Results > Patent Practice
Our patent practice group features dedicated and experienced patent practitioners who prosecute applications in a wide variety of technical areas to help our U.S. and international clients create valuable patent portfolios with an eye toward advancing their business objectives.
Patent Practice Results
Arendi S.A.R.L. v. Apple Inc., Google Inc., Motorola Mobility LLC
(Federal Circuit 15-2073, appeal of IPR2014-00208.)
Sunstein scored a victory on behalf of its client Arendi by obtaining a reversal of a PTAB decision that had invalidated Arendi’s patent. The court warned against using so-called common sense as a wholesale substitute for reasoned analysis to show how prior art combined with extraneous knowledge or insight might invalidate a patent claim. The Federal Circuit reversed the PTAB’s finding of unpatentability outright rather than remand the case for further consideration because it found no evidence in the record to suggest that Arendi’s technique was obvious.
Analog Devices, Inc.
(IPR2013-00108)
We filed a petition for inter partes review against U.S. Patent No. 7,439,616. Earlier, we had filed inter partes reexaminations in rapid response to a district court action for patent infringement. We followed up with several more reexaminations. Worldwide litigation involving these and other patents was settled a couple months after the inter partes review was filed. The inter partes review was terminated upon submission of the settlement agreement.
Kotowski et al. v. Mastronardi et al. (Patent Interference No. 105,890)
United States Patent and Trademark Office, Patent Trial and Appeal Board
We obtained a win for our client American Science and Engineering in an interference proceeding against its competitor Rapiscan Systems. Interference proceedings are instituted before the Patent Trials and Appeals Board to establish priority of inventorship, because, for US patent applications filed prior to March 16, 2013, rights are awarded to the first inventor, irrespective of who first filed a patent application. For more recent applications, early filing is of increased importance. AS&E’s invention concerns backscatter x-ray technology.
Patent Award
Ariad Pharmaceuticals, Inc., Massachusetts Institute of Technology, The Whitehead Institute for Biomedical Research, and The President and Fellows of Harvard College v. Eli Lilly and Co.
United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, United States District Court, District of Massachusetts
Sunstein worked with a New York firm to obtain a $65 million patent infringement verdict for Ariad Pharmaceuticals, Inc., against Eli Lilly and Company in 2006. This jury verdict was the largest in the state of Massachusetts in 2006. The legal team presented weeks of complex evidence on various aspects of patent law, including infringement, inducement and validity. The jury learned about Ariad’s pioneering research and discovery of methods of treating disease by regulating NF-kappaB cell signaling activity. Witnesses included experts in molecular biology and two Nobel prize winning scientists. After the successful jury trial, Sunstein then continued its collaboration in this matter by participating in a bench trial on inequitable conduct, in which Ariad again prevailed. In a milestone ruling on the Patent Act’s written description requirement, the Federal Circuit found the patents in suit invalid and reversed the jury verdict.
$65 million patent infringement verdict
Abbott Laboratories v. Syntron Bioresearch, Inc.
United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, United States District Court, Southern District of California
Sunstein represented Abbott Laboratories in patent infringement litigation concerning immunoassay technology against Syntron Bioresearch, Inc. in the United States District Court for the Southern District of California. After a four week jury trial and an appeal to the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (see 334 F.3d 1342 (Fed.Cir. 2003)), we prevailed on our claim of patent infringement and secured a permanent injunction from the trial court against further infringement. The case then settled during the damages phase.
Video Game inter partes reexaminations
(No. 95/000,408, No. 95/000409 and No. 95/000,410)
In addition to filing ex parte reexamination requests for some older related patents, inter partes reexaminations were instituted against three patents of interest.
HP Hood LLC v. Stremicks Heritage Foods LLC,
United States District Court for the Southern District of California
Sunstein represented HP Hood LLC in design patent litigation concerning Hood’s patented bottle designs. Through focused third-party discovery, we were able to secure meaningful admissions that contributed directly to our ability to secure a favorable settlement for our client.
McGuire et al. v. Schmieding
Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences, Washington, DC
Sunstein successfully represented two medical doctors who asserted that they were the first to invent the claimed technology, which is used in anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) surgery. During the proceeding, which went to a final hearing, the issues of priority and patentability were raised. Our adversary initially argued that it had invented the claimed invention first, but then argued that the technology was unpatentable to both parties. We successfully prevented our adversary’s introduction of both our opponent’s reissue application and our clients’ continuation patent into the interference proceeding. We also obtained a dismissal of our adversary’s motion on the issue of patentability and won a final decision awarding priority of invention to our clients. In addition, our adversary’s reissue application was rejected by the USPTO, while we obtained an allowance of our clients’ application that had been involved in the interference.
Using Smart Phones to Improve Patient Outcomes
Wellframe’s patent relates to providing patients who have a treatment regimen use an app on their mobile phones to track and follow the regimen, and the app causes daily updating of care provider systems to show the extent of compliance and dynamic ranking of each patient according to degree of compliance, so that problems of patients in need can be addressed dynamically as well. With this systematic approach to patient care delivery, Wellframe has flourished, while improving patient outcomes, for a large number of different regimens.
Contact Sunstein
We are ready to speak with you about your legal service needs. For full biographies and contact information please see our Attorneys pages.
We use cookies to improve your site experience, distinguish you from other users and support the marketing of our services. These cookies may store your personal information. By continuing to use our website, you agree to the storing of cookies on your device. For more information, please visit our Privacy Notice.