Home » Our Services » IP & Complex Litigation » Patent Infringement
Investment in the development of a portfolio of patents can play a critical role in the trajectory of new and established businesses.
If competitors are allowed to run roughshod through the patent fences built by your investment of significant time, effort, and money, your market position and the investment in developing a new technology will lose its value. Or if competitors are allowed to intimidate you or your customers by wielding costly patent litigation, your ability to compete effectively will be wounded severely hampered, or perhaps even stopped. In either case, you need the expertise of a skilled team to guide your company through the intricacies of patent litigation.
W|N’s litigation attorneys have experience in a wide variety of technologies, including:
- Dental compositions and appliances
- Medical devices such as vascular stents, grafts, suction collection systems and valves
- GPS tracking systems
- Satellite transmission
- Polymer science
- Thin film optics
- Network hardware and software
- Radar
- High speed data transmission
- Electromechanical and electro-optical telecommunication connectors
- Data backup and storage
- Blow-molded plastics and extrusion technologies
- Biodegradable plastics
- Agglomerations technologies
- Seismic stabilization
- Wastewater treatment
- Exercise equipment
- Nutraceutical compositions
- Nano-catalysts
We understand the economic and competitive forces facing our clients, and the daunting cost of patent litigation often gives rise to significant budgetary concerns. Some patent cases are bet-the-company cases, and warrant a pull-out-all-the-stops approach, while other cases are better suited to a more measured approach.
We manage the cost of patent litigation by meeting with our clients early and often, mapping out the available options and discussing the cost of those options. We combine this proactive approach to cost management with work product that is second to none, and hourly rates that are a fraction of the rates of large firms throughout the country. We work with our clients to assess the quantum of risk and the approach best suited to address that risk.
W|N’s litigation group has a simple philosophy: thorough preparation, painstaking attention to detail and precise execution are the keys to success. This philosophy has allowed us to successfully prosecute and defend patent cases in courts from Maine to California. The patent cases we litigate frequently pit our lawyers against the biggest law firms and brightest lawyers in the country and we prevail. Here is a list of representative cases:
The Nautilus Group, Inc. v. Icon Health and Fitness, Inc., Case No. C-02-2420-RSM (D. Wash.)
W|N defeated a patent owner’s motion for preliminary injunction for alleged infringement of a patent related to an exercise device. After an appeal and remand overturning denial of the preliminary injunction, W|N obtained summary judgment of noninfringement of the patents-in-suit. As a result, W|N’s client defeated a $140 million dollar claim for patent infringement. The summary judgment order was later summarily affirmed by the Federal Circuit Court of Appeals.
Ultradent Products, Inc. v. The Procter & Gamble Co., Case No. 2:07-cv-00107-TS-PMW (D. Utah)
W|N successfully prosecuted a patent infringement action against Procter & Gamble for sales of its White Strips® product, one of the best selling dental bleaching products in the U.S., resulting in a favorable licensing payment to W|N’s client under its patents.
Ultradent Products, Inc. v. Robert G. Hayman, et al. Case No.: 00-13402 MRP (CTx) (C.D. Cal)
W|N successfully prosecuted infringement claims against Discus Dental, a major marketer of dental bleaching compositions, methods of use, and trays for use in bleaching. W|N defeated six defense motions for summary judgment, and persuaded the trial court to reverse its Markman ruling. The result was a final judgment of validity, enforceability and infringement of W|N’s client’s patent portfolio, and settlement in favor of the client and patent owner.
Finisar Corp. v. DIRECTV Group, Case No. 1:05-CV-264 (E.D.Tex.)
W|N litigated patent infringement claims related to satellite TV transmissions, with the result that its client was awarded a jury verdict of $78 million, to which the trial court added an award of enhanced damages of $25 million. At the time, the Finisar verdict was one of the largest verdicts on record in the U.S. The verdict was ultimately overturned on appeal and summary judgment of invalidity was entered on remand based on newly discovered prior art.
Icon Health and Fitness, Inc. v. The Nautilus Group, Inc., Case No. 1-02-CV-109TC (D. Utah)
W|N filed an action asserting a claim of false patent marking against a competitor its client. W|N obtained for its client an award of $325,000, which at the time was the largest reported award in the U.S. for a claim of false patent marking.
Vita-Mix Corporation v. Back to Basics Products, Inc., Case No. 1:06-CV-02622 PAG (N.D. Ohio)
W|N’s client was sued for infringement of a patent on a method for preventing the formation of an air pocket around the moving blades of a consumer food blender. W|N obtained a summary judgment of non-infringement. On appeal, the Federal Circuit affirmed the grant of summary judgment that there was no infringement and reinstated all invalidity defenses against the patent owner, thereby eliminating the only basis on which the plaintiff had asserted damages. The case settled favorably to W|N’s client.
Probert v. The Clorox Company, Case No. 1:07-CV-139 (D. Utah)
The plaintiff sued W|N’s client, Clorox, for patent infringement. W|N obtained summary judgment for Clorox, which was summarily affirmed by the Federal Circuit on appeal.
Lifetime Products, Inc. v. GSC Technology Corporation Case No. 1:03-CV-62TC (D.Utah)
W|N sued the competitor of its client for design patent infringement related to blow-molded tables. W|N obtained a preliminary injunction on all three of the patents in suit. The defendant made minor modifications to its products, and W|N obtained a second preliminary injunction. Ultimately, both preliminary injunctions were converted to permanent injunctions as part of the final judgment in the case, upholding the client’s patents.
Biotec Biologische Naturverpackungen GmbH & Co. KG v. Biocorp, Inc., 249 F.3d 1341 (Fed. Cir. 2001)
W|N tried a patent infringement action related to starch-based thermoplastic products and methods of producing them, obtaining a verdict upholding the client’s patents and granting a permanent injunction against the client’s competitor which precluded further infringing activity. The judgment was affirmed on appeal.
International Nutrition Company v. Horphag Research, Ltd. et al., 257 F.3d 1324 (Fed. Cir. 2001)
W|N’s client was sued on patent covering free-radical scavenging nutraceuticals. W|N obtained summary judgment in favor of its client and judgment was affirmed on appeal.
3Com Corp. v. Xircom, Inc., Case No. 2:00CV 0436C (D. Utah)
W|N sued Xircom for patent infringement related to electro-mechanical connectors used with PCMCIA cards. During the litigation, Xircom was acquired by Intel. W|N obtained a preliminary injunction after a five day evidentiary hearing. Following the entry of the preliminary injunction, the case was successfully settled in favor of W|N’s client for $15 million.
Baxter Healthcare v. Spectramed, Inc., Case No. 2:91-cv-00288-LGB (C. D. Cal.)
W|N tried a patent infringement claim relating to disposable blood pressure transducers, resulting in the jury’s verdict and a judgment of patent infringement, and validity and enforceability of the client’s patents. W|N obtained an injunction against further infringement. The case settled favorably to W|N’s client while on appeal.