업무사례

사전 심리 전략

About

A full exploration of effective alternatives

When you retain Finnegan, our entire firm becomes part of your team. All of our expertise, our reputation, and our experience, both legal and technical, are brought to bear in deciding how to approach your case. We begin with frank and honest conversations, timely and judicious discovery, careful analysis of the potential risks and rewards, and a mapping of the strengths and weaknesses of your position. We listen carefully to better understand your business objectives, your options, your risk tolerance, and your ultimate goals. We then develop a team approach and strategy that best meets your needs.

We understand that the realities of litigation can be daunting, so we work with clients to find enterprising solutions that are both cost-effective and case-effective. Historically, most cases involving intellectual property never go to trial. Thus, while we litigate with a potential trial or appeal in mind, our vision is to resolve each case successfully as soon and as economically as possible. This may mean pursuing litigation alternatives, such as licensing, mediation, or arbitration, or a companion proceeding before another court or administrative agency. Or you may decide that settlement is the best resolution.

As a case proceeds, we can adjust our deployment of resources as needed. There are multiple ways to approach any given IP case. The most important factor is that we remain flexible and committed to your goals throughout.

Everyone in this practice

업무사례

Secured an early dismissal for Amdocs, Inc. in a patent suit without any settlement and without the need for motion practice.

2:25-cv-00031, E.D. Tex., Judge Gilstrap

Represented Volkswagen as petitioner at the PTAB, where the Board instituted inter partes review (IPR) of the patent asserted in litigation.

IPR2021-01531, PTAB, Judges Ahmed, Baer, Fenick

Represented Maglula Ltd. in a one-of-a-kind district court litigation including patent, trademark, and copyright claims over Maglula’s assertions that Amazon sold counterfeit consumer products. After the Court issued an order (i) denying Amazon’s motion for summary judgment; (ii) finding “Amazon's attempts to avoid liability … will have minimal impact before a jury”; (iii) reflecting the Court’s belief that "not [] even the most persuasive presentation of Amazon’s evidence would make one iota of difference to a jury”; and (iv) requiring the parties to engage in mediation, the parties entered into an agreement and the case was dismissed.

1:19-cv-01570, E.D. Va., Judge O'Grady

Successfully defended against a motion for preliminary injunction that would have excluded the accused synthetic slab products out of the U.S. market. Filed concurrent inter partes reviews (IPRs) and post-grant reviews (PGRs) challenging the asserted patents, leading to a settlement that leaves the U.S. market open to Cosentino’s industry-leading Silestone products.

6:20-cv-00894, -00895, -00896, -00897, W.D. Tex., Judge Albright
6:20-cv-01080, W.D. Tex., Judge Albright
IPR2021-00214, -00215, -00216; PGR2021-00010, -00090, PTAB, Judges Kalan, Ross, Kaiser

Successfully invalidated all five patents asserted against client Playtika in district court litigation over gaming technology. Also representing Playtika in related inter partes review (IPR) proceedings and in a related appeal by NEXRF of Playtika’s district court victory.

3:20-cv-00603, D. Nev., Judge Du
IPR2021-00951, -00952, -00953, PTAB

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