Print PDF

You searched for: “View All”

Showing 160 - 170 of 245 results. View All

Sort By: Title | Date

Pages: << < 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 > >>


The Washington University in St. Louis (WashU) filed a suit in the District of Delaware alleging that Finnegan client Wisconsin Alumni Research Foundation (WARF) had breached an inter-institutional agreement between the two parties, which pertained to a jointly owned pharmaceutical method of use patent for the treatment of renal osteodystrophy. Because the inter-institutional agreement between WashU and WARF was executed in 1995 and the patent was licensed to Abbott in 1998, Finnegan moved for summary judgment and dismissal on the grounds that WashU’s contract claims were barred by the applicable statues of limitations. The presiding judge dismissed the case, finding no evidence of inequitable, unfair, or misleading conduct on the part of WARF in its interactions with WashU, and that all claims were time-barred by the applicable statutes of limitations.

In two related appeals from inter partes review (IPR) proceedings, Finnegan successfully persuaded the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit to vacate and remand the Patent Trial and Appeal Board’s (PTAB) decisions that adversely affected three patents related to coaxial cable connectors owned by client PPC Broadband. In the first appeal, for a majority of the claims, the Federal Circuit agreed with PPC that the PTAB overlooked a key claim limitation, and it therefore vacated and remanded the obviousness decision. For the remainder of the claims in that appeal, the court affirmed the claim construction ruling as the broadest reasonable interpretation, but noted that it would not be the “correct” construction had the Phillips standard applied. Finally, the court also agreed with PPC that the PTAB erred in disregarding much of the evidence on secondary considerations, including the commercial success of the accused products. In the second appeal, the court likewise agreed with PPC and vacated the PTAB’s claim construction as being unreasonable, stating that while the construction may have been the broadest interpretation, it was not the broadest reasonable interpretation in light of the specification. The Federal Circuit thus vacated and remanded the invalidity determinations in both appeals.

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit found in favor of Finnegan client Unified Patents Inc., in Unified’s first case before the court. After Unified prevailed in an inter partes review (IPR) before the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB), the patent owner, Clouding Corp., appealed the Board’s decision that Clouding’s claims relating to file synchronization and backup were unpatentable. Clouding also appealed the Board’s denial of its motion to amend. Less than two weeks after oral argument, the Federal Circuit summarily affirmed the PTAB’s final written decision in favor of Unified.

Finnegan client iFly Holdings LLC (iFly) served Indoor Skydiving Germany GMBH (ISG) with a complaint in the Eastern District of Texas, alleging infringement of its patent directed to vertical wind tunnels used for simulated skydiving. ISG then petitioned the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) to institute an inter partes review (IPR) of iFly’s patent claims as anticipated and obvious in view of several references. Finnegan secured a total non-institution win for iFly through arguments raised in its patent owner’s preliminary response, including that ISG failed to demonstrate the references it cited against iFly’s patent were prior art printed publications, that other prior art did not teach or suggest claim features relating to the staging area of the vertical wind tunnel, and that ISG did not provide adequate reasoning to support its obviousness grounds. The PTAB denied institution on all grounds, concluding that the petition failed to show a reasonable likelihood of success that any challenged claim was unpatentable.

In decisions from the U.S. Federal Circuit Court of Appeals, U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, and the American Arbitration Association (AAA), Finnegan successfully prevented a larger competitor from manufacturing or selling a generic version of Finnegan client Cumberland Pharmaceuticals’ flagship product, Acetadote®, a life-saving intravenous formulation of acetylcysteine for the treatment of acetaminophen overdose. Cumberland’s current patent-protected formulation is free of the EDTA chelating agent, which is an improvement over earlier formulations sold by Cumberland and others. First, in the AAA decision, the arbitrator issued a final award in favor of Cumberland enjoining the competitor and further awarded attorney’s fees and costs to Cumberland. Second, in the Abbreviated New Drug Application (ANDA) district court case, following claim construction rulings favorable to Cumberland, the generic company conceded infringement. A trial proceeded on the generic’s three validity attacks—derivation, anticipation, and obviousness—which were all rejected by the presiding judge. Finally, in response to the generic’s appeal of the district court’s decision, the Federal Circuit further considered and expressly rejected the generic’s validity attacks. The Federal Circuit’s affirmance of the district court’s ruling thus confirms Cumberland’s patent protection for ten years.

In a copyright infringement case involving an architectural work, plaintiff Humphreys & Partners Architects sued Finnegan client Lessard Design, Inc., alleging that Lessard’s apartment building infringed Humphreys’ condominium building design. Besides being high-rises, Humphreys alleged both buildings included two elevator cores connected by a fire or service corridor; a barbell-shaped floor plan thicker on the ends and thinner in the middle; corner units with diagonal entry access; and projecting elements at the cornice of the roof line. Lessard successfully moved for summary judgment for non-infringement in the Eastern District of Virginia, which found that none of the architectural elements asserted by Humphreys against Lessard were individually protectable. The court further ruled that even assuming the overall arrangement of those elements was protectable, the buildings were no more similar “than any two randomly selected high-rise multi-family projects would be based on building code regulations and industry standard practices.” Humphreys then appealed to the Fourth Circuit, which affirmed the lower court’s ruling. The Eastern District of Virginia (E.D. Va.) also granted attorneys fees and costs to Lessard as the prevailing party.

Loramax filed patent infringement suits in the Eastern District of Texas against fifty companies, claiming that virtually any company email distribution service infringed an expired patent Loramax obtained. After Finnegan pressed an invalidity defense, which included an inter partes review (IPR), and filed motions to dismiss asserting invalidity under Section 101, Loramax voluntarily dismissed its claims against FedEx.

The District of Delaware ruled in favor of Finnegan client Forest Laboratories in a Hatch-Waxman litigation against generic pharmaceutical defendant Mylan, Inc. The suit involved Savella®, a medicine containing the active ingredient milnacipran, which is used for the treatment of fibromyalgia. The court held the asserted claims of all three patents litigated at trial valid and infringed, denying defendants claims that the patents were obvious and anticipated by prior art. In the words of the court, "[a]t best, the teaching of the art was and is multidirectional, with no clear motivation to pursue milnacipran as an effective treatment for fibromyalgia. Notably, there were no FDA-approved treatments for fibromyalgia at the time of the patents-in-suit. Consequently, the inventors' development of treating fibromyalgia with milnacipran was the antithesis of anticipation and obviousness as discussed in more detail below." The court entered final judgment and ordered the FDA not to approve Mylan’s Abbreviated New Drug Application (ANDA) for generic milnacipran until after the expiration of the last Forest patent litigated at trial.

Two months after Finnegan client Under Armour launched its new connected fitness product under the HEALTHBOX/UA HEALTHBOX mark and name, Healthbox Global Partners, LLC (HGP), a consulting firm for healthcare organizations and startups operating under the HEALTHBOX mark and name, filed claims against Under Armour for trademark infringement, unfair competition, Delaware dilution, and Delaware deceptive trade practices. HGP also filed a motion for preliminary injunction, asking the court to immediately order Under Armour to stop using HEALTHBOX/UA HEALTHBOX and to recall all products from store shelves. Under Armour submitted rebuttal arguments and factual declarations, as well as expert testimony on Under Armour’s damages if forced to rebrand. After oral argument, the court ruled in favor of Under Armour on all key points. HGP dropped the suit against Under Armour shortly thereafter.

Finnegan’s longstanding client LG Electronics won a major victory in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of California, which awarded more than $168 million in damages in a trademark counterfeiting case against nearly 20 companies accused of selling counterfeit and knock-off LG headsets. Although the Lanham Act gives courts broad discretion in determining the amount of statutory damages—allowing damages of anywhere from $200,000 to $2 million per mark if the counterfeiting is found to be willful—the court decided to award the statutory maximum of $2 million per mark given the strength and recognition of the LG brand and TONE™ products. Notably, the ruling has considerable teeth, as it came with a provision ordering financial payment providers to hand over funds previously frozen under the court’s preliminary injunction order.


Showing 160 - 170 of 245 results. View All

Sort By: Title | Date

Pages: << < 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 > >>