• Segway® HT

    The core technology for self-balancing personal transporters, such as the famous Segway® HT Human Transporter, is protected by a portfolio of patents secured by Sunstein. Patented features make the Segway® HT intuitive to ride, control and steer.

  • Electric Motors

    Sunstein won, and defended on an appeal, a $25 million judgement for our client Comair Rotron, including a rare award of treble damages and attorney’s fees, based on the willfulness of the defendant’s infringement of a patent for technology that improves the operation and lowers the cost of manufacturing electric motors.

  • Pregnancy Test

    In federal court in San Diego, Sunstein won a judgement of validity and infringement of Abbott Laboratories’ patent for strip immunoassay technology technology used in pregnancy test kits.

  • Stirling Engine

    Stirling engines use externally applied heat to deliver clean, quiet power for a variety of applications. We have secured a portfolio of patents for New Power Concepts LLC that relate to mechanical components of Stirling cycle heat engines. One patent relates to the engine’s operating efficiency and durability, while significantly reducing size, complexity and cost.

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.

Click here to learn more about Sunstein litigators.

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

  • SUNSTEIN has been named a Tier 1 firm in Boston for Litigation – Intellectual Property by U.S. News – Best Lawyers® “Best Law Firms” in 2018.

  • Steve Abreu named Co-chair of the Trademark Group, joining Co-chair Lisa Tittemore. More. . .

  • 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

  • Robert Asher wins Federal Circuit decision that issued a rare reversal of a PTAB patent invalidity decision and limited the discretion of the PTAB. More. . .

  • Sunstein wins $14.6M in patent infringement jury trial for Exergen Corporation. More. . .

  • Bruce SunsteinKerry TimbersLisa TittemoreLawrence Green named to Best Lawyers in America©, 2018 list. 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

  • Lisa M. TittemoreBrandon Scruggs

    Our firm is represented on the committee drafting new rules to streamline patent litigation in the District of Massachusetts. A key goal is to make that court a more appealing venue for patent owners seeking to enforce their rights. More...

  • Bruce D. Sunstein

    Recent Federal Circuit decisions dispel the gloom that owners of software inventions felt after the Supreme Court’s decision in Alice (2014). Increasingly, software patents are surviving the requisite eligibility analysis. More...

  • Thomas C. Carey

    Congressional tax legislation directly affects the eligibility of patents for favorable treatment as capital assets. More...

  • Joel R. Leeman

    Take proceedings before the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board seriously. You might be precluded from relitigating in court any issues decided by that tribunal. More...

  • Robert M. Asher

    PTAB Alert: Disclaiming your vulnerable patent claims can potentially protect your core claims against validity challenges in the PTAB. More...

  • Robert M. Asher

    PTAB Alert: When the Federal Circuit remands your case back to the PTAB, be prepared to move quickly and smartly. More...

  • Christopher Lacenere, Ph.D.

    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. More...

Free Subscription

See more in Publications/News