In a suit involving multiple patents relating to equipment and processes for treating hazardous waste, the Firm obtained a jury verdict that our client’s patents were willfully infringed and awarding actual damages. The Court entered a Final Judgment in which it trebled the damages, awarded attorneys’ fees and pre- and post-judgment interest, and entered a permanent injunction.
The Firm’s client, a supplier of software and services allowing universities to provide online teaching, was accused of infringing a patent relating to computer aided teaching. We were successful in obtaining summary judgment of no infringement. The Markman claim construction we proposed was adopted and summary judgment of no infringement entered before formal discovery was opened.
Representing a dental implant manufacturer accused of infringing a competitor’s patent, the Firm located prior art to invalidate the plaintiff’s patent. Thereafter, a confidential settlement was entered and the plaintiff’s claims against our client were all dismissed with prejudice.
We represented the owner of patents and other proprietary technology relating to degradable plastic films and methods and apparatus for using the films for daily cover in landfills. The suit was brought against former employees who had started a competing business. The Firm was successful in obtaining a permanent injunction against continued infringement and a final judgment that our client’s patents were all valid and that dismissed all defendants’ affirmative defenses and counterclaims. Other terms were provided in a confidential settlement agreement.
The Firm represented the owner of a patent on subsea pipeline joints in a case brought against a direct competitor. Following the trial court’s Markman ruling on the meaning of the patent claims, the competitor purchased our client’s patent for an up-front payment and a continuing royalty.
We represented a Fortune 500 company that was accused of infringing four U.S. patents relating to methods for preparing and using metallocene catalysts to control the properties of polyolefins. Although the jury found certain of the patent claims to be infringed, the Firm was successful in defeating the charge of willful infringement and treble damages. The appeal involved the propriety of the District Court’s decision to preclude the jury from considering certain of our client’s defenses. The appeal was terminated upon the merger of our client and the patent owner.
Representing the patent owner in a case where it was alleged that the defendants had infringed five of our client’s screen patents, a permanent injunction and final judgment were entered declaring our client’s patents valid and infringed. Other terms are provided in a confidential settlement agreement.
Representing the owner of patents relating to screen assemblies used on vibratory screening machines in a declaratory judgment action, the Firm successfully proved to the jury that our client’s three patents were valid and infringed. A permanent injunction and final judgment were entered in which the defendants were ordered to pay damages and interest.
Representing the owner of a patent on a screen assembly used on vibratory screening machines, the Firm obtained a jury verdict of willful infringement. The District Court entered JNOV for defendant, finding the client’s patent had been obtained by inequitable conduct. On appeal, the Firm was successful in having the District Court’s judgment reversed and the jury’s verdict reinstated. A permanent injunction and judgment were entered that our client’s patent was valid, enforceable and infringed.
Representing the owner of a patent on a downhole tool, the Firm was successful in obtaining a jury verdict that the patent was valid and infringed and that defendants had not shown the patent to be unenforceable for alleged inequitable conduct. The trial judge entered a judgment that the patent was unenforceable, not infringed and awarding attorneys’ fees to the defendants. On appeal, we were successful in having the trial court’s judgment reversed and the jury’s verdict of infringement reinstated. The case settled favorably prior to a trial on damages.
The Firm represented a sporting goods retailer accused of infringing plaintiff’s patent through the use of seven “ski decks” located in various stores and used in conducting ski lessons. The jury found that only one of the seven accused ski decks infringed, and then only for a short period of time. Nominal damages were awarded.
The Firm represented the owner of a patent on a method for creating a textured surface on pre-formed concrete walls. We were successful in obtaining a jury verdict that the defendants willfully infringed our client’s patent and that our client was entitled to lost profits, treble damages, attorneys’ fees and interest. The Firm successfully defended the judgment on appeal. The total award to our client was $7.5 million.