength of the Trek brand. Prior to the preliminary injunction hearing date, the case was favourably settled with Subaru’s ownership, use, and registration of its “Crosstrek” trademark unfettered and unchanged.

Apple filed two inter partes review (IPR) petitions challenging one patent owned by Finnegan client VirnetX, seeking to join its petitions to petitions filed by another petitioner challenging another VirnetX patent.  Based on Finnegan’s arguments in the preliminary responses, the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) denied the motions for joinder and denied institution on the basis that the petitions were time-barred under 35 U.S.C. 315(b).

Finnegan client VirnetX served Microsoft with a complaint alleging infringement of the challenged patents more than a year before Microsoft filed its three inter partes review (IPR) petitions.  However, the litigation was settled and dismissed after trial but before a final decision.  Microsoft argued that its petitions were not barred because its counterclaims and affirmative defenses regarding invalidity in the litigation were dismissed “without prejudice.”  In its preliminary responses, VirnetX argued that the manner in which counterclaims and affirmative defenses are dismissed is irrelevant for 35 U.S.C. 315(b)’s time bar—it is the infringement allegations that matter.  Agreeing with VirnetX, the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) denied institution, in part, because the infringement allegations in the complaint were dismissed “with prejudice” and the parties were in different relative legal positions than before the complaint was filed.


Showing 70 - 80 of 244 results. View All

Sort By: Title | Date

Pages: << < 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 > >>