Print PDF

You searched for: “View All”

Showing 120 - 130 of 248 results. View All

Sort By: Title | Date

Pages: << < 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 > >>


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.

Administrative Law Judge Theodore Essex of the U.S. International Trade Commission issued an initial determination in favor of Finnegan clients Pioneer Corporation and Pioneer Electronics (USA) Inc., holding that Pioneer does not infringe any claim of the four patents asserted by Honeywell International. Judge Essex also ruled that the asserted claims in three of Honeywell’s patents are invalid. The technology at issue involves GPS navigation units. Three of Pioneer’s competitors were parties to this ITC investigation but settled with Honeywell before trial. After presiding over a week-long trial in June and evaluating the parties’ post-trial submissions, Judge Essex issued a detailed 172-page opinion absolving Pioneer of any liability in connection with this litigation.

Finnegan won two major victories for U.S. Philips Corporation: the first against KXD Technology, Inc., the second against International Norcent Technology, Inc. In both cases, the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California found willful infringement of Philips’s patents directed to DVD technology and awarded Philips monetary damages. In the KXD case, Philips was awarded more than $91 million in trebled damages and interest, a permanent injunction, and attorney’s fees and litigation expenses. In the Norcent patent infringement action, the jury returned a verdict that found the Norcent defendants liable for willful patent infringement and awarded Philips $12.8 million.

Finnegan requested inter partes reexaminations of three patents on LCD backlighting technology, which had been asserted against several firm clients in the Eastern District of Texas. Although one of the patents had been successfully litigated to jury verdict against another company, the patent owner settled with Finnegan’s clients after the reexaminations were initiated and the clients ceased participation in the ongoing inter partes reexaminations. Even without the participation of Finnegan’s clients, however, the USPTO adopted the multiple grounds of rejection Finnegan presented in the original requests for inter partes reexamination, requiring the patent owner to narrowly amend all 108 claims of the asserted patents.

The U.S. District Court for the Western District of Washington ruled in favor of Finnegan client Philips following a trial in Koninklijke Philips Electronics v. Cardiac Science Operating Co.  The Court found that Cardiac Science’s patent application did not support the claims copied from Philips’s defibrillator patent and reversed the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office's decision against Philips in an interference.

We provoked an interference for Boston Scientific against a patent owned by Everest Medical. We were able to prove that the Boston Scientific inventors were the true first inventors and the Board entered a judgment of priority of invention for Boston Scientific. The subject matter was electrosurgical scissors.

Toyota has long turned to Finnegan to protect its product design. The firm has prosecuted hundreds of U.S. design patent applications on behalf of Toyota for various cars and trucks, as well as parts and accessories.

Finnegan provided an array of IP services to SRA International, including counseling and patent and IP prosecution for its Automatic Dependent Surveillance-Broadcast (ADS-B), which is a cooperative surveillance technology in which an aircraft determines its position via satellite navigation and periodically broadcasts it, enabling it to be tracked. As part of the comprehensive IP strategy developed for SRA, Finnegan addressed both patents and trademarks for systems and devices associated with ADS-B and other SRA services.

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.

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. 


Showing 120 - 130 of 248 results. View All

Sort By: Title | Date

Pages: << < 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 > >>