For Those Challenging a Patent’s Validity in an IPR, New Clarity on Which Arguments Can Later be Litigated in Court
Two Federal Circuit Decisions Show Why Forum-Selection Clauses Require Clarity
Federal Circuit Jumps to Step Two To Rescue Authentication Patent
The Estate of Henrietta Lacks Sues Thermo Fisher Scientific
Supreme Court Finds Constitutional Violation in Patent Challenges, But Provides Quick Fix
NFTs – A Novel Challenge For Traders, Investors and Copyright Lawyers
Google v. Oracle: Supreme Court Holds Copying of Key Part of Java Software, its API, is Fair Use
Federal Circuit Reverses US Navy’s Short-Lived Avoidance of Software Piracy Claim
Sunstein obtained a sweeping jury verdict win in a patent infringement lawsuit for Ingenico Inc., a global provider of point of sale payment terminals, software, and services. Sunstein also filed multiple petitions for inter partes review (IPR), successfully invalidating over 150 of the patent claims in IOENGINE’s three asserted patents.
The exhaustive discovery process included tens of thousands of documents, 20-plus depositions (including multiple depositions of third parties in Israel), and significant third-party discovery. Notably, Sunstein challenged the methodology by which IOENGINE’s damages expert calculated reasonable royalty damages, prompting the court to exclude the expert’s testimony. After four days of testimony, the jury found that all claims were either not infringed or were invalid.
Sunstein’s trial team won a jury verdict for our client Exergen, resulting in a $16 million judgment against Kaz, the maker of consumer products sold under the Vicks and Braun brands. Despite Kaz’s multiple challenges to the twelve patent claims asserted by Exergen, the jury upheld the validity of all of them, and found that the forehead thermometers sold by Kaz infringed those claims. Exergen is a Watertown, MA-based manufacturer and seller of thermometers for both the professional and consumer markets.
$16 million judgment
We obtained a win for our client American Science and Engineering in an interference proceeding against its competitor Rapiscan Systems. Interference proceedings are instituted before the Patent Trials and Appeals Board to establish priority of inventorship, because, for US patent applications filed prior to March 16, 2013, rights are awarded to the first inventor, irrespective of who first filed a patent application. For more recent applications, early filing is of increased importance. AS&E’s invention concerns backscatter x-ray technology.
Sunstein secured a jury verdict for Abbott Laboratories, defeating an $11.5 million patent infringement claim relating to intravenous valve devices. The jury verdict and judgment of non-infringement was affirmed on appeal.
$11.5 million patent infringement judgment
Sunstein secured at trial a $25 million judgment for willful patent infringement, including treble damages and attorneys’ fees, and defended it on appeal for our client, Comair Rotron, Inc. In a related case, Rotron, Inc. v. United States International Trade Commission, we obtained a ruling from the Court of Appeals upholding the validity of our client’s patent and directing the International Trade Commission to enter an appropriate exclusion order against infringing products imported by Matsushita Electric Corporation of America.
$25 million judgment
Working with co-counsel in San Francisco, Sunstein successfully defended BlueArc, which was accused of infringing a patent for network server software architecture, by obtaining favorable claim construction from the Court and by winning summary judgments of noninfringement or invalidity of all asserted claims, without the need for a trial on the merits. This favorable judgment was upheld on appeal.
In this pair of patent litigations, Sunstein defended MacNeill Engineering against claims of infringing five patents owned by related companies Softspikes and Trisport. In the first litigation Sunstein obtained favorable claim construction rulings that forced Softspikes to drop one of the two patents it had asserted against MacNeill. Faced with these setbacks and a counterclaim for infringement of three of MacNeill’s own patents with a substantial claim for damages, the plaintiffs agreed to a settlement and dismissed their cases.
Sunstein successfully negotiated a multimillion dollar settlement on behalf of our client, Comair Rotron, following a jury verdict that our client’s patent was infringed. The patent was directed to important magnetization technology for brushless DC electric motors and MIT professors served as technical expert witnesses for both sides. The case had been earlier dismissed before trial, but we successfully obtained a decision by the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit reversing the trial court’s summary judgment determination and remanding the case to the District Court for trial.
Sunstein represented Abbott Laboratories in patent infringement litigation concerning immunoassay technology against Syntron Bioresearch, Inc. in the United States District Court for the Southern District of California. After a four week jury trial and an appeal to the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (see 334 F.3d 1342 (Fed.Cir. 2003)), we prevailed on our claim of patent infringement and secured a permanent injunction from the trial court against further infringement. The case then settled during the damages phase.
Sunstein defended MyPublisher, Inc. against patent infringement claims brought by FotoMedia Technologies, LLC. MyPublisher was one of many defendants named in the suit (others included Fujifilm USA, Inc. and Nokia, Inc.). FotoMedia had earlier filed similar complaints against dozens of other defendants, including AOL, Yahoo! and Shutterfly. Sunstein successfully adopted a litigation strategy focused on getting our client out of the suit as early as possible and without incurring any significant litigation costs. Sunstein obtained a settlement from FotoMedia without the payment of any damages by MyPublisher.
We are ready to speak with you about your legal service needs. For full biographies and contact information please see our Attorneys pages.