업무사례

항소

About

A strong and experienced advocate on appeal

If your intellectual property case goes to trial in the United States, the judgment is likely to be appealed. Whether before the US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit or the US Supreme Court, appeals require extensive knowledge of the rules governing the forum. And they demand a thorough understanding of both the law and the facts to plainly convey your position and skillfully persuade your audience.

Finnegan attorneys have briefed and argued hundreds of cases before the Federal Circuit—quite possibly more than any other law firm—and approximately 40 have served as judicial law clerks to judges on the Federal Circuit. We represent both appellants and appellees in cases covering a wide range of industries and issues across all the US Courts of Appeals. Our success in these cases derives from the firm’s focus on intellectual property law, the technical backgrounds of our attorneys, and their experience directly related to appellate practice.

Concise, accurate, and powerful arguments

Appellate cases are a highly specialized area of litigation. Finnegan is widely known for the quality of its briefs and oral arguments. Our comprehensive understanding of the law and, in patent cases, the technology allows us to quickly identify the one or two arguments with the most promise to persuade. Our experience before the Federal Circuit and other federal courts of appeals helps us craft concise and persuasive arguments for our clients. With only one or two briefs and fifteen minutes of oral argument to make your case, Finnegan brings the type of experience that can make all the difference.

Being there when it counts

The appeals process often starts well before the actual filing of the appeal. Clients retain us at the trial stage to help them look ahead at appeal issues and assist with pre-trial motions, trial motions, and jury instructions. And in other instances, they retain us after trial to assist with post-trial motions to make sure that issues are properly preserved for appeal. Frequently, we are retained to assess how a case may fare on appeal. This assessment includes analyzing the trial court’s significant rulings, identifying the strongest issues for appeal, and advising on how to best present and argue the issues.

Experience at the highest level of US IP appeals

Finnegan has had a close and lasting involvement with the Federal Circuit. Our dozens of former clerks worked closely with the judges to help draft opinions, gaining insight into the deliberative process and court protocol. Finnegan attorneys have been honored to serve in leadership roles on the court’s advisory council and to be founding members of the Federal Circuit Bar Association, in which many of our attorneys continue to serve on committees and in leadership positions. Other Finnegan attorneys coauthor the leading treatise on Federal Circuit practice, Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit—Practice and Procedure, published by Matthew Bender.

Finnegan’s extensive appellate experience has led parties to turn to our attorneys in many important IP cases. In recent years, the Supreme Court has taken a greater role in shaping IP law. Finnegan has represented both petitioners and respondents before the Supreme Court and regularly assists amici curiae in filing briefs at both the certiorari and merits stages. Our attorneys have participated in briefing more than 50 cases, and they have argued several cases before the Court, including the landmark cases Bilski v. Kappos and Bonito Boats v. Thunder Craft Boats.

Briefed and argued hundreds of Federal Circuit cases
Appeared in 100+ Federal Circuit cases in the last five years
Approximately 40 former law clerks from the Federal Circuit
More than 30 Finnegan attorneys with experience arguing before the Federal Circuit

Everyone in this practice

업무사례

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

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

Finnegan represented Bausch & Lomb’s licensee Eye Therapies, LLC in an appeal at the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit from a Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) decision finding Eye Therapies’ patent directed to a low-dose brimonidine treatment for eye redness (Lumify®) to be unpatentable. In a precedential decision, the Federal Circuit agreed with Finnegan’s arguments and found that the Board had wrongly invalidated the patent based on an incorrect claim construction, vacating and remanding the case back to the PTAB. The proceeding settled shortly thereafter

23-2173, Fed. Cir., Judges Taranto, Stoll, Scarsi

Secured a significant victory for client US Synthetic Corporation (USS) with a precedential decision from the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (CAFC) overturning an unfavorable 35 U.S.C. § 101 eligibility ruling from the International Trade Commission (ITC).

23-1217, Fed. Cir., Judges Chen, Dyk, Stoll

Secured a covenant-not-to-sue and zero-dollar walkaway for BMW Group in a declaratory judgment action, concluding Arigna’s high-profile patent enforcement campaign involving current amplification technology. This outcome follows a decisive ITC victory, the dismissal of parallel District Court litigation, and multiple concurrent patent office challenges pending at the time of resolution.

1:23-cv-01190, D.D.C., Judge Contreras
2:21-cv-00173, E.D. Tex.
IPR2021-01531, PTAB, Judges Baer, Fenick, Iftikhar
23-1931, Fed. Cir.
90/019,261, USPTO

Represents Castle Retail in patent litigation brought by Hawk Technology Systems in district court and on appeal. The district court ruled in Castle Retail’s favor, granting Castle Retail’s Rule 12 motion and invalidating Hawk’s patent claims related to video surveillance technology. On appeal the Federal Circuit affirmed the district court ruling. The district court then granted our client more than $106k in attorneys fees, finding the entirety of Finnegan’s attorneys fees to be reasonable.

2:20-cv-02766, W.D. Tenn., Judge McCalla
22-1222, Fed. Cir., Judges Cunningham, Hughes, Reyna