特許訴訟および裁判
About
包括的戦略のもと構築された公判での揺るぎない陳述
高度な技術や科学に基づく問題が絡む場合、リーガル・チームは紛争の主題だけでなく、知的財産法特有の判例や手続き上のニュアンスも理解できていることが不可欠です。他の訴訟と異なり、特許訴訟は公判前に多いことから、弊所が知財に特化していることは、公判前及び公判中に確かなアドバンテージとなります。他のタイプの訴訟とは異なり、特許訴訟は多くの場合公判が開始される前に解決します。主題は複雑で、争点は多くの場合知財法特有のものです。クレーム解釈、先行技術調査、特許の強み及び弱みの評価、再審査という選択肢、損害賠償戦略の構築、並びに専門家の選定 ― これらは特許訴訟の行方を方向付ける課題の一部にすぎません。
実績
Achieved a comprehensive victory for respondent Innoscience, a global leader in gallium nitride (GaN) power devices, in a high-profile patent dispute before the U.S. International Trade Commission (ITC). The ITC’s Final Determination confirms that Innoscience avoided all patent claims asserted by Infineon.
337‑TA‑1414, ITC, Judge Moore
Persuaded the court that asserted claims directed to an alleged form of geofencing technology were ineligible under 35 U.S.C. § 101. The court found the patent invalid and dismissed the case against client Audi with prejudice in the first instance.
4:25-cv-11147, E.D. Mich., Judge Behm
Obtained a $240 million jury verdict for client Promptu in a patent infringement lawsuit against Comcast. The jury found that Comcast willfully infringed Promptu’s patents covering voice recognition technology for TV.
2:16-cv-06516, E.D. Pa., Judge Sanchez
22-1939, Fed. Cir., Judges Prost, Moore, Taranto
Secured a decisive victory for client US Synthetic Corp. (USS) at the ITC. After a full hearing, the ALJ found that respondents infringed multiple claims of USS’s patent and that the claims were valid and supported by a domestic industry, but an initial Commission ruling under § 101 temporarily prevented a finding of violation of Section 337. The Federal Circuit reversed the § 101 ruling, and on remand the ITC found a violation and issued a limited exclusion order barring infringing polycrystalline diamond products from entry into the United States, securing final relief for USS.
337-TA-1236, ITC, Judge Elliot
Obtained complete victory against Carrum on appeal of the District of Delaware’s claim construction to the Federal Circuit following Carrum’s stipulation of non-infringement under the claim construction, thereby exonerating BMW’s ACC system, first sold in 2000, against Carrum’s 2004 patents. Invalidated several asserted claims through post-grant efforts before the U.S. Patent Office, including IPRs and EPRs, and pursued claims through proceedings before the Eastern District of Virginia to vindicate BMW’s patent challenges.
1:18-cv-01645, D. Del., Judge Andrews
21-1435, 24-1480, Fed. Cir., Judges Clevenger, Cunningham, Lourie, Moore, Prost, Taranto
IPR2019-00902, -00903, -00904, -00905, -00927, 00928, PTAB, Judges Browne, Scanlon, Tornquist
90/019,010, CRU
Represented LG Electronics in Investigation concerning certain media technologies in smartphones and televisions, home theater systems, Blu-ray disc players, and tablets. Following trial, all four asserted patents were found not infringed and/or invalid.
337-TA-882, ITC, Judge Shaw
