업무사례

특허 소송 및 재판

About

Strong cases built on complete comprehension of the law and your business goals

When cases involve highly technical or science-based issues, it is essential that your legal team understand the subject matter of the dispute as well as the case law and procedural nuances specific to intellectual property law. Finnegan’s singular focus on IP gives clients a distinct advantage, because unlike other types of litigation, patent cases are often resolved before a trial ever begins. Claim construction, prior art searches, evaluations of a patent’s strengths and weaknesses, invalidity challenges, reexamination alternatives, building a damages strategy, identification of experts—these are just a few of the issues that can predetermine the outcome of a patent litigation.

We work with clients to help align litigation strategy with business goals, which might mean settling on reasonable terms as early as possible, or alternatively, sending a message to industry competitors through aggressive enforcement or defensive strategies. In our experience, a good settlement can often result in advantageous business solutions. As circumstances warrant, we assemble a skilled team from our deep bench to assist with crafting settlements before, during, and after trial so the litigation team can remain focused on the trial. Historically, some of our most significant achievements for clients have been attained through tactics that allowed them to meet their business and financial goals without the risks attendant to having a judge, jury, arbitration panel, administrative board, or appellate panel decide their future.

If your case goes to trial, the right team makes all the difference

When trial is the best or only option, Finnegan brings the right mix of technical expertise and trial and appellate experience. For 60 years, we have successfully litigated hundreds of cases involving the most technologically advanced and complex patents and argued the decisions on appeal by intentionally setting the trial record and fully preserving issues.

We have patent professionals who hold Ph.D.’s in fields ranging from neurobiology to electrical engineering, and more than a hundred hold master’s degrees. Before and during trial, our knowledge and intellectual firepower are applied to make the most intricate issues easily understood and to undercut the opposing side’s arguments. We build and present cases that are accurate, understandable, and persuasive.

Insight into every forum

We know the forums for IP disputes because we have successfully argued cases in the top IP venues for jurisdictions we serve, including in German regional civil courts, U.S. district courts, the UK Intellectual Property Enterprise Court, the UK High Court, the German Federal Patent Court (FPC), the U.S. International Trade Commission (ITC), the U.S. Court of Federal Claims, the German Federal Court of Justice (FCJ), the UK Court of Appeal, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, and the U.S. Supreme Court. We have also worked at these courts and agencies, and many of our professionals have backgrounds as judicial law clerks in trial and appellate courts. Across our eleven global offices, we diligently helped clients prepare for the June 2023 opening of the European Union’s Unified Patent Court (UPC), and we were among the first firms to file an action in the UPC.

Everyone in this practice

업무사례

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