Juries. Patents. Success.
Comair Rotron, Inc. v Matsushita Electric Corp. of America
We obtained a $25 million judgment against industry giant Panasonic for willful infringement of our client Comair’s patents on fans for electronic equipment.
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.
Gates Formed-Fibre Products, Inc. v. Delaware Valley Corp.
By persuading a jury that the patents in suit were invalid, we successfully defended our client against accusations of infringement concerning a process for making fused-back automotive carpeting.
Winning at Post Grant Proceedings
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.
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 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 firm was cited as a key partner of our client Draper Laboratory by General Counsel Melinda Brown in Forefront Magazine. More. . .
Our patent client Conformis ranked #1 by IEEE for patent portfolio. 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.