Deep Patent & Trial Experience
Ariad Pharmaceuticals, Inc. v. Eli Lilly and Co.
We participated in the representation of Ariad, obtaining a $65 million jury verdict for infringement of our client’s patents for regulating NF-kappaB cell-signaling activity, the largest verdict in Massachusetts that year.
Exergen Corporation vs. Kaz, USA, Inc.
Sunstein lawyers won a $14.6M verdict for patent infringement following a two-week jury trial for our client Exergen, the people who pioneered the temporal artery thermometer.
FairWarning IP, LLC v. Iatric, Inc.; FairWarning IP, LLC v. CynergisTek, Inc.
In both the District Court and at the Federal Circuit Court of Appeals, Sunstein successfully defended clients Iatric and CynergisTek against claims of patent infringement relating to software for detecting fraud and misuse of protected health information, obtaining judgments of patent invalidity under Section 101.
In disputes over brand names, we have also delivered major successes to our clients.
Winning at Post Grant Proceedings
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.
Spotlight on Patents
A recent patent we obtained for our client Nexsan, of Santa Clara, CA, U.S. Patent No. 9218406 covers a private cloud storage system in which security is maintained by storing the data on devices (sold under the Transporter brand) of individual users. Data is shared on a peer-to-peer basis. A central server governs access based on user privileges without storing any of the shared data. This patent has issued in one of the fields in which recent court rulings have been propelling rapid evolution of the law.
In the News
Congratulations to our client, the Broad Institute, on its Patent Trial and Appeal Board victory involving its patents for CRISPR gene-editing technology! We are pleased to have played a role in this victory. More. . .
Bruce Sunstein, David Kappos (former Director of USPTO) and Robert Armitage (principal architect of the America Invents Act) lead a conference on RESTORING THE PATENT SYSTEM: Countering Supreme Court Attacks on What Can Be Patented. Audio & Slides
Sunstein wins $14.6M in patent infringement jury trial for Exergen Corporation. More. . .
CBS features Rocket Pocket’s technology; patent pending by SUNSTEIN. More. . .
Lisa Tittemore, Kathy Williams, Ph.D., Elizabeth Spar, Ph.D., Dorothy Wu Chiang, Amy DeCloux, Ph.D., and Sharona Sternberg were named to the list of “Top Women Attorneys in Massachusetts” in Boston magazine.
Our firm was cited as a key partner of our client Draper Laboratory by General Counsel Melinda Brown in Forefront Magazine. More. . .
Our Latest Thinking
Patentees have long had their choice of courts in which to file infringement lawsuits, often seeking advantage in the Eastern District of Texas. The Supreme Court has now drastically curtailed where an allegedly infringing corporation can be sued.
The patent office had taken a sweeping view of which business-method patents in the financial industry were subject to validity challenges under the America Invents Act. This expansiveness oversteps legal bounds, declares the Federal Circuit.
A license negotiated to settle a patent infringement lawsuit can be used to quantify “reasonable royalty” damages in a later patent suit. The Federal Circuit provides guidelines.
Patentees with global aspirations should file in China given the country’s economic might and its enhanced protections for intellectual property.
The on-sale bar continues to be a strict obstacle to the patentability of inventions that have experienced certain commercial activity, despite some seemingly softer language in the America Invents Act.
Cybersecurity is of deep concern to state law enforcement, as illustrated by a consent judgment that imposes strict measures on Target Corp. to improve customer-data protection.
Once a patent owner sells a patented product anywhere in the world, it can no longer exert patent rights to control the use or resale of that product, the Supreme Court says.