Practices  |  Intellectual Property

Overview

Wiley Rein offers comprehensive intellectual property services for owners and users of patents, copyrights, trademarks, and trade secrets, with a strategic focus on new technologies and dedicated specialists in each of these areas. The firm is known specifically for its infringement litigation capabilities, licensing expertise, analysis and valuation of intellectual property assets, dealings with relevant government agencies, and experience in dealing with music licensing and rights management technology. In recognizing the firm’s Intellectual Property Practice, Chambers USA comments that the Practice “is well regarded for its patent litigation work and its track record within copyright and trademark law” and “has long been celebrated for its expertise in litigation of all kinds, while disputes concerning secondary liability are a forte for the team” (2013). The Practice is also ranked by U.S. News & World Report as being among the best in the nation and in Washington, DC. 

The Intellectual Property Practice is led by patent litigator James H. Wallace, Jr. and copyright specialist Bruce G. Joseph, both of whom have been named among the DC region’s “Leading Intellectual Property Lawyers” by Legal Times and as “Leading Lawyers for Business” by Chambers USA; Chambers USA ranked trademark/unfair competition professional Christopher Kelly; and patent litigator Kevin P. Anderson. The Group also includes more than 35 attorneys skilled in litigation, prosecution, policy development, negotiation, and counseling.

The Patent Practice

Patent Litigation

Drawing on a significant depth of legal talent, technical experience, and business acumen, Wiley Rein has built a strong record of successful outcomes for clients in a variety of industries, including biotechnology, pharmaceuticals, financial services, software, consumer electronics, medical devices, and semiconductors.

Our current representations involve pharmaceuticals to treat conditions such as leukemia, myeloma, schizophrenia, as well as diverse technologies such as cellular phone standards, aerial drone technology, computer processor hardware and software, biological drugs, telecommunications billing systems, location tracking systems, multimedia messaging, and navigation systems.

Areas of Practice

  • District Court patent infringement and validity (both Plaintiff and Defendant representations) in Districts throughout the United States
  • Counseling clients on patent strategies in connection with biologics and biosimilars ANDA patent litigation arising under the Hatch Waxman Act
  • Counseling clients on protection of patent and intellectual property rights in matters involving government contracts
  • Inter Partes Review (IPR) and Covered Business Method Patent (CBM) proceedings before the USPTO
  • Licensing, Due Diligence and Intellectual Property Valuation
  • Patent infringement and other intellectual property claims brought against the United States government in the Court of Federal Claims (both Plaintiff and Defendant representations)
  • Patent Prosecution
  • International Trade Commission Section 337 Proceedings

Our clients include Fortune 50 companies including large telecommunications and aerospace companies, as well as market-leading companies such as ARM, Mylan Pharmaceuticals, Torrent Pharmaceuticals, Fresenius Kabi, Impax Laboratories, TomTom, Carl Zeiss, and Openet. As both plaintiffs and defendants in high-profile and high-stakes cases, we litigate patent cases in every major jurisdiction across the country, including the “Rocket Dockets” in Virginia and Texas, district courts in Delaware, California, New Jersey, New York, and New Jersey, and the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit.  We also routinely represent parties in disputes alleging patent infringement by the United States government before the U.S. Court of Federal Claims.

More than half of our partners clerked for judges in patent-centric district courts or the Federal Circuit. While our primary areas of focus are in pharmaceutical/chemical, electrical/software, and financial services litigation, we have technical and legal experience across a broad range of technologies.

Our Approach

We are trial lawyers specializing in patent cases. Our approach is to prepare a case with the expectation that it will go to trial while also pursuing a win for our clients through motions practice.

Our intensive preparation and dedication to staffing matters leanly and efficiently allows us to provide cost-effective representation to our clients. 

From our experience, having a small team that is fully immersed in the facts is the most effective strategy for a patent litigation case. With the full resources of the firm behind us, we can increase staffing as needed, but the core team will handle the issues that we believe to be dispositive.

Selected Experience
A sample of significant representations includes: 

Technology/Software

  • Obtaining summary judgment of invalidity on behalf of client Openet Telecom in the Eastern District of Virginia in which competitor and software giant Amdocs alleged that Openet’s products infringed four Amdocs patents.
  • Representing a large telecommunications carrier in numerous multi-defendant patent infringement actions in the Eastern District of Texas, Northern District of California, District of Delaware, and the Eastern District of Virginia in lawsuits pertaining to multimedia and text messaging, navigation and location-based systems, wireless standards, and other cellular phone features.  Notable cases include obtaining a jury verdict patent invalidity and non-infringement in the Eastern District of Virginia in a case in which the plaintiff sought $140 million in damages.
  • Representing TomTom in numerous infringement lawsuits filed by non-practicing entities in courts across the country, including in the Northern District of Illinois, District of Delaware, Eastern District of Virginia, District of Nevada, and the Eastern District of Texas. In one notable case, we obtained summary judgment of invalidity against a widely licensed patent involving touchscreen keyboards. 
  • Obtaining successful jury verdicts of willful infringement and validity for Carl Zeiss Vision GMBH and Carl Zeiss International GMBH (CZV) against a major competitor. The process patented by CZV revolutionized progressive eyeglass lenses and the way progressive eyeglass lenses are produced.  We also obtained a declaration that the case was exceptional and a permanent injunction. The case was settled prior to appeal. 
  • Representing ARM in numerous lawsuits where its customers have been sued for using ARM processor cores in their chipsets including numerous successful representations in the district courts and on appeal to the Federal Circuit. 
  • Securing a victory for Atico International USA, Inc. and Target Corporation in defense of claims of patent infringement pertaining to digital picture frames filed by Digital Spectrum Solutions, Inc. (DSSI) in the Central District of California. The court construed the claims of the asserted patent and simultaneously granted Atico’s motion for summary judgment of no literal infringement and no infringement under the doctrine of equivalents.
  • Securing, on behalf of patent holder NTP Inc., a $612.5 million patent infringement settlement with Research In Motion Limited (RIM), the maker of BlackBerry wireless email devices. The settlement, one of the largest ever of its kind, resolved a fiercely contested, high-profile patent case stemming from a 2002 jury trial in which the firm successfully argued that RIM’s core BlackBerry line of wireless email products, software, and services willfully infringed NTP patents.

Pharmaceuticals

We routinely litigate on behalf of clients involving high-stakes pharmaceutical cases. In the pharmaceutical patent infringement and Hatch-Waxman context, we have been involved in litigations concerning the following products:

  • Acetaminophen IV (Ofirmev®)
  • Allopurinol (Zyloprim®)
  • Aripiprazole (Abilify®)
  • Bendamustine (Treanda®)
  • Bortezomib (Velcade®)  
  • Carbidopa/Levodopa (Sinemet® CR)
  • Cetuximab (Erbitux®)
  • Cyclobenzaprine HCl (Amrix®)
  • Dextromethorphan/Quinidine (Nuedexta®)
  • Doxycycline Hyclate (Doryx®)
  • Dutasteride (Avodart®)
  • Erlotinib (Tarceva®)
  • Fenofibrate (Antara®)
  • Fesoterodine (Toviaz®)
  • Gabapentin (Gralise®)
  • Interferon (Roferon®-A)
  • Levofloxacin (Levaquin®)
  • Loratadine (Claritin®)
  • Micronized Glyburide (Glynase®)
  • Omeprazole (Prilosec®)
  • Oxybutynin Chloride (Ditropan XL®)
  • Tamoxifen Citrate (Nolvadex®)
  • Tolterodine Tartate (Detrol® LA)
  • tPA (Activase®)

Representative successes include:

  • Securing a victory at trial for clients Mylan and Esteve in their defense of a protracted patent infringement litigation brought by AstraZeneca in the Southern District of New York concerning Mylan/Esteve’s generic omeprazole product equivalent to Astra’s Prilosec® product.
  • Securing a victory at trial for Impax Laboratories in a Hatch-Waxman patent litigation involving a generic version of Doryx®. The ruling was affirmed on appeal. 
  • Securing a victory at trial and subsequent appeal in Alza v. Mylan, a rare obviousness invalidation of a patent protecting a blockbuster drug oxybutynin chloride (Ditropan XL®) in a matter that the Federal Circuit used as a template for explaining its obviousness law.
  • Representing ImClone Systems, Inc. in patent actions before the District of Massachusetts and Federal Circuit involving the blockbuster cancer treatment drug Erbitux®.

Financial Services

  • Representing Zions Bancorporation, Zions First National Bank and Amegy Bank of Texas in a multi-defendant patent litigation in the Eastern District of Texas pertaining to secure webpage authentication.
  • Representing PPS Data in asserting multiple patents relating to check imaging and processing. 
  • Representing Zions First National Bank in a patent infringement action brought by NextCard LLC in the Eastern District of Texas involving two patents covering rejection of online credit applications.
  • Defending a top-50 financial institution in a patent infringement action brought in the Eastern District of Texas by Mirror Imaging, LLC involving two patents covering electronic storage and retrieval of financial documents. Mirror Imaging dropped the lawsuit against our client shortly after the Markman hearing. 
  • Representing multiple other financial institutions in patent infringement actions involving electronic imaging, transmission, and presentation of financial documents, bankcard processing systems, encrypting financial transactions, and other Internet and business methods.

Additional Litigation

  • Securing a victory in the District of New Jersey for Molson Coors Brewing Company (MCBC) in defense of claims of patent infringement pertaining to computer-implemented methods and systems for investors to obtain mutual funds in a foreign currency by swapping rights with a willing co-investor in another country. The court granted MCBC’s motions for summary judgment of invalidity and non-infringement, and the case was dismissed on appeal.

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

The Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB), formed in 2012 as a part of the America Invents Act, decides important issues of patentability. The board replaced the Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences (BPAI), which had previously acted in a similar capacity. The newly formed PTAB introduced several new ways to contest patents, including inter partes reviews (IPRs), post-grant reviews (PGRs), covered business method reviews (CBMs) and derivation proceedings.

These proceedings give parties a more cost-effective method of challenging an issued patent based on prior art patents and printed publications. These are intended to be a less expensive and faster option for post-grant patent challenges, with initial determinations within six months of filing and a final decision within 12 months.

Wiley Rein attorneys and advisors work with clients on a comprehensive patent strategy that spans from inception to well beyond grant. Our attorneys have been deeply involved in the PTAB (and previously the BPAI), and have assisted clients in numerous IPRs, PGRs, and CBMs, and have one of the best-known teams available to assist clients in future PTAB matters.

IPR Experience

Since the introduction of IPRs in 2012, the Practice has assisted with more than 20 IPR proceedings, involving technologies such as ringtones, Multimedia Messaging Service, and virtual memory for pipelined processors. This includes advising clients on IPR strategies as part of our comprehensive, business-focused patent strategy.

Our representative IPR experience includes:

  • Assisted a major U.S. financial institution in preparing and filing IPR petitions related to data security patents used in connection with online banking.
  • Assisted a major U.S. corporation in preparing and filing IPR petitions related to wireless cell phone technologies.
  • Assisted our client in preparing and filing IPR petitions related to virtual memory for a processor.
  • Assisted our client and co-counsel in preparing and filing IPR petitions related to LED lighting technologies.

CBM Reviews

Our representative CBM experience includes:

  • Drafted and filed, on behalf of a major U.S. bank, the first-ever CBM review filed at the PTAB by a financial institution. The PTAB found the patent-at-issue unpatentable and the Federal Circuit affirmed that decision.
  • Assisted a major U.S. financial institution in preparing and filing CBM petitions related to data security patents used in connection with online banking.

International Trade Commission Section 337 Proceedings

Our attorneys are experienced in representing clients in patent infringement proceedings before the U.S. International Trade Commission (USITC) under Section 337 of the Tariff Act. Section 337 is designed to prevent the entry of infringing goods into the United States and the Act is designed to provide a resolution on an expedited schedule—typically, within 12 months. We regularly serve clients in these accelerated proceedings.

Patent Prosecution

The firm files and prosecutes patent applications in the United States and around the world. Our Patent attorneys have working experience in a wide variety of high tech industries, including electrical, chemical, biotechnology, pharmaceutical, software, bioinformatics, Internet, and mechanical, as well as e-commerce and other business methodologies. 

Licensing, Due Diligence and Intellectual Property Valuation

The firm assists clients in the licensing, sale, and purchase of patents and technology related thereto. Also, in connection with clients’ purchase of assets, the firm evaluates the intellectual property portfolio, including the validity of the patents being acquired, whether or not others are currently infringing the technology, and the clients’ vulnerability to others’ patented technology, and analyzes the potential outcomes of litigation.

The Copyright Practice

The firm’s Copyright Practice has broad experience in copyright litigation, copyright and content protection (digital rights management) technology, and music and sound recording licensing.

Copyright Infringement and Related Litigation

Internet- and technology-related litigation is a specialty of the firm.  Our attorneys have extensive experience in technology-based infringement litigation, representing alleged infringers and intermediary technology providers and copyright owners.  The Copyright Practice has represented Internet service providers and other Internet companies, newsletter publishers, satellite radio broadcasters, computer software developers, as well as more traditional media, in cases involving digital use and infringement of copyrighted works.  Significant cases include:

  • Stopping the recording industry’s expansive use of a unique ex parte subpoena process contained in the Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA) on behalf of a leading Internet service provider (Verizon v. Recording Industry Association of America (RIAA)). 
  • Obtaining a jury verdict of willful infringement and an award of “statutory damages” in the amount of almost $20 million in favor of our publisher client for repeated intranet and email infringement of its financial newsletter by a major brokerage house.
  • Defending Google against claims by Agence France-Presse (AFP) that the Google News website infringed AFP copyrights in news headlines, story leads, and photographs.
  • Participating as amicus curiae on behalf of Internet service providers and consumer electronics manufacturers in several cases involving MP3 recordings and Internet file sharing, including the Grokster case in the Supreme Court and the Rio and Napster cases in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.
  • Representing a group of large Internet companies in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit in CoStar v. Loopnet to preserve important long-standing defenses to infringement.

Music and Sound Recording Fee Litigation
The Copyright Practice is a leader in the representation of user interests in the litigation, arbitration, and negotiation of license fees payable for musical work and sound recording public performances to organizations including the American Society of Composers, Authors and Publishers (ASCAP), Broadcast Music, Incorporated (BMI), SESAC, Inc., and SoundExchange.  The firm has represented satellite radio broadcasters, radio broadcasters, wireless carriers, Internet audio and video service providers, among others, in such fora as the Copyright Royalty Board, ASCAP Rate Court, and BMI Rate Court.  Significant cases include:

  • Representing Sirius Satellite Radio Inc. in litigation before the Copyright Royalty Board against the recording industry’s efforts to obtain royalties approaching $2 billion for the period from 2007-2012.
  • Representing the radio industry in litigation before the Copyright Royalty Board to establish sound recording fees for simulcast Internet streaming.
  • Serving as lead counsel to the radio broadcasting industry in its appeal of Internet streaming fees for the period 1998-2002, and representing noncommercial broadcasters in their appeal of the fees for 2006-2010.
  • Litigating before the ASCAP Rate Court in the Southern District of New York on behalf of a committee of approximately 400 radio stations seeking reasonable licenses. 

Copyright and Content Protection Policy

Wiley Rein’s Copyright Practice has been at the forefront of legislative development in response to the digital environment.  The firm has played a central role in recent policy debates and has used that knowledge and experience in a wide range of litigation matters.

Wiley Rein has been involved in the major policy debates on a diverse array of copyright and content protection technology issues in the digital environment. For example:

  • The firm played a leading role in the negotiations and legislative debates that resulted in copyright liability limitations for Internet service providers enacted as part of the DMCA.  Our attorneys also participated on behalf of service providers in the 1996 diplomatic conference that resulted in new international treaties relating to copyright and content protection technology.
  • The firm served as lead counsel to the higher education community in the legislative negotiations leading to the Technology, Education and Copyright Harmonization (TEACH) Act, which expanded copyright exemptions for non-profit digital distance education, and in connection with legislative efforts to create new rights related to databases.
  • Starting with its role as lead counsel to the consumer electronics industry in the negotiations leading to the passage of the Audio Home Recording Act in 1992, the firm has been deeply involved in many of the multi-industry efforts to develop approaches to digital content protection.  For example, the firm participated actively on behalf of a major consumer electronics manufacturer in the Broadcast Protection Discussion Group, Analog Redistribution Discussion Group, and DVD Copy Control Association for video content and in the Secure Digital Music Initiative for audio.
  • The Copyright Practice represented major radio broadcasting and satellite radio interests in the negotiations leading to reform the arbitration process that sets fees paid to record companies for digital performances of sound recordings.

Copyright policy will continue to evolve rapidly as the U.S. Copyright Office, U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO), and Congress attempt to resolve the multitude of new issues arising from the emergence of digital technologies and their use on the Internet.  Wiley Rein’s Copyright Practice is uniquely positioned to assist clients likely to be affected by these debates, which will have a profound effect on the rights of all owners and users of copyrighted works.

More information about the firm’s involvement in digital rights management and content protection technology licensing activities may be found in the Copyright Practice Description

The Trademark Practice

Wiley Rein’s Trademark Practice provides clients with the benefits of a boutique firm backed by the full resources of one of Washington, DC’s most respected law firms.  Our experienced Team—led by a former Trademark Examining Attorney with the USPTO and a former in-house Trademark Counsel to a global entertainment company—works closely with attorneys in the firm’s Copyright, Corporate, Privacy, Franchise, Patent, Media, and Communications practices to provide our clients with complete management throughout the life of a brand, including trademark selection, protection, enforcement, and licensing.

Global Brand Acquisition and Management

A trademark portfolio is a living asset that must keep pace with growth and change in the business.  Accordingly, we focus on the building and protection of brand equity around the world.  With an in-depth understanding of our clients’ businesses, we conduct comprehensive assessments of their brands and determine how best to protect them based on their value as company assets.  Ultimately, protection of a brand may be minimal or extensive, depending on an individual company’s needs.

When filing outside the United States, we examine whether it is in the client’s best interest to utilize international filing conventions such as the Madrid Protocol, or to retain local counsel in individual jurisdictions.  We maintain long-standing relationships with local counsel around the world for this purpose.  The firm supports state-of-the-art software to assist in the management of global portfolios.

Enforcement, Litigation, and Dispute Resolution

The enforcement of a trademark is essential to its value.  We specialize in administrative and court actions to protect our clients’ trademarks from infringement and encroachment by third parties.  Recognizing that litigation is not always the best option to settlement of a dispute, we routinely evaluate and promote the possibility of creative settlement options, including alternative dispute resolution (ADR).

Wiley Rein Trademark attorneys routinely appear in inter partes proceedings before the USPTO’s Trademark Trial and Appeal Board in contests regarding the registration of marks.  We regularly litigate trademark infringement and Lanham Act actions in federal courts around the United States, and are skilled in USITC and U.S. Customs procedures to stop infringing goods before they cross the border.  We also are experienced in the management of complex cross-border cases in the areas of unfair competition, counterfeiting, and seizures. 

Our experience in the enforcement of trademarks in electronic commerce is extensive.  We routinely defend Internet domain names from misappropriation by “cybersquatters,” analyzing each situation individually and determining the best course of action—whether acquisition of a domain name, arbitration proceedings under the Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers' (ICANN) Uniform Domain-Name Dispute-Resolution Policy (UDRP), actions under the Anticybersquatting Consumer Protection Act (ACPA), or in rem proceedings—to economically and efficiently achieve our client’s objectives.

Trademark Licensing

Successfully leveraging a trademark through licensing benefits both licensor and licensee.  It increases a licensor’s revenue and builds brand recognition, and, from the licensee’s perspective, increases market demand by associating a product with an established brand.  Our Team routinely negotiates and drafts agreements for licensors and licensees in such diverse areas as clothing, media, toys, food products, and electronics.  We also have assisted with the creation and management of quality control and brand assurance programs, including a multi-million-dollar licensing and merchandising program for well-known animation properties.

Transactions

Wiley Rein’s Trademark attorneys work closely with the firm’s Corporate Practice in transactional projects to evaluate the scope and coverage of intellectual property in a variety of transactions, including licensing, mergers and acquisitions, public offerings, and private equity and venture capital investments.  We assist purchasers, investors, and sellers to evaluate any discrepancies between the information provided by or obtained from the seller and that obtained through the purchaser’s independent search.  Our Team is skilled at working with corporate and tax counsel to determine “how” and “where” the intellectual property assets should be acquired, and compliance with the Securities and Exchange Act of 1934.  Among our recent experience in this area, we have assisted purchasers in the acquisition and venture capital investment in food companies and automotive parts companies and managed the sale of a sports and entertainment company.

Related Services

Licensing

The firm regularly represents varied owner and user interests in the negotiation of trademark, copyright, patent, and trade secret licenses as well as collaboration, strategic technology alliance, and joint venture agreements.  Licensed works have included computer software, electronics technology, databases, biotechnology, certification marks, trademarks, and various trade secret technologies.

Strategic Intellectual Property Counseling

Our attorneys regularly counsel clients on key intellectual property matters, including conducting intellectual property audits, assessing the intellectual property positions of competitors, benchmarking industries, evaluating and effecting the transfer of title to intellectual properties, and conducting infringement/validity studies.

Trade Secrets

The firm advises clients regarding the preservation of trade secrets and litigates trade secret disputes.  Wiley Rein attorneys also counsel and assist in preparing corporate documents to preserve trade secrets and competitive positions for our clients.

Lobbying and Legislative Relations

Wiley Rein has represented clients in various matters before Congress, including initiating and lobbying for new legislation or specific amendments to existing legislation, and has represented industry or individual client interests in broad legislative and treaty negotiations.  For example, the firm has lobbied on behalf of a client for changes to a patent term extension statute to enable the client to apply for an extension before its patent expired.  The firm also played a major role in negotiating provisions of the DMCA and the TEACH Act, among others, and is currently representing a domain name registry in hearings before Congress.

Government Contract Rights

Intellectual property rights involved in dealings with the federal government are subject to a complex series of frequently changing regulations that differ substantially from the laws governing commercial transactions.  Unsuspecting contractors, accustomed to the commercial marketplace, can forfeit valuable rights to the public domain.  The firm is a leader in representing contractors that wish to protect their valuable data rights and software rights in their dealings with the government.  Wiley Rein’s ability to combine commercial intellectual property skills with its knowledge of the arcane rules of government contracting offers contractors and potential contractors a unique perspective on protecting their rights.

Contact Us

Kevin P. Anderson
202.719.3586 | kanderson@wileyrein.com

James H. Wallace Jr.
202.719.7240 | jwallace@wileyrein.com

Bruce G. Joseph
202.719.7258 | bjoseph@wileyrein.com

Christopher Kelly
202.719.7115 | ckelly@wileyrein.com

Our People

Name Position Telephone Email
Karyn K. AblinPartner202.719.4913Download vCard
Kevin P. AndersonPartner202.719.3586Download vCard
Attison L. Barnes, IIIPartner202.719.7385Download vCard
John E. BarryPartner202.719.7239Download vCard
Floyd B. ChapmanPartner202.719.7308Download vCard
James N. CzabanPartner202.719.7411Download vCard
Jennifer L. ElginOf Counsel202.719.7453Download vCard
Claire J. EvansPartner202.719.7022Download vCard
Scott A. FelderPartner202.719.7029Download vCard
Carl R. FrankConsulting Counsel202.719.7269Download vCard
A. Claire Frezza *Associate202.719.3752Download vCard
Daniel B. HassettPartner202.719.3309Download vCard
Karin A. HesslerAssociate202.719.7590Download vCard
Dylan HixAssociate202.719.7557Download vCard
J. Timothy HobbsConsulting Counsel202.719.7105Download vCard
Rachel K. HunnicuttOf Counsel202.719.7570Download vCard
Wayne D. JohnsenPartner202.719.7303Download vCard
Bruce G. JosephPartner202.719.7258Download vCard
Christopher KellyPartner202.719.7115Download vCard
David J. KulikConsulting Counsel202.719.7313Download vCard
Andrew G. McBridePartner202.719.7135Download vCard
Bruce L. McDonaldPartner202.719.7014Download vCard
Ari MeltzerAssociate202.719.7467Download vCard
Christopher M. MillsOf Counsel202.719.4740Download vCard
Mark A. PacellaPartner202.719.7398Download vCard
Brian H. PandyaPartner202.719.7457Download vCard
Thomas W. QueenConsulting Counsel202.719.7072Download vCard
Bert W. ReinPartner202.719.7080Download vCard
Robert J. ScheffelPartner202.719.7423Download vCard
A. Neal SethPartner202.719.4179Download vCard
Richard W. SmithPartner202.719.7468Download vCard
Michael L. SturmPartner202.719.7008Download vCard
Lawrence M. SungPartner202.719.4181Download vCard
Mary SylviaPartner202.719.4178Download vCard
James H. Wallace, Jr.Partner202.719.7240Download vCard
Brian WalshAssociate202.719.7469Download vCard
Wesley E. WeeksAssociate202.719.7569Download vCard
Eric H. WeisblattPartner202.719.7416Download vCard
David E. WeslowPartner202.719.7525Download vCard
Gregory M. WilliamsPartner202.719.7593Download vCard
John B. WyssOf Counsel202.719.7038Download vCard

*Not admitted to the DC bar. Supervised by the principals of the firm.

News & Insights

News & Insights

Federal Circuit Patent Bulletins

Our Patent Practice publishes Federal Circuit Patent Bulletins, which provide selected excerpts of precedential patent law decisions of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit. To sign up to receive these updates, click here

For any questions about the Bulletins, please contact, Lawrence M. SungJames H. Wallace, Jr., or Kevin P. Anderson

2015

Federal Circuit Patent Bulletin: SpeedTrack, Inc. v. Office Depot, Inc.
June 30, 2015

Federal Circuit Patent Bulletin: Gaymar Indus., Inc. v. Cincinnati Sub-Zero Prods., Inc.
June 26, 2015

Federal Circuit Patent Bulletin: Mohsenzadeh v. Lee
June 26, 2015

Federal Circuit Patent Bulletin: Lighting Ballast Control LLC v. Philips Elecs. N. Am. Corp.
June 25, 2015

Federal Circuit Patent Bulletin: G.D. Searle LLC v. Lupin Pharms., Inc.
June 25, 2015

Federal Circuit Patent Bulletin: Internet Patents Corp. v. Active Network, Inc.
June 25, 2015

Federal Circuit Patent Bulletin: Kimble v. Marvel Entm’t, LLC
June 22, 2015

Federal Circuit Patent Bulletin: ePlus, Inc. v. Lawson Software, Inc.
June 19, 2015

Federal Circuit Patent Bulletin: Teva Pharms. USA, Inc. v. Sandoz, Inc.
June 19, 2015

Federal Circuit Patent Bulletin: Microsoft Corp. v. Proxyconn, Inc.
June 17, 2015

Federal Circuit Patent Bulletin: GTNX, Inc. v. INTTRA, Inc.
June 17, 2015

Federal Circuit Patent Bulletin: Williamson v. Citrix Online, LLC
June 17, 2015

Federal Circuit Patent Bulletin: Ariosa Diagnostics, Inc. v. Sequenom, Inc.
June 15, 2015

Federal Circuit Patent Bulletin: Kaneka Corp. v. Xiamen Kingdomway Grp. Co.
June 11, 2015

Federal Circuit Patent Bulletin: OIP Techs., Inc. v. Amazon.com, Inc.
June 11, 2015

Federal Circuit Patent Bulletin: Alps South, LLC v. The Ohio Willow Wood Co.
June 5, 2015

Federal Circuit Patent Bulletin: Shire Dev., LLC v. Watson Pharms., Inc.
June 4, 2015

Federal Circuit Patent Bulletin: Commil USA, LLC v. Cisco Sys., Inc.
May 26, 2015

Federal Circuit Patent Bulletin: Apple Inc. v. Samsung Elecs. Co.
May 18, 2015

Federal Circuit Patent Bulletin: Lelo Inc. v. Int'l Trade Comm'n
May 15, 2015

Federal Circuit Patent Bulletin: Classen Immunotherapies, Inc. v. Elan Pharms., Inc.
May 15, 2015

Federal Circuit Patent Bulletin: ArcelorMittal France v. AK Steel Corp.
May 15, 2015

Federal Circuit Patent Bulletin: Biogen MA, Inc. v. Japanese Found. for Cancer Research
May 8, 2015

Federal Circuit Patent Bulletin: EON Corp. IP Holdings LLC v. AT&T Mobility LLC
May 7, 2015

Federal Circuit Patent Bulletin: Takeda Pharms. U.S.A., Inc. v. West-Ward Pharm. Corp.
May 7, 2015

Federal Circuit Patent Bulletin: Sukumar v. Nautilus, Inc.
May 4, 2015

Federal Circuit Patent Bulletin: Info-Hold, Inc. v. Applied Media Techs. Corp.
April 27, 2015

Federal Circuit Patent Bulletin: Info-Hold, Inc. v. Muzak LLC
April 27, 2015

Federal Circuit Patent Bulletin: Biosig Instruments, Inc. v. Nautilus, Inc.
April 27, 2015

Federal Circuit Patent Bulletin: Ineos USA LLC v. Berry Plastics Corp.
April 16, 2015

Federal Circuit Patent Bulletin: Automated Merch. Sys., Inc. v. Lee
April 10, 2015

Federal Circuit Patent Bulletin: Oplus Techs., Ltd. v. Vizio, Inc.
April 10, 2015

Federal Circuit Patent Bulletin: Insite Vision, Inc. v. Sandoz
April 9, 2015

Federal Circuit Patent Bulletin: Intellectual Ventures II LLC v. JPMorgan Chase & Co.
April 6, 2015

Federal Circuit Patent Bulletin: Vasudevan Software, Inc. v. MicroStrategy Inc.
April 6, 2015

Federal Circuit Patent Bulletin: Apotex Inc. v. Daiichi Sankyo, Inc.
March 31, 2015

Federal Circuit Patent Bulletin: Cadence Pharm., Inc. v. Exela PharmSci Inc.
March 25, 2015

Federal Circuit Patent Bulletin: Stryker Corp. v. Zimmer, Inc.
March 25, 2015

Federal Circuit Patent Bulletin: Kennametal, Inc., v. Ingersoll Cutting Tool Co.
March 25, 2015

Federal Circuit Patent Bulletin: Senju Pharm. Co. v. Lupin Ltd.
March 20, 2015

Federal Circuit Patent Bulletin: Two-Way Media LLC v. AT&T, Inc.
March 19, 2015

Federal Circuit Patent Bulletin: MobileMedia Ideas LLC v. Apple Inc.
March 17, 2015

Federal Circuit Patent Bulletin: Enzo Biochem, Inc. v. Applera Corp.
March 16, 2015

Federal Circuit Patent Bulletin: Eidos Display, LLC v. AU Optronics Corp.
March 11, 2015

Federal Circuit Patent Bulletin: Gilead Scis., Inc., v. Lee
February 27, 2015

Federal Circuit Patent Bulletin: Pacing Techs., LLC v. Garmin Int'l, Inc.
February 19, 2015

Federal Circuit Patent Bulletin: Fenner Investments, Ltd. v. Cellco P’ship
February 12, 2015

Federal Circuit Patent Bulletin: Soverain Software LLC v. Victoria’s Secret Direct Brand Mgmt., LLC
February 12, 2015

Federal Circuit Patent Bulletin: Helferich Patent Licensing, LLC v. New York Times Co.
February 10, 2015

Federal Circuit Patent Bulletin: In re Cuozzo Speed Techs., LLC
February 4, 2015

Federal Circuit Patent Bulletin: In re Papst Licensing Digital Camera Patent Litig.
February 2, 2015

Federal Circuit Patent Bulletin: In re Imes
January 30, 2015

Supreme Court: Trademark Tacking Is a Question of Fact to Be Decided by a Jury
January 22, 2015

Federal Circuit Patent Bulletin: Teva Pharms. USA, Inc. v. Sandoz, Inc.
January 20, 2015

Federal Circuit Patent Bulletin: NeuroRepair, Inc. v. Nath Law Grp.
January 15, 2015

Federal Circuit Patent Bulletin: Bard Peripheral Vascular, Inc. v. W.L. Gore & Assocs., Inc.
January 13, 2015

Federal Circuit Patent Bulletin: Delano Farms Co. v. Cal. Table Grape Comm’n
January 9, 2015

2014

Federal Circuit Patent Bulletin: Fleming v. Escort Inc.
December 29, 2014

Federal Circuit Patent Bulletin: Content Extraction & Transmission LLC v. Wells Fargo Bank, Nat’l Ass’n
December 23, 2014

Federal Circuit Patent Bulletin: Aqua Shield v. Inter Pool Cover Team
December 22, 2014

Federal Circuit Patent Bulletin: Stryker Corp. v. Zimmer, Inc.
December 19, 2014

Federal Circuit Patent Bulletin: Univ. of Utah Research Found. v. Ambry Genetics Corp.
December 17, 2014

Federal Circuit Patent Bulletin: ABB Turbo Sys. AG v. TurboUSA, Inc.
December 17, 2014

Federal Circuit Patent Bulletin: Promega Corp. v. Life Techs. Corp.
December 15, 2014

Federal Circuit Patent Bulletin: Japanese Found. for Cancer Research v. Lee
December 10, 2014

Federal Circuit Patent Bulletin: DDR Holdings, LLC v. Hotels.com, L.P.
December 8, 2014

Federal Circuit Patent Bulletin: Sandoz Inc. v. Amgen Inc.
December 8, 2014

Federal Circuit Patent Bulletin: Memorylink Corp. v. Motorola, Inc.
December 8, 2014

Federal Circuit Patent Bulletin: Ericsson, Inc. v. D-Link Sys., Inc.
December 4, 2014

Federal Circuit Patent Bulletin: Tyco Healthcare Grp. LP v. Ethicon Endo-Surgery, Inc.
December 4, 2014

Federal Circuit Patent Bulletin: Par Pharm., Inc. v. TWi Pharm., Inc.
December 3, 2014

Federal Circuit Patent Bulletin: Versata Software, Inc. v. Callidus Software, Inc.
November 20, 2014

Federal Circuit Patent Bulletin: e.Digital Corp. v. Futurewei Techs., Inc.
November 19, 2014

Federal Circuit Patent Bulletin: Antares Pharma, Inc. v. Medac Pharma, Inc.
November 17, 2014

Federal Circuit Patent Bulletin: Ultramercial, LLC v. Hulu, LLC
November 14, 2014

Federal Circuit Patent Bulletin: Azure Networks, LLC v. CSR PLC
November 6, 2014

Federal Circuit Patent Bulletin: Williamson v. Citrix Online, LLC
November 5, 2014

Federal Circuit Patent Bulletin: Halo Elecs., Inc. v. Pulse Elecs., Inc.
October 22, 2014

Federal Circuit Patent Bulletin: IRIS Corp. v. Japan Airlines Corp.
October 21, 2014

Federal Circuit Patent Bulletin: AntiCancer, Inc. v. Pfizer Inc.
October 20, 2014

Federal Circuit Patent Bulletin: World Class Tech. Corp. v. Ormco Corp.
October 20, 2014

Federal Circuit Patent Bulletin: CardSoft, LLC v. VeriFone, Inc.
October 17, 2014

Federal Circuit Patent Bulletin: Robert Bosch LLC v. Snap-On, Inc.
October 14, 2014

Federal Circuit Patent Bulletin: SSL Servs., LLC v. Citrix Sys., Inc.
October 14, 2014

Federal Circuit Patent Bulletin: EMD Millipore Corp. v. AllPure Techs., Inc.
September 30, 2014

Federal Circuit Patent Bulletin: Am. Calcar, Inc. v. Am. Honda Motor Co.
September 29, 2014

Federal Circuit Patent Bulletin: Benefit Funding Sys. LLC v. Advance Am. Cash Advance Centers Inc.
September 25, 2014

Federal Circuit Patent Bulletin: uPI Semiconductor Corp. v. Int’l Trade Comm’n
September 25, 2014

Federal Circuit Patent Bulletin: SCA Hygiene Prods. AB v. First Quality Baby Prods., LLC
September 17, 2014

Federal Circuit Patent Bulletin: VirnetX, Inc. v. Cisco Sys., Inc.
September 16, 2014

Federal Circuit Patent Bulletin: Interval Licensing, LLC v. AOL, Inc.
September 10, 2014

Federal Circuit Patent Bulletin: Scientific Plastic Prods., Inc. v. Biotage AB
September 10, 2014

Federal Circuit Patent Bulletin: EPOS Techs. Ltd. v. Pegasus Techs. Ltd.
September 5, 2014

Federal Circuit Patent Bulletin: buySAFE, Inc. v. Google, Inc.
September 3, 2014

Federal Circuit Patent Bulletin: Mformation Techs., Inc. v. Research in Motion Ltd.
August 22, 2014

Federal Circuit Patent Bulletin: Ferring B.V. v. Watson Labs., Inc.
August 22, 2014

Federal Circuit Patent Bulletin: Ferring B.V. v. Watson Labs., Inc.
August 22, 2014

Federal Circuit Patent Bulletin: AbbVie, Inc. v. Mathilda & Terrance Kennedy Inst. of Rheumatology Trust
August 21, 2014

Federal Circuit Patent Bulletin: Apotex, Inc. v. UCB, Inc.
August 15, 2014

Federal Circuit Patent Bulletin: ScriptPro LLC v. Innovation Assocs., Inc.
August 7, 2014

Federal Circuit Patent Bulletin: Tyco Healthcare Grp. LP v. Mutual Pharm. Co.
August 7, 2014

Federal Circuit Patent Bulletin: Align Tech., Inc. v. Int’l Trade Comm’n
July 21, 2014

Federal Circuit Patent Bulletin: Arlington Indus., Inc. v. Bridgeport Fittings, Inc.
July 17, 2014

Federal Circuit Patent Bulletin: Digitech Image Techs., LLC v. Elecs. for Imaging, Inc.
July 14, 2014

Federal Circuit Patent Bulletin: Troy v. Samson Mfg. Corp.
July 14, 2014

Federal Circuit Patent Bulletin: H-W Tech., LC v. Overstock.com. Inc.
July 14, 2014

Federal Circuit Patent Bulletin: Golden Bridge Tech., Inc. v. Apple Inc.
July 14, 2014

Federal Circuit Patent Bulletin: Medisim Ltd. v. BestMed LLC
July 14, 2014

Federal Circuit Patent Bulletin: VirtualAgility Inc. v. Salesforce.com, Inc.
July 10, 2014

Federal Circuit Patent Bulletin: Stauffer v. Brooks Bros., Inc.
July 10, 2014

Federal Circuit Patent Bulletin: Retractable Techs., Inc. v. Becton, Dickinson & Co.
July 7, 2014

Federal Circuit Patent Bulletin: X2Y Attenuators, LLC v. Int’l Trade Comm’n
July 7, 2014

Federal Circuit Patent Bulletin: MadStad Eng’g, Inc. v. U.S. Patent & Trademark Office
July 1, 2014

Federal Circuit Patent Bulletin: AbbVie Deutschland GmbH & Co. v. Janssen Biotech, Inc.
July 1, 2014

Federal Circuit Patent Bulletin: Hill-Rom Servs., Inc. v. Stryker Corp.
June 27, 2014

Federal Circuit Patent Bulletin: In re Nintendo of Am., Inc.
June 25, 2014

Supreme Court Sides with Broadcasters, Holding that Aereo Internet TV Service Infringes Public Performance Copyright Rights
June 25, 2014

Federal Circuit Patent Bulletin: CEATS, Inc. v. Continental Airlines, Inc.
June 24, 2014

Federal Circuit Patent Bulletin: Augme Techs., Inc. v. Yahoo!
June 20, 2014

Federal Circuit Patent Bulletin: Gemalto S.A. v. HTC Corp.
June 19, 2014

Federal Circuit Patent Bulletin: Allergan, Inc. v. Apotex, Inc.
June 17, 2014

Federal Circuit Patent Bulletin: In re Dinsmore
June 17, 2014

Federal Circuit Patent Bulletin: Bristol-Myers Squibb Co. v. Teva Pharms. USA, Inc.
June 17, 2014

Federal Circuit Patent Bulletin: Triton Tech of Texas, LLC v. Nintendo of Am., Inc.
June 17, 2014

Federal Circuit Patent Bulletin: Source Vagabond Sys. Ltd. v. Hydrapak, Inc.
June 16, 2014

Federal Circuit Patent Bulletin: STC.UNM v. Intel Corp.
June 16, 2014

Federal Circuit Patent Bulletin: Q.I. Press Controls, B.V. v. Lee
June 16, 2014

Federal Circuit Patent Bulletin: Krauser v. BioHorizons, Inc.
June 5, 2014

Federal Circuit Patent Bulletin: In re Rambus, Inc.
June 5, 2014

Federal Circuit Patent Bulletin: Consumer Watchdog v. Wisc. Alumni Research Found.
June 5, 2014

Federal Circuit Patent Bulletin: Suffolk Techs., LLC v. AOL Inc.
May 29, 2014

Federal Circuit Patent Bulletin: K/S HIMPP v. Hear-Wear Techs., LLC
May 29, 2014

Federal Circuit Patent Bulletin: Tobinick v. Olmarker
May 19, 2014

Federal Circuit Patent Bulletin: InTouch Techs., Inc. v. VGo Commc’n, Inc.
May 9, 2014

Federal Circuit Patent Bulletin: Monsanto Co. v. E.I. Du Pont de Nemours & Co.
May 9, 2014

Federal Circuit Patent Bulletin: In re Roslin Inst.
May 8, 2014

Federal Circuit Patent Bulletin: Gen. Elec. Co. v. Wilkins
May 8, 2014

Federal Circuit Patent Bulletin: In re Packard
May 6, 2014

Federal Circuit Patent Bulletin: GE Lighting Solutions, LLC. v. AgiLight, Inc.
May 1, 2014

Supreme Court Reshapes Fee Shifting in Patent Infringement Cases
April 29, 2014

Federal Circuit Patent Bulletin: Apple Inc. v. Motorola, Inc.
April 28, 2014

Federal Circuit Patent Bulletin: Vaillancourt v. Becton Dickinson & Co.
April 25, 2014

Federal Circuit Patent Bulletin: Gilead Scis., Inc. v. Natco Pharma Ltd.
April 22, 2014

Federal Circuit Patent Bulletin: Braintree Labs., Inc. v. Novel Labs.
April 22, 2014

Federal Circuit Patent Bulletin: Sanofi-Aventis Deutschland GmbH v. Glenmark Pharms. Inc., USA
April 21, 2014

Federal Circuit Patent Bulletin: DSM Desotech, Inc. v. 3D Sys. Corp.
April 18, 2014

Federal Circuit Patent Bulletin: Hoffmann-La Roche Inc. v. Apotex Inc.
April 11, 2014

Federal Circuit Patent Bulletin: Trebro Mfg., Inc. v. FireFly Equip., LLC
April 9, 2014

Federal Circuit Patent Bulletin: Chicago Bd. Options Exch., Inc. v. Int’l Sec. Exch., LLC
April 7, 2014

Federal Circuit Patent Bulletin: In re Teles AG
April 4, 2014

Federal Circuit Patent Bulletin: Microsoft Corp. v. DataTern, Inc.
April 4, 2014

Federal Circuit Patent Bulletin: In re Toyota Motor Corp.
April 3, 2014

Federal Circuit Patent Bulletin: MRC Innovations, Inc. v. Hunter Mfg., LLP
April 2, 2014

Federal Circuit Patent Bulletin: Endo Pharms. Inc. v. Actavis, Inc.
March 31, 2014

Federal Circuit Patent Bulletin: Senju Pharm. Co. v. Apotex Inc.
March 31, 2014

Federal Circuit Patent Bulletin: Shire Dev. LLC v. Watson Pharm., Inc.
March 28, 2014

Federal Circuit Patent Bulletin: StoneEagle Servs., Inc. v. Gillman
March 26, 2014

Federal Circuit Patent Bulletin: Brain Life, LLC v. Elekta Inc.
March 24, 2014

Federal Circuit Patent Bulletin: Energy Recovery, Inc. v. Hauge
March 20, 2014

Federal Circuit Patent Bulletin: Alcon Res. Ltd. v. Barr Labs, Inc.
March 18, 2014

Federal Circuit Patent Bulletin: Vederi, LLC v. Google, Inc.
March 14, 2014

Federal Circuit Patent Bulletin: Therasense, Inc. v. Becton, Dickinson & Co.
March 12, 2014

Federal Circuit Patent Bulletin: Danisco US Inc. v. Novozymes A/S
March 11, 2014

Federal Circuit Patent Bulletin: Ancora Techs., Inc. v. Apple, Inc.
March 4, 2014

Federal Circuit Patent Bulletin: Starhome GmbH v. AT&T Mobility LLC
February 25, 2014

Federal Circuit Patent Bulletin: Elcommerce.com, Inc. v. SAP AG
February 25, 2014

Federal Circuit Patent Bulletin: Frans Nooren Afdichtingssytemen B.V. v. Stopaq Amcorr Inc.
February 24, 2014

Federal Circuit Patent Bulletin: GlaxoSmithKline LLC v. Banner Pharmacaps, Inc.
February 24, 2014

Federal Circuit Patent Bulletin: Lighting Ballast Control LLC v. Philips Elecs. N. Am. Corp.
February 21, 2014

Federal Circuit Patent Bulletin: Takeda Pharm. Co. v. Zydus Pharms. USA Inc.
February 20, 2014

Federal Circuit Patent Bulletin: Ring & Pinion Serv. Inc. v. ARB Corp.
February 19, 2014

Federal Circuit Patent Bulletin: Butamax™ Advanced Biofuels LLC v. Gevo, Inc.
February 18, 2014

Federal Circuit Patent Bulletin: Solvay S.A., v. Honeywell Int’l Inc.
February 12, 2014

Federal Circuit Patent Bulletin: Tempo Lighting, Inc. v. Tivoli, LLC
February 10, 2014