Mr. Doyle’s practice focuses on patent litigation and patent licensing disputes for pharmaceutical, biotechnology, telecommunication, and other technology companies. In 2006 and 2007, he was ranked as one of the top ten Intellectual Property Lawyers in the United States by U.S. Lawyer Rankings. He was selected as a top IP lawyer in the United States by Chambers USA 2007; selected for the third year in a row as a top attorney by his peers in The Best Lawyers in America 2009® in the field of intellectual property law; and recognized as one of Southern California’s leading intellectual property attorneys by The San Diego Daily Transcript and the Los Angeles Times in 2005, 2006 and 2007. He practices on a nationwide basis, currently serving as lead trial counsel in patent cases pending in New York, Texas, Maryland, Delaware, Colorado, San Francisco, and San Diego. Mr. Doyle regularly serves as lead appellate counsel in cases before the Federal Circuit.

Mr. Doyle has substantial jury trial experience in patent cases, including six week, five week, four week, three week and two week jury trials in the last five years. His experience includes the following significant recent and pending matters:

• Applera Corporation v. Illumina - Mr. Doyle represents Applera in this just filed patent declaratory relief case involving three DNA sequencing patents. The case is pending in the Northern District of California.
• Digene v. Gen-Probe - Mr. Doyle represented Gen-Probe in this patent arbitration matter involving HPV patents and issues of patent exhaustion. He obtained the order allowing Gen Probe to intervene in the arbitration pending in New York.
• Abbott Laboratories v. Syntron Bioresearch - Successful representation of Syntron Bioresearch in a patent suit brought by Abbott Laboratories alleging that Syntron’s test kits infringe Abbott’s ‘484 and ‘162 lateral flow immunoassay patents. After a three-week trial, the jury returned a verdict of non-infringement on both patents asserted by Abbott. On appeal, the Federal Circuit affirmed all issues, except the construction of a single claim term. Following appeal, the case was settled on the terms Syntron had originally proposed.
• Abbott Laboratories v. DexCom, Inc. - Mr. Doyle represents DexCom in a patent infringement case filed in the District Court for Delaware involving glucose monitoring patents. DexCom brought a motion to dismiss the complaint due to prematurity, and a motion to stay the case due to pending PTO reexaminations, both of which were granted.
• Nichols Institute Diagnostics v. Scantibodies Clinical Laboratory, Inc. - Mr. Doyle represents Scantibodies in this patent suit brought by Nichols in the Southern District of California, involving immunoassays to detect levels of parathyroid hormone (PTH) in human blood. Nichols, the largest producer of PTH test kits in the United States, sued Scantibodies based on its licensed rights to the ‘790 patent. He prevailed in a three week jury trial which resulted in a jury verdict invalidating the patent on best mode, enablement and written description grounds. The Federal Circuit in August 2006 ordered that judgment be entered in favor of Scantibodies.
• Inverness Medical Switzerland and Unipath Diagnostics v. Acon Laboratories - Mr. Doyle represented Acon in two patent suits brought by Inverness alleging that Acon’s test kits infringe a total of nine patents. Inverness won a preliminary injunction prohibiting Pfizer from selling its e.p.t product (the market leader). Inverness filed a similar motion against Acon, asserting the same patent it had used against Pfizer, but Inverness was unsuccessful in its two year effort to obtain a preliminary injunction against Acon. The case was recently settled on terms favorable to Acon Laboratories.
• Maxwell Technologies, Inc. v. Nesscap, Inc., et al. - Mr. Doyle was recently retained by Maxwell to enforce its ultracapacitor patent portfolio against Nesscap, a Korean competitor using Maxwell’s patented technology to compete unfairly with Maxwell. The complaint was filed in October 2006, along with a motion for preliminary injunction. Ness responded by challenging service and personal jurisdiction. On April 11, 2007, the preliminary injunction motion was granted.
• St. Clair Intellectual Property Consultants, Inc. v. Kyocera Wireless Corporation - Mr. Doyle represents Kyocera Wireless (“KWC”) as lead trial counsel in a patent infringement action brought by St. Clair in the Delaware District Court. The case is presently stayed, awaiting the outcome of related state court proceedings involving ownership of the asserted patents. The case involves camera phone technology.
• Stratagene v. Invitrogen Corporation - Mr. Doyle represents Invitrogen Corporation in a patent infringement case pending in the District of Maryland involving polymerase blends for enhanced polymerase chain reaction (PCR). We successfully petitioned the Patent and Trademark Office to reexamine the asserted patent based on new prior art. We have also raised issues of priority and inventorship that have driven settlement discussions, which are pending.
• General Atomics (Diazyme division) v. Axis-Shield - Mr. Doyle represents the Diazyme division of General Atomics in a declaratory relief patent case against Axis-Shield. The patents in the case involve homocysteine assay technology. Axis-Shield had threatened to sue Diazyme, claiming that Diazyme’s new homocysteine assay technology is covered by Axis-Shield’s homocysteine’s assay patents covering older technology. To clear the negative market effect of this accusation of infringement, Diazyme brought a declaratory relief action in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California. Diazyme’s motion for summary judgment was granted on April 11, 2007.
• Agen Biomedical Limited v. Synbiotics Corporation - Agen is an Australian company which manufactures canine heartworm detection kits. In response to Synbiotics’ threats that Agen’s kits would infringe United States Patent No. 4,789,631, Mr. Doyle filed suit in the U.S. District Court, Northern District of California (San Francisco) seeking declaratory judgment that no claims of the patent are infringed by Agen’s canine heartworm detection kits and that the asserted claim of the patent is invalid. Mr. Doyle represented Agen in defeating Synbiotics’ application for a temporary restraining order and preliminary injunction, after which Synbiotics settled.
• ACLARA BioSciences, Inc. v. Caliper Technologies Corporation - The firm represented ACLARA in the Northern District of California in multiple actions to protect ACLARA’s rights related to microfluidic devices for genetic analysis, drug screening, and clinical diagnostics. A global settlement came on the eve of trial in ACLARA’s suit against Caliper for infringing ACLARA’s patent, and after a jury trial in a related trade secrets case. Mr. Doyle was lead counsel in one of the three patent cases. He obtained a favorable claim construction in that case, which was a facilitating factor in the settlement.
• Composite Rotor v. Beckman Coulter, Inc. - Mr. Doyle represented Beckman Coulter in defense of a patent infringement action filed by Composite Rotor in the Northern District of California regarding a medical centrifuge patent. He obtained a summary judgment of non-infringement which was affirmed by the Federal Circuit in 2003.
• QMed, Inc. v. Lifemasters Supported Selfcare, Inc. - Mr. Doyle represented Lifemasters Supported Selfcare, Inc. in a patent infringement action in the District of New Jersey. The asserted patent involved a disease management system for remotely monitoring the symptoms of patients and developing a comprehensive management and prognosis report to assist treatment. After we developed a strategy based on the prior licensing relationship between the parties, a settlement was reached.
• Atmel Corp. v. Macronix America, Inc. - Mr. Doyle represented Macronix America, Inc. in a patent infringement case pending in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California involving a semiconductor process and circuit patents. He obtained summary judgment of invalidity of all but one of the asserted claims of the process patent due to the on-sale bar. He also won a four day evidentiary hearing on inventorship, resulting in a summary judgment of invalidity under 35 U.S.C. 102(f), nonjoinder of inventor. Atmel then settled on terms proposed by Macronix.
• Broadcast Innovation v. EchoStar Communications Corp. - Mr. Doyle represents EchoStar in a patent infringement case filed in the District Court for Colorado with respect to data broadcasting and conditional access patents. He won a summary judgment of invalidity of the conditional access patent.
• Broadcast Innovation v. Charter Communications, Inc. - Mr. Doyle represents Charter in a patent infringement case involving the same patent as the above Echostar case, on which he won a summary judgment ruling that was reversed by the Federal Circuit. Mr. Doyle then filed a reexamination petition with the PTO and a motion to stay the case with the District Court. Both the reexamination petition and the motion to stay have been granted.
• EchoStar Litigation - In what has been called the biggest-ever patent case in the International Trade Commission, the firm successfully represented EchoStar. Gemstar-TV Guide International claimed that EchoStar, Scientific-Atlanta, Inc., and Pioneer imported set-top boxes that infringed four United States patents. Echostar won on multiple grounds, including non-infringement, no domestic industry, and as to the main patent, patent misuse and invalidity for failure to join a co-inventor. Mr. Doyle played a lead role in preparation of the defense on one of the patents.

Mr. Doyle’s experience also includes the following significant resolved matters in which he served as lead trial counsel:

• Hybritech v. Syncor (USDC Central Dist. BC123448)) (Obtained summary judgment)
• Hybritech v. Dade (USDC So. Dist. 96-1621 J (POR)) (Obtained partial summary judgment defeating primary claim for $20 million dollars and obtained $7.5 million dollar settlement in favor of our client)
• Bioanalysis v. Ciba Corning (USDC So. Dist. 96-552 E CGA) ($20 million dollar settlement obtained for our client)
• Computing Technology Industry Association, Inc. v. New Vision Technologies (USDC So. Dist. 99-1147 BTM (POR)) (Preliminary injunction granted resulting in favorable settlement with permanent injunction)
• X-Concepts v. Somerville (USDC So. Dist. 99-0614 BTM (AJB)) (Preliminary injunction motion granted resulting in favorable settlement)
• WebSideStory v. WebTrends (USDC So. Dist. 99-2498) (Internet copyright infringement case; obtained TRO which shut down competing website leading to favorable settlement)

Other important cases in which Mr. Doyle served as co-counsel include:

• SIBIA Neurosciences, Inc. v. Cadus Pharmaceutical Corporation (USDC So. Dist. 96-1231 IEG (POR)) (Judgment of patent invalidity in favor of our client, Cadus)
• Hybritech v. Abbott Laboratories (USDC So. Dist. C-90-1635D) (Patent case successfully settled after favorable rulings were obtained as part of a motion for summary judgment/ adjudication)
• Syva v. Hybritech (USDC So. Dist. 88-1248) (Patent case settled successfully pursuant to a cross-license agreement)
• Adelberg Laboratories v. IVAC (USDC So. Dist. 88-1447 S (IEG)) (Directed Judgment entered in favor of our client IVAC, in patent case)
• Abbott Laboratories v. Pacific Biotech (USDC So. Dist. 90-0542 GT (CM)) (Patent case successfully settled by narrowing the lawsuit through a motion for summary adjudication and then negotiating a cross-license agreement)
• Directed Electronics, Inc. (“DEI”) v. Code Alarm (USDC So. Dist. 95-0513 BTM (CGA)) (Jury verdict following five week trial of invalidity and non-infringement in favor of our client)
• Scholle v. Blackhawk (USDC Central Dist. of California SAVC 96-174 GLT) (Summary Judgment obtained on behalf of our client). Case affirmed by Federal Circuit: Scholle Corp. v. Blackhawk Molding Co., 133 F.3d 1469 (1998).

Mr. Doyle received his law degree from the University of California at Los Angeles (J.D., 1976) where he was a member of the U.C.L.A. Law Review from 1974-1976 and Order of the Coif. He received his undergraduate degree from the University of California at San Diego (B.A., magna cum laude, 1973). Mr. Doyle was admitted to the California bar in 1976 and the United States Supreme Court bar in 1980. From 1976-78, he served as law clerk to Hon. Gordon Thompson, Jr., United States District Court, Southern District of California. Mr. Doyle is a member of the San Diego County, California State, and Federal Circuit Bar Associations.

Mr. Doyle is active in the San Diego legal and business communities. He was appointed by San Diego’s Mayor to the Task Force on Efficiency and Effectiveness in Government, “Change2”. He has served on the Executive Committee of the UCSD Alumni Association and the Executive Committee of CONNECT, a UCSD organization serving the “high-tech” business community.