Patents. Juries. Success.
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.
Abbott Laboratories v Syntron Bioresearch, Inc.
In a case involving immunoassay technology, we obtained a jury verdict of patent infringement and a permanent injunction on behalf of Abbott Laboratories.
Our successful advocacy extends to patent reexaminations and interferences.
Winning at Post Grant Proceedings
Apple Inc., Google Inc., Motorola Mobility LLC v. Arendi S.A.R.L.
We won a rare Federal Circuit Court of Appeals reversal of an IPR decision of the Patent Trial and Appeal Board, which had invalidated our client’s patent claims. The Federal Circuit accepted our argument that the Board had improperly relied on a “common sense” observation to invalidate Arendi’s patent.
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
Best Lawyers in America ranks SUNSTEIN a 2018 “Tier 1” Boston Intellectual Property Litigation law firm.
Congratulations to our client Draper Laboratory for multiple awards for patents at the BPLA’s “Invented Here!” program. We are proud that Sunstein attorney George Jakobsche prosecuted the patents for Draper. More. . .
Sunstein successfully represented long-time client ’47 before USPTO’s TTAB preventing adversary’s registration of a 47 in a circle. Read more here.
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. . .
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 Latest Thinking
PTAB Alert: When the Federal Circuit remands your case back to the PTAB, be prepared to move quickly and smartly.
PTAB Alert: On rare occasions, the Patent Trial and Appeal Board will reconsider its decision declining to institute an inter partes review (IPR). It helps if you can show that the judges misapplied a relevant legal doctrine.
Through artful interpretation of the Supreme Court’s rigid guidelines in Alice (2014) for determining patent-eligibility, the Federal Circuit has recently offered patent protection to once seemingly endangered inventions.
Amending a patent claim in the midst of an inter partes review (IPR) is still hard for a patent owner, but the Federal Circuit has just made it a bit easier.
Get your IPR arguments right the first time: The patent office sees objectionable unfairness in second-bite challenges to a patent’s validity.
Federal Circuit warns: If the patent office sees reason to reject patent claims for obviousness, it had better articulate that reason better than it has been accustomed to.
The Eastern District of Texas has embraced its longtime status as a patent owner’s favorite trial court. The Federal Circuit has now cautioned that court to take seriously last summer’s Supreme Court decision restricting where corporations can be sued.
An arbitration clause in a patent license cannot be avoided even when the licensee calls the patent’s validity into question.