Insite Vision Incorporated, et al. v. Sandoz, Inc., et al.
(District of New Jersey). Represented Sandoz in a two-week patent litigation trial related to an ophthalmic topical formulation of azithromycin. Morrison & Foerster assumed the defense of Sandoz just two months prior to trial, which was held in July 2013. A decision is pending.
Certain Wireless Consumer Electronics Devices and Components
(Northern District of California and the International Trade Commission, No. 337-TA-853). Served as lead counsel for the Kyocera Respondents in a two-week evidentiary hearing before the ITC in a patent infringement dispute recently filed by Technology Properties Limited, Phoenix Digital Solutions, and Patriot Scientific Corporation. A decision is pending.
Certain Electronic Imaging Devices
(District of Delaware and the International Trade Commission, No. 337-TA-850). Represented Huawei Technologies in a patent infringement dispute filed by FlashPoint Technology alleging that Huawei infringed on three patents relating to electronic imaging devices. A decision is pending.
Wyeth Holdings Corp, et al. v. Sandoz, Inc.
(District of Delaware). Represents Sandoz in patent litigation related to tigecycline, a glycylcycline antibiotic used for the treatment of, among other things, complicated skin infections. The case settled favorably at the pre-trial conference.
Sanofi Aventis v. Sandoz, Inc.
(District of Delaware). Represented Sandoz in patent litigation related to docetaxel, a chemotherapeutic agent used for the treatment of a variety of cancers. After a successful conclusion to the litigation, Sandoz launched its docetaxel product in the United States in August 2011.
St. Clair Intellectual Property Consultants v. Palm, Inc. and Kyocera Wireless Corporation
(District of Delaware). Represented Palm, Kyocera Wireless, and Kyocera Communications in this patent infringement case in the District of Delaware. We succeeded in convincing the district court to stay the case shortly before trial while the Federal Circuit decided an appeal from prior litigation involving the same patents. Following a favorable ruling on claim construction from the Federal Circuit, we moved for summary judgment of noninfringement. The court granted our clients’ motions in March 2012, resolving all claims in the case in our clients’ favor.
Dicam, Inc. v. Palm, Inc.
(Western District of Virginia). Argued and won a motion for summary judgment of noninfringement on behalf of our client, smartphone manufacturer Palm, as well as an order striking Palm from the case. Dicam claims to have invented the “camera phone” in 1986. The judge, however, agreed with Palm that Dicam’s patent is directed to a camera including a “personal security device” feature that can be used to capture an image and transmit the image, along with information identifying the device’s owner, to a remote location, with the push of a single button. Having agreed with Palm about the scope of the patent, the court then held that Palm devices do not infringe.
Broadcast Innovation v. Charter Communications, Inc. and EchoStar Communications, Inc.
(District of Colorado). Represented Charter Communications and EchoStar (DISH Network) in this patent infringement case in the District of Colorado. The Patent & Trademark Office ordered reexamination of the plaintiff’s “datacasting” patent, and the District Court granted Charter’s motion to stay the case less than three months prior to the start of trial. The Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences affirmed the examiner’s final rejection of all claims in light of the prior art, and the court dismissed the cases in February 2012. Previously, the court granted summary judgment of invalidity as to another patent (related to “conditional access”) asserted by the plaintiff.
Fractus, SA v. Kyocera Communications, Inc.
(Eastern District of Texas). Represented Kyocera against an assertion that Kyocera’s wireless devices infringed nine of Fractus’s patents claiming a multi-band internal antenna technology. The case settled favorably to Kyocera after jury selection but before opening statements. The settlement was influenced by our pre-trial motion strategy, which resulted in the court granting our Daubert motion to exclude major portions of Fractus’s damages case and our motion to clarify claim construction, causing Fractus to drop four of its patents from the case on the eve of trial.
Abbott Diabetes Care v. DexCom, Inc.
(District of Delaware). Represents DexCom in a patent infringement case pending in the District of Delaware. Seven months before DexCom’s continuous glucose monitoring device received FDA approval, Abbott filed a complaint asserting four patents. The court granted DexCom’s motion to dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction, finding that Abbott’s complaint was premature. With respect to any remaining claims, the court granted DexCom’s motion to stay the case pending reexamination of the asserted patents by the Patent and Trademark Office.
Flashpoint Technology, Inc. v. Kyocera Wireless Corporation
(District of Delaware). Represented Kyocera Wireless Corporation and Kyocera Communications in this patent infringement case in the District of Delaware. FlashPoint asserted 10 patents relating to digital camera user interfaces against more than 30 defendants in the digital camera and cellular telephone industries. After Kyocera requested reexamination of all 10 patents, Kyocera successfully moved the court for a stay pending conclusion of all reexams.
Intellect Wireless v. Kyocera Communications, Inc.
(Northern District of Illinois). Intellect Wireless brought suit against several major cellular telephone manufacturers and carriers, claiming infringement of a patent relating to a wireless communication device. Mr. Woodmansee presented Kyocera’s arguments during a two-day Markman hearing and the case settled favorably to our clients shortly after thathearing.
Nichols Institute Diagnostics, Inc. v. Scantibodies Clinical Laboratory, Inc.
(Southern District of California). Represented 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 U.S., sued Scantibodies based on its licensed rights to the ’790 patent. Following a two-week bench trial and three-week jury trial in the summer of 2005, the patent was invalidated on three grounds (best mode, enablement, and written description), and one of the Scantibodies products was found not to infringe. On appeal following the district court’s ruling on post-trial motions, the Federal Circuit held that the asserted patent is anticipated by prior art and therefore invalid.
In re Certain Set-Top Boxes and Components Thereof
(International Trade Commission, No. 337-TA-454). In what was called the biggest-ever patent case in the International Trade Commission, the firm successfully defended EchoStar. Gemstar-TV Guide International claimed that EchoStar, Scientific-Atlanta, and Pioneer imported set-top boxes that infringed four U.S. patents. Following a three-week trial, the Administrative Law Judge found all patents noninfringing, and one patent invalid and unenforceable. The full Commission adopted the ALJ’s findings.
Inverness Medical Switzerland and Unipath Diagnostics v. Acon Laboratories
(District of Massachusetts). Represented Acon in two patent suits brought by Inverness alleging that Acon’s test kits infringe a total of nine patents. Following Acon’s successful efforts to avoid an injunction, the case settled favorably, with Inverness agreeing to purchase Acon.
Caliper Technologies Corp. v. Aclara Biosciences, Inc.
(Northern District of California). Counsel to Aclara, a manufacturer of microfluidic devices, in patent litigation filed in the Northern District of California. The matter was settled prior to trial following a favorable claim construction ruling for our client.
Electro Scientific Industries, Inc. v. Dynamic Details, Inc., et al.
(Central District of California). Represented ESI, a Portland-based manufacturer of laser systems for the semiconductor industry, which sued defendants for patent infringement in the Central District of California. A favorable settlement was reached following a decision in favor of ESI at the Federal Circuit.