Nichols Institute Diagnostics, Inc. v. Scantibodies Clinical Laboratory, Inc.
(Southern District of California). Defended Scantibodies, a San Diego-based manufacturer of diagnostic parathyroid hormone assays, through trial in a patent infringement action brought by Nichols Institute Diagnostics. Following a two-week bench trial and three-week jury trial, 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 Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit held that the asserted patent is anticipated by prior art and therefore invalid. (2005)
Dicam, Inc. v. Palm, Inc.
(Western District of Virginia). Won a motion for summary judgment of noninfringement on behalf of our client, smartphone manufacturer Palm, Inc., 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. (2010)
Abbott Diabetes Care v. DexCom, Inc.
Won a motion to dismiss the complaint due to prematurity, and a motion to stay the case due to pending PTO reexaminations, on behalf of DexCom, Inc., a San Diego developer and manufacturer of a device for the continuous monitoring of glucose in people with diabetes, in a patent infringement case involving glucose monitoring patents. Seven months before DexCom's continuous glucose monitoring device received FDA approval, Abbott sued DexCom, and the DexCom litigation team convinced the court that it lacked jurisdiction to hear the dispute when filed. The DexCom patent prosecution team filed requests for reexamination of each asserted patent, all of which were granted. The DexCom litigation team then persuaded the court to stay the case pending reexamination and later convinced the court to strike an amended complaint adding more patents.