实力强大、经验丰富的上诉律师
如果企业的知识产权案件在美国开庭审理,判决很可能会被上诉。无论是在美国联邦巡回上诉法院还是美国最高法院,上诉律师都需要广泛了解管辖法院的规则。上诉律师需要对相关法律和事实都有透彻的理解,以便清楚地表达企业立场并巧妙地说服听众。
飞翰律师曾在美国联邦巡回上诉法院为数百件案件准备辩护书和出庭辩护,经办的案件数量超过任何其他律师事务所。约40多名飞翰律师曾在联邦巡回上诉法院担任法官助理职务。飞翰代理上诉人或被上诉人处理涉及众多行业和问题的案件。我们在这些案件中的成功源于飞翰对知识产权法律的专注、我们律师的技术背景以及他们丰富的上诉实务经验。
简洁、精准及强大的论据
上诉案件是专利诉讼的高度专业领域。飞翰以高质量的辩护书和口头辩论著称。我们对技术和法律都有广泛深入的了解,能够迅速找出一个或多个最有说服力的论据。凭借在联邦巡回上诉法院的诉讼经验,我们能够帮助客户准备简明、有说服力的论据。凭借一两份辩护书,加上15分钟的口头辩论,飞翰能给您带来峰回路转的体验。
关键时刻挺身而出
上诉过程一般在实际提出上诉之前就已经开始。在审讯阶段,客户委托我们帮助他们预测审后上诉问题。而在另外一些情况下,客户会在审讯后委托我们在审后动议方面提供帮助,以确保妥善维护上诉争议。我们经常受雇评估案件上诉的结果。评估内容包括分析专利、下级法院意见和其他重大裁决;找出上诉的最强证据;提供如何最有效地陈述和申辩争议的意见。
最高级别的知识产权上诉经验
飞翰与联邦巡回上诉法院一直保持密切长久的联系。本所几十位律师曾在联邦巡回上诉法院担任法官助理职务。作为助理,他们积极配合法官,协助起草意见,深入了解法院的审议程序和议案。此外,我所还有几位律师曾在联邦巡回上诉法院的咨询委员会担任领导职务。他们还为联邦巡回上诉法院律师协会的成立提供了帮助,我所多位律师积极在协会内部委员会任职,担任领导职务。还有些飞翰律师合写了关于联邦巡回上诉法院实务的重要专著《联邦巡回上诉法院之上诉法院——实务及程序》(Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit—Practice and Procedure),并由Matthew Bender出版社出版。
飞翰丰富的上诉经验使许多当事人在许多重要的知识产权案件上向飞翰律师寻求帮助。近年来,美国最高法院在塑造知识产权法方面发挥了更大的作用。在最高法院,飞翰既能代理上诉人,也能代理被上诉人,并在移审阶段和案情审理阶段协助法院之友提交案情陈述。本所律师参加过50多起案件的案情陈述,也在最高法院申辩了多起案件,其中包括Bilski诉Kappos和Bonito Boats诉Thunder Craft Boats等标志性案件。
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
2:20-cv-02766, W.D. Tenn., Judge McCalla
22-1222, Fed. Cir., Judges Cunningham, Hughes, Reyna
Federal Circuit IP Blog
Federal Circuit Affirms § 102(b) Invalidity; Source Code Commands Are Not Hearsay
May 14, 2026
Federal Circuit IP Blog
When “and” and “e.g.” Matter: Federal Circuit Revives VLSI vs. Intel Case
May 14, 2026
Articles
Choice of Law in Patent Appeals: The Federal Circuit’s Issue-by-Issue Framework
May/June 2026
Articles
Unpacking Squires’ Recent Discretionary Denial Guidance Focusing on American Manufacturing
April 24, 2026
Federal Circuit IP Blog
April 22, 2026
Federal Circuit IP Blog
April 15, 2026
Press Release
April 20, 2026
Due to international data regulations, we’ve updated our privacy policy. Click here to read our privacy policy in full.