Print PDF

You searched for: “View All”

Showing 80 - 90 of 254 results. View All

Sort By: Title | Date

Pages: << < 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 > >>


Petroleum Equipment Manufacturing Company (PEMCO) had unsuccessfully sought to have oil drilling and oil well equipment certified by Finnegan client American Petroleum Institute (API). Despite the fact that it was not certifi ed, PEMCO placed a counterfeit of the API certifi cation mark on its products. API objected and PEMCO agreed to cease using the counterfeit API certification mark. API later discovered that PEMCO was continuing to use the counterfeit API certification mark and retained Finnegan to sue PEMCO for trademark infringement, counterfeiting, and breach of contract. PEMCO agreed to a permanent injunction against further use of the API marks and payment of API’s costs. This result successfully stopped a counterfeiting operation that falsely passed off uncertified products as meeting API’s safety standards.

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.

Home Diagnostics Inc. (now Nipro Diagnostics) is one of the largest cobranders of blood glucose products for diabetics and offers low-cost alternatives to products offered by competitors. After a three-year battle with Roche, the district court granted a summary judgment of noninfringement in favor of HDI, concluding that no reasonable juror could find that HDI products infringed Roche's patent relating to blood glucose monitors. The first phase of the case had concluded successfully for HDI when the court ruled, following a bench trial, that Roche's other patent-in-suit had been obtained by inequitable conduct and is unenforceable.

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.

Apple filed seven inter partes review (IPR) petitions challenging several patents owned by Finnegan client VirnetX more than a year after it was served with a complaint alleging infringement of the patents. Finnegan secured non-institution decisions for VirnetX through arguments in its patent owner’s preliminary responses to the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) that Apple was time-barred under 35 U.S.C. 315(b) from requesting IPR of the challenged patents. 


Finnegan represented an LG Electronics (“LGE”) subsidiary involved in iris recognition technology in a patent infringement case. The patentee accused LGE of violating a license agreement, misappropriating trade secrets, and infringing the patentee’s U.S. patents. Both sides filed antitrust and unfair competition counterclaims. The patentee also filed foreign corrupt practices act claims after losing several large foreign public tenders involving the technology to LGE. Finnegan was lead counsel on both the intellectual property (patent and trade secret) and the antitrust and unfair competition claims, and secured an extremely favorable resolution of all claims, enabling LGE to purchase the critical software and continue using the underlying technology.

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.

Finnegan represented Metropolitan Regional Information Systems, Inc. (“MRIS”) against antitrust counterclaims to MRIS’s claims for trademark and copyright infringement related to real estate listings. Finnegan successfully obtained summary judgment of the original antitrust counterclaims and the amended counterclaims.

The U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware ruled in favor of Finnegan client AstraZeneca AB, finding that the listed patent for the active ingredient, saxagliptin, in AstraZeneca’s type II diabetes drugs Onglyza® and Kombiglyze® was valid and infringed. Having conceded infringement prior to trial, 11 generic pharmaceutical companies alleged that claims directed to the compound saxagliptin were invalid as obvious. Finding that the generic defendants failed to establish by clear and convincing evidence that the asserted claims would have been obvious at the time the patent application was filed, the presiding judge held that defendants’ alleged motivations were “at odds with the teachings of the prior art” and appeared to be “the product of a classic hindsight analysis.” The generic defendants are enjoined from making, using, offering for sale, selling, or importing into the United States their proposed generic saxagliptin products before the expiration of AstraZeneca’s patent.


Showing 80 - 90 of 254 results. View All

Sort By: Title | Date

Pages: << < 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 > >>