Print PDF

You searched for: “View All”

Showing 40 - 50 of 243 results. View All

Sort By: Title | Date

Pages: << < 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 > >>


The United States District Court for the Middle District of Florida has granted summary judgment of noninfringement in favor of Finnegan client Toyota in Solomon Technologies, Inc. v. Toyota Motor Corp. Solomon sued Toyota in the Middle District of Florida in September 2005, claiming that Toyota’s hybrid vehicles infringed U.S. Patent No. 5,067,932 ("the ’932 patent"). That case was stayed, however, after Solomon filed a related action in the International Trade Commission in January 2006.  Represented by Finnegan, Toyota showed the ITC that its accused hybrid vehicles do not infringe Solomon’s patent.  Solomon appealed to the Federal Circuit, which affirmed the ITC’s decision in Toyota’s favor. Solomon then tried to reopen the Florida case.  Toyota obtained the Court’s permission to file an early motion for summary judgment, arguing that the ITC and the Federal Circuit had already decided the issues.  The Court agreed with Toyota, holding that the doctrine of judicial estoppel precluded Solomon from raising new and inconsistent arguments in a later proceeding.  Accordingly, the district court granted Toyota’s motion for summary judgment that the accused hybrid vehicles do not infringe the ’932 patent.


The Southern District of New York (Judge Paul A. Crotty) ruled in favor of Finnegan client AbbVie, in a declaratory judgment action against its licensor The Mathilda and Terence Kennedy Institute of Rheumatology Trust (“Kennedy”). AbbVie brought this action because Kennedy claimed AbbVie would owe royalties on certain sales of its drug Humira®, despite AbbVie's assertion that the Kennedy patent at issue was invalid. Humira® is used by hundreds of thousands of patients to treat diseases such as rheumatoid arthritis and Crohn’s disease, and had revenues of more than $9 billion worldwide in 2012. After a four-day bench trial, the court held all of the claims of the Kennedy patent at issue were invalid for obviousness-type double-patenting. The court entered final judgment declaring all the claims at issue invalid, and declaring AbbVie the prevailing party and awarding costs.

The U.S. District Court in New Jersey ruled in favor of Finnegan client Otsuka Pharmaceutical Co. in its patent litigation against several companies seeking FDA approval to market generic copies of Abilify®, the sixth largest selling pharmaceutical in the United States.  The court held that the asserted patent claims covering aripiprazole, the active ingredient in Abilify®, are both valid and enforceable. The ruling maintains patent and regulatory protection for Abilify® in the United States until at least April 20, 2015.  The court also held that the proposed generics infringe the claims, and accordingly precluded the FDA from approving, and enjoined the respective companies from marketing, the generic products in the United States until at least April 20, 2015. 

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.

The district of Delaware (Judge Stark) ruled in favor of firm client Galderma Laboratories, L.P., in a Hatch-Waxman litigation against generic defendant Tolmar, Inc., on September 11, 2012. (CA-No. 10-45-LPS). The drug involved was Differin® Gel 0.3%, an acne medicine containing the active ingredient adapalene 0.3%. The court held the claims of all four patents litigated at trial valid, enforceable, and infringed. In the words of the Court, “[t]rial was devoted almost entirely to Tolmar’s challenges to the validity and enforceability of Galderma’s patents-in-suit. Tolmar has failed to meet its burden on any of these contentions.” The court entered final judgment on September 24, 2012, (1) ordering the FDA not to approval Tolmar’s ANDA for generic adapalene 0.3% until after the expiration of the patents litigated at trial (March 12, 2023), including any periods of regulatory exclusivity, and (2) enjoining Tolmar from marketing a generic adapalene 0.3% product during the term of the litigated patents.

Intertrust Technologies is a leading developer of digital rights management (DRM) solutions and trusted computing technologies that enable Internet trust between people and allow for data privacy and digital security among a wide variety of devices and services. Finnegan prosecutes and manages Intertrust’s entire patent portfolio. We also advise on portfolio development as well as enforcement and defensive strategies for its patents relating to content protection, digital security, data privacy, trusted computing, and rights management—all of which are key components of a connected environment in the 21st century.

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit found in favor of Finnegan client DuPont, affirming a district court’s grant of JMOL that plaintiff Novozymes’s patent failed to comply with the written description requirement of 35 U.S.C. § 112 and was thus invalid as a matter of law. Novozymes filed a patent application that disclosed vast numbers of prophetic alpha-amylase proteins without any guidance pointing to which of the proteins actually had advantageous properties. Then, some ten years later, in a continuation application, Novozymes claimed a very particular protein with certain properties that was not in any way highlighted in the original application. The Federal Circuit held that the original application did not describe the variants later claimed in the issued patent, noting in its decision that a patent “is not a reward for the search, but compensation for its successful conclusion.”

Finnegan helped Nikon Inc. in a design patent and trade dress infringement suit, settling the suit and limiting Nikon's involvement, before engaging in costly discovery. In this case involving scope mounts for a rifle, Finnegan's comprehensive mediation brief established that our client did not infringe, and a favorable settlement followed.

Finnegan represented Axcelis Technologies against Varian Semiconductor Equipment Associates Inc. in a patent infringement case in the District of Massachusetts. Finnegan client Axcelis invalidated many of Varian’s patent claims with an early summary judgment motion that was granted by the court. Based on the judge’s interpretation of the remaining claims, Axcelis filed a second summary judgment motion for non-infringement. The case settled soon afterwards.

Judge Leonard Davis of the Eastern District of Texas issued an order granting judgment in FedEx’s favor and invalidating claims of a patent asserted by BarTex Research, LLC.  BarTex alleged that FedEx’s shipping labels infringed its patent related to bar codes.  FedEx won a favorable claim construction ruling by Magistrate Judge John Love that was later adopted by Judge Davis.  Thereafter BarTex conceded that the asserted claims were invalid in view of the claim construction.  While FedEx’s motion for summary judgment of invalidity was pending before Judge Davis, BarTex requested that Judge Davis issue an order granting judgment in favor of FedEx on the invalidity grounds raised in FedEx’s summary judgment motion.  The judgment in favor of FedEx was upheld on appeal by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit.  Finnegan also represents FedEx Corporation in an inter partes reexamination of the same BarTex patent.  Although the reexamination has not yet concluded, the Patent Office has rejected all claims of BarTex’s patent.


Showing 40 - 50 of 243 results. View All

Sort By: Title | Date

Pages: << < 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 > >>