• Blood Centrifugation

    Sunstein prosecuted blood centrifugation patents for Haemonetics Corporation, a leader in the field of blood processing. The patented technologies allow blood components to be collected and processed for life-saving transfusions.

  • Purification

    Innovations by DEKA Research increase the efficiency of water purification systems, while reducing power and maintenance requirements. International patent applications like the one Sunstein prepared for DEKA can lead to worldwide adoption of a useful technology – one that can supply the developing world with access to safe water.

  • Shaft/hub

    Custom Machine & Tool Co. invented a novel shaft/hub connection device for precise component positioning and tight run-out control in demanding torque transmission applications such as timing-belt pulleys. Rigorous engineering analyses, as shown, demonstrate the benefits of CMT’s invention compared to other connection systems. The patent Sunstein obtained bolsters CMT’s position in a crowded marketplace.

  • Intravascular Stent

    Sunstein prosecuted a patent for a new stent that retains high radial strength but is more flexible and easier to insert into a patient’s coronary artery. The Crown™ stent is the product of our client DEKA’s collaboration with Cordis Corp., a Johnson & Johnson company, to improve the design of the Palmaz-Schatz® stent, the first intravascular stent proven to reduce blockage in arteries.

Winning at IPRs

Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. v. Arendi S.A.R.L.

Samsung attacked our client’s patent in the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) on grounds of obviousness. We persuaded the PTAB that an element of the claims was not disclosed by the cited references and thus prevented the inter partes review from even being instituted.

Motorola Mobility LLC, Google Inc., and Apple Inc. v. Arendi S.A.R.L.

Motorola, Google and Apple attacked the same patent as Samsung raising several additional grounds. Our arguments carried the day and the inter partes review was not instituted, freeing our client’s patent for unfettered assertion in court.

Apple Inc., Google Inc. and Motorola Mobility LLC v. Arendi S.A.R.L.

In three petitions, attacks were launched against two additional patents on approximately fourteen different grounds and six primary references. Our Preliminary Response arguments eliminated ten grounds and three of the references. The inter partes reviews will go forward only on those that remain.

Spotlight on Patents

diagram1For our client Dr. Leslie Stern of Fall River, Massachusetts, we recently obtained US Patent No. 8,460,310, describing a medical device for use in minimally invasive spine surgery.

In the News

Our Latest Thinking

  • With its decision in Alice Corp., the Supreme Court persists with its ever-narrowing definition of patent-eligible subject matter. The lack of effective guidance on eligibility threatens to harm the patent system. More...
  • The Supreme Court protects TV broadcasters from Aereo’s attempted end-run around the copyright laws. Despite supplying individual antennae to its customers, Aereo is found to have made impermissible “public performance” of protected content. More...
  • The Supreme Court restores an old rule: Liability for inducing infringement of a patented method cannot be imposed unless a single actor performs all steps of the method. More...
  • The bar has been lowered for invalidating a patent on the basis of indefiniteness. The Supreme Court says a challenger must show only that the scope of the invention is not defined with “reasonable certainty.” More...
  • The FTC targets exclusive licenses in the pharmaceutical industry for antitrust scrutiny. A federal court upholds the agency’s power to do so. More...

Free Subscription

See more in Publications/News