Winning Intellectual Property

Benchmark Technologies, Inc. v. Yuqiang (Richard) Tu and Kifonix Technology, LLC.

The U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts ruled in firm client Benchmark Technologies’ favor and denied defendants’ motion seeking to overturn the favorable jury verdict and final judgment in Benchmark Technologies, Inc. v. Yuqiang (Richard) Tu and Kifonix Technology, LLC. The Court’s order affirmed an earlier judgement after a 5-jury trial in January 2023, that Benchmark's claims, including trade secret and unfair competition claims.

Benchmark, an international supplier of test reticles, photomasks, and related services for lithography systems, filed suit in February 2022, after its former senior applications engineer resigned to form a competing business and, among other misconduct, misappropriated five categories of trade secrets — valuable Benchmark intellectual property that gives the company a distinct competitive advantage in the market.

With quick action, Sunstein was able to swiftly shut down the defendants’ illegal activity on Benchmark’s behalf with a temporary restraining order and preliminary injunction, protecting vital portions of Benchmark’s business from irreparable harm.

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

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.

Ingenico Inc. v. IOENGINE, LLC

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.

Exergen Corporation vs. Kaz, USA, Inc.

Sunstein's litigation team won a $14.6 million dollar verdict for patent infringement following a two-week jury trial for client Exergen, the company famous for the temporal artery thermometer.

Sage Therapeutics, Inc. v. Sage Naturals, Inc.

On behalf of client Sage Therapeutics, Sunstein brought suit against a medical marijuana dispensary using the name Sage Naturals. Sage Therapeutics is committed to developing novel medicines to treat patients suffering from depression and other CNS disorders. Sage Naturals subsequently changed its name to Sira Naturals.

FairWarning IP, LLC v. Iatric, Inc.; FairWarning IP, LLC v. CynergisTek, Inc.

Sunstein successfully defended clients Iatric and CynergisTek in the District Court and Federal Circuit against claims of patent infringement relating to software for detecting fraud and misuse of protected health information. Sunstein's litigation group obtained judgments of patent invalidity under Section 101.

View Results by Practice Area

Litigation Practice Results

Unwavering advocacy for our client’s interests leads to success before, during and after trial.

Learn more

Patent Practice Results

The vast experience of our patent attorneys and our understanding of clients' business goals enable the creation of valuable and enforceable patent portfolios.

Learn more

Trademark Practice Results

Our trademark group’s efficient, focused and technically sound advice advances our client’s branding objectives.

Learn more

Business Practice Results

We advise clients on matters of corporate governance, tax, export controls, licensing, and securities law compliance.

Learn more

Visual divider

Subscribe to our Newsletter

Our monthly Insights sheds light on important IP events and decisions.

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: