Experience
Mobileye, Inc.
Pignato
Defended two Mobileye entities in a suit for patent infringement. After developing strong non-liability positions and a potential Rule 11 Motion, Pignato voluntarily withdrew the suit.
Mobileye, Inc. v. Pignato, 1:16-cv-00800, S.D. Ind., Judges Lawrence, Lynch
Kitt Holdings, Inc. v. Mobileye BV
Mobileye BV
Eli Lilly and Company v. Teva Pharmaceuticals USA, Inc.
Eli Lilly and Company
Eli Lilly and Co. v. Apotex Inc.
Eli Lilly and Company
Closure Systems International v. Novembal USA, Inc.
Novembal USA, Inc.
Summary judgment allows Home Diagnostics Inc. (HDI) to meet the needs of diabetics
Home Diagnostics Inc. (HDI)
Sud-Chemie AG v. CSP Technologies, Inc.
Sud-Chemie Incorporated
Firestone Industrial Products v. Morrow
Firestone Industrial Products
Bridgestone Firestone v. FleetPride
Bridgestone Firestone
ArjoHuntleigh
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.