Experience
Koninklijke Philips Electronics
Cardiac Science Operating Co.
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.
Koninklijke Philips Electronics v. Cardiac Science Operating Co., 2:08-cv-00543, W.D. Wash., Judge Pechman
Koninklijke Philips Electronics, N.V. v. Cardiac Science Operating Co.
Koninklijke Philips Electronics, N.V.
Summary judgment of patent invalidity granted in favor of Finnegan client SinterFire Corporation
SinterFire Corp.
Toyota Motor Corp.
Eli Lilly and Company
Due to international data regulations, we’ve updated our privacy policy. Click here to read our privacy policy in full.
We use cookies on this website to provide you with the best user experience. By accepting cookies, you agree to our use of cookies. Please note that if you opt not to accept or if you disable cookies, the “Your Finnegan” feature on this website will be disabled as well. For more information on how we use cookies, please see our Privacy Policy.
Finnegan is thrilled to announce the launch of our new blog, Ad Law Buzz, devoted solely to breaking news, developments, trends, and analysis in advertising law.