| |
|
|
 |
|
Representative Experience |
|
|
- Certain Non-Shellfish Derived Glucosamine, Inv. No. 337-TA-668 — Represented complainant Cargill, Incorporated in ITC investigation alleging infringement of patent related to process for manufacturing glucosamine from non-shellfish sources. Case resulted in favorable settlements with most of the respondents.
- Certain Vein Harvesting Surgical Systems, Inv. No. 337-TA-645 — Represented the complainant in an ITC investigation alleging infringement of two patents relating to innovative technology for minimally invasive harvesting of healthy blood vessels for uses such as heart bypass surgery. The case involved novel issues relating to induced infringement and settled on favorable terms after extensive fact discovery and submission of expert reports.
- Certain Acetic Acid, Inv. No. 337-TA-633 — Served as lead counsel for the Sopo respondents in China in a patent case brought by Celanese alleging infringement of a process patent for manufacturing acetic acid; after two months of vigorous defense of the case by Sopo, the Complainant, Celanese, voluntarily withdrew its complaint and the investigation was terminated in favor of Sopo with no finding of violation.
- Certain Short Wavelength Semiconductor Lasers and Products Containing Same, Inv. No. 337-TA-627 — Represented Hitachi in a patent infringement investigation relating to blue-ray disc camcorders.
- Certain Sucralose, Sweeteners Containing Sucralose, and Related Intermediate Compounds Thereof, Inv. No. 337-TA-604 — Represented six different respondents, including two manufacturers in China, in a case brought by Tate & Lyle alleging infringement of process patents relating to the production of sucralose and certain intermediate compounds; in September 2008, the ALJ issued an initial determination finding no violation by our clients based on non-infringement and other grounds; on April 4, 2009, after a full review of the decision, the Commission upheld the ALJ’s findings there was no violation of Section 337. Tate & Lyle chose not to appeal the ITC’s decision and voluntarily dismissed its parallel district court action, resulting in a complete victory for our clients.
- Certain Wireless Conference Calling Devices, Components Thereof, and Devices Containing Same, Inv. No. 591 — Represented GN Netcom A/S, a Danish company, and its U.S. subsidiary named as respondents in a case alleging infringement of patent relating to wireless conference calling devices. After initial discovery, we submitted a draft motion for sanctions against the complainant, alleging the existence of material misrepresentations in the complaint; a week later, the complainant withdrew its complaint and agreed to termination of the ITC investigation.
- Certain Personal Computer/Consumer Electronic Convergent Devices, Inv. No. 337-TA-558 — Represented two of the respondents, Cyberlink Corporation of Taiwan and its California subsidiary, Cyberlink.com Corporation, in ITC investigation; after the investigation was successfully stayed pending reexamination, the complainant withdrew its complaint and the investigation was terminated with no finding of violation by Cyberlink.
- Certain Laser Bar Code Scanners, Scan Engines and Products Containing the Same, Inv. No. 337-TA-551 — Lead trial counsel for Metrologic Instruments, Inc. in a patent infringement proceeding involving five patents directed to various aspects of bar code scanners.
- Certain Ground Fault Circuit Interrupters, Inv. No. 337-TA-478 — Lead counsel for Chinese respondents in case brought by Leviton alleging infringement of patent relating to ground fault circuit interrupters; complainant withdrew complaint after its motions for summary determination were denied and draft motion for sanctions was served.
- Certain Acesulfame Potassium, Inv. No. 337-TA-403 — Lead counsel for Chinese respondent in patent case relating to acesulfame potassium brought by Nutrinova, a Hoechst subsidiary; one patent found invalid and not infringed, the other not infringed; decision successfully defended through Commission and Federal Circuit review. This was the first case won by a Chinese respondent under Section 337 after going to trial.
|
|
|
|
|
|
