Attorneys > Litigation Practice Group

Our litigation team excels at all aspects of trial practice and is unwavering in advocating for the interests of our clients. Our attorneys advance and defend a variety of intellectual property claims while keeping our client’s business objectives in sight.

Our Litigation Thinking

  1. Supreme Court Denies Copyright Enforcement to State Legislature
  2. Trademark Infringement Remedies Just Got Snappier? United States Supreme Court Says Proving Willfulness Is Not Required For Recovering an Infringer’s Profits
  3. 3M Strikes Against N95 Mask Price Gouging
  4. Or Forever Hold Your Peace: Supreme Court Ruling Will Spur Early Efforts to Sway PTAB as to Timeliness of IPR Petitions
  5. Supreme Court Allows States to Plunder Copyrighted Videos
  6. Court’s Strict Interpretation of Timing Requirement May Force Patent Validity Challenges in Two Forums
  7. Federal Circuit Averts Huge Disruption to the Patent System by Fashioning a Cure to the Status of Administrative Judges
  8. Federal Circuit Astonishingly Invalidates Manufacturing Method Patent under Section 101
  9. Federal Circuit Asks Congress to Override Supreme Court's Denial of Patents for Diagnostics
  10. Beware: Run-of-the-Mill Forum Selection Clause Could Thwart Patent Challenges
  11. State Universities Are Not Immune From Challenges to Their Patents at the USPTO
  12. Secret Sales Trigger the On-Sale Bar under the Patent Statute, Says the Supreme Court
  13. Not All Litigation Expenses Are Recoverable Under the Copyright Act
  14. Activision Wins the (Trademark) War: First Amendment Protects Depiction of Humvees in Realistic Video Games

Litigation Results

Exergen Corporation vs. Kaz, USA, Inc.

United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts

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

Kotowski et al. v. Mastronardi et al. (Patent Interference No. 105,890)

United States Patent and Trademark Office, Patent Trial and Appeal Board

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.


Patent Award

B. Braun Medical, Inc. v. Abbott Laboratories

United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania

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

Comair Rotron, Inc. v. Matsushita Electric Corporation of America et al.

United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, United States District Court for the District of New Jersey

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

Network Appliance, Inc. v. BlueArc Corporation

United States District Court for the Northern District of California

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.


Successful defense

Softspikes, LLC et al. v. MacNeill Engineering Company, Inc. Trisport, Ltd. et al. v. MacNeill Engineering Company, Inc. et al.

United States District Court for the District of Delaware

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.

Comair Rotron v. Nippon Densan Corporation and Nidec Corporation

United States District Court for the District of Connecticut

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.

Abbott Laboratories v. Syntron Bioresearch, Inc.

United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, United States District Court, Southern District of California

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.

Fotomedia Technologies, LLC v. Fujifilm U.S.A et al.

United States District Court for the Eastern District of Texas

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.

Contact Sunstein

We are ready to speak with you about your legal service needs. For full biographies and contact information please see our Attorneys pages.

We use cookies to improve your site experience, distinguish you from other users and support the marketing of our services. These cookies may store your personal information. By continuing to use our website, you agree to the storing of cookies on your device. For more information, please visit our Privacy Notice.

Subscribe to our Newsletters

Subscribe to: