Experience
Cardiac Science Operating Co.
Koninklijke Philips Electronics, N.V.
In an appeal from an interference action filed under 35 U.S.C. § 146, obtained complete reversal of summary judgment against Philips; on remand, district court ruled for Philips after bench trial.
Cardiac Science Operating Co. v. Koninklijke Philips Electronics, N.V., 2:08-cv-00543, W.D. Wash., Judge Pechman
Koninklijke Philips Electronics, N.V. v. Cardiac Science Operating Co., 09-1241, -1040, Fed. Cir., Judges Friedman, Gajarsa, Michel
Interference decision reversed in favor of Phillips’s defibrillator patent
Koninklijke Philips Electronics
Koninklijke Philips Electronics N.V. v. PixelRange, Inc.
Koninklijke Philips Electronics N.V.
Haier America Trading, L.L.C. v. Koninklijke Philips N.V. et al.
Koninklijke Philips N.V. et al.
Technical Consumer Products, Inc. v. Koninklijke Philips Electronics N.V.
Koninklijke Philips Electronics N.V.
Koninklijke Philips NV f/k/a Koninklijke Philips Electronics NV v. Ideavillage Products Corp.
Koninklijke Philips NV f/k/a Koninklijke Philips Electronics NV
Toyota Motor Corp.
Interval Licensing LLC v. AOL, Inc.
AOL, Inc.
Smart Solutions Technologies, S.L. v. Koninklijke Philips N.V.
Koninklijke Philips N.V.
District court enters judgment of noninfringement for Finnegan client Philips
Koninklijke Philips Electronics N.V.
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.