Print PDF

You searched for: “View All”

Showing 70 - 80 of 245 results. View All

Sort By: Title | Date

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


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.

We assisted our client in developing and negotiating an arrangement for pooling essential patents for an adopted standard. We created contracts by which the client became the agent for the patent owners in granting licenses to all applicants on a RAND basis.

Finnegan secured a victory for Juniper Networks in the Northern District of California against Florida-based Juniper Media in a trademark infringement and cybersquatting law suit. Defendant moved to dismiss (or to transfer) the trademark infringement and cybersquatting case claiming lack of jurisdiction on the grounds that its website was a passive website and the majority of the company’s operations were based in Florida. Judge William Alsup ruled in Juniper Networks’ favor finding that the Defendant’s repeated representations of being located in, or having connections with, Silicon Valley in its Twitter account, its Linked In page, and its CEO’s personal web pages was sufficient to demonstrate that it expressly aimed its activities at the Northern District. The investigative efforts of our inhouse investigation team were critical to building the case for personal jurisdiction. Following Juniper Networks’ win on the jurisdictional issue, the parties ultimately reached a settlement pursuant to which Juniper Media agreed to change its name, abandon its trademark applications, and transfer its domain names to the client. The case was ultimately dismissed following the defendant’s completion of all phase-out activities.

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.

Finnegan obtained urgent relief for AMC, which was fighting for its very existence. In addition to stopping Ameriquest's use of AMC, Finnegan negotiated the assignment of several of Ameriquest's federal trademark applications and registrations to AMC. AMC Mortgage Corporation is a small mortgage company founded over twenty years ago with the goal of becoming one of the country's most trustworthy and dependable mortgage companies. In contrast, Ameriquest Mortgage Company was the largest mortgage company in the country and had one of the worst reputations for customer service. Ameriquest began using the mark AMC for mortgages and related services. As a result, and due to Ameriquest's enormous size and pervasive use of the mark AMC, consumers began associating the mark with Ameriquest instead of AMC. AMC brought an action for trademark infringement, unfair competition, and cybersquatting against Ameriquest and its subsidiaries. Several months into the case, consumer criticism against Ameriquest grew and a potential sale to Citigroup was widely reported in the mainstream media. As a result, the potential harm to AMC's reputation increased exponentially and preliminary relief became urgent. AMC filed a preliminary injunction motion and, as a result, Ameriquest entered into a Court-approved judgment requiring Ameriquest to cease all use of AMC.

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 245 results. View All

Sort By: Title | Date

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