Attorneys > Patent Practice Group

Our experienced patent practice group offers vast experience prosecuting applications in a wide variety of technical areas to help our U.S. and international clients create valuable patent portfolios with an eye toward advancing their business objectives.

Our Patent Thinking

  1. Enablement Enigma: The Supreme Court Weighs In
  2. AI Machines Continue to Rattle Intellectual Property Law
  3. AI Machine is Denied Patent
  4. The Unified Patent Court and Unitary Patent Come to the European Patent Office
  5. Does the Defense Production Act Provide a Safe Harbor Against Infringement Claims?
  6. Upgrade of Appeal Board Decisions Sought to Help Patent Medical Innovations
  7. Fresh is Best and Stale Will Fail: The PTAB Explains Its Logic in Refusing to Institute an IPR
  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

Patent Practice Results

Ingenico Inc. v. IOENGINE, LLC

United States District Court of Delaware

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.

KPM Analytics North America Corp. v. Blue Sun Scientific LLC et al.

United States District Court of Massachusetts

After a rigorous two week trial, the jury agreed that Sunstein client, KPM Analytics, a scientific equipment supplier, was owed $4.9 million for trade secret misappropriation, unfair and deceptive trade practices, and contract breaches.

In KPM Analytics North America Corp. v. Blue Sun Scientific LLC et al., KPM sued Blue Sun Scientific LLC and its parent company, The Innovative Technologies Group & Co., in April 2021 for poaching key personnel, customer data and proprietary software. In August 2021, the United States District Court entered a preliminary injunction against both companies and four of KPM’s former employees now working at Blue Sun.

The jury found that Blue Sun unlawfully used KPM trade secret information and that it and the four former KPM employees stole trade secrets and violated non-disclosure agreements and good faith covenants. The four former employees and both companies were ordered to pay separate damages based on the severity of their wrongdoing.


Trade Secret Victory

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

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: