- Blockchain Technology
- Class Action
- Commercial Litigation
- Congressional Investigations & Criminal Defense
- Eastern District of Virginia: The Rocket Docket
- Election Law & First Amendment Litigation
- Employment Litigation
- Environmental Regulation, Litigation, and Counseling
- Foreign Agents Registration Act
- Foreign Corrupt Practices Act and Anti-Corruption
- International Arbitration/Dispute Resolution
- Litigation – Hatch-Waxman Act
- Patent Litigation
- Professional Liability Defense
- State and Local Procurement Law
Wiley Rein’s Patent Practice has built a solid record of obtaining successful outcomes for clients from a variety of industries involving a broad cross-section of matters. We have considerable experience in representing both plaintiffs and defendants in high-profile and high-stakes cases. We handle patent infringement litigation and application prosecution, and provide strategic counsel on patent enforcement, licensing, and intellectual property portfolio evaluation.
Our Practice garnered international attention following the historic settlement we secured for NTP, Inc., in a patent infringement case against the manufacturer of BlackBerry wireless devices. The settlement was one of the largest of its kind and resolved a fiercely contested case that, as noted by one media outlet, “captured the attention of Wall Street, the Supreme Court, and the governments of both Canada and the United States.”
Widely recognized for their ability to handle complex patent matters, our attorneys draw on an uncommon combination of legal knowledge, technical expertise, and litigation skill to assist clients in achieving their business objectives related to patent law matters. Our team members boast extensive and diverse academic and professional backgrounds that enable them to represent clients in virtually all applicable fields of science and engineering. Particularly, we possess strong expertise in technology related to the Internet, satellite and wireless communications, computer software and hardware, consumer electronics, semiconductors, biotechnology, pharmaceuticals, and medical devices.
Wiley Rein advises clients from a diverse range of high-tech industries, including biotechnology, pharmaceuticals, telecommunications, and consumer electronics. Both domestic and international clients have said that they choose Wiley Rein for our ability as a Washington, DC law firm to uniquely combine our knowledge of the U.S. court system with the legal and political landscape. As a DC-based firm, our experience and capabilities in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, U.S. Court of Federal Claims, and Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) are top-notch, and we have extensive experience in every district court in the United States known for patent litigation – including courts in Texas, Delaware, California, Florida, New York, and New Jersey.
Many of our attorneys clerked for judges in district courts or the Federal Circuit, and many of our patent litigators hold engineering or science degrees, including many advanced degrees.
We are trial lawyers and counselors specializing in patent cases. Our approach is to prepare a case with the expectation that it will go to trial, while also pursuing more efficient avenues to resolve the case – including strategic motions practice, the use of mediation or arbitration, and PTAB proceedings.
Our intensive preparation and dedication to staffing matters leanly and efficiently allows us to provide cost-effective representation to our clients. Unlike some of our highly leveraged peer firms, we staff cases with a small team of experienced attorneys who are fully immersed in the facts. With the full resources of our large firm behind us, we can increase staffing as needed, but the core team will handle the issues that we believe to be dispositive. This lean staffing model allows us to provide cost-effective representation to clients ranging from Fortune 500 corporations and segment-leading companies to startup and midcap ventures – usually at overall rates that are far more competitive than those of our peer firms.
A sample of significant representations includes:
- Obtaining summary judgment of non-infringement and 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 nationwide 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 text messaging, wireless modems, 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 ARM in numerous lawsuits where its customers have been sued for using ARM processor cores in their chipsets. Includes, for example, a victory in the Eastern District of Texas and affirmed by the Federal Circuit.
- 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.
- 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.
- Representing multiple financial institutions in patent infringement actions involving electronic imaging, transmission, and presentation of financial documents; bank card processing systems; encrypting financial transactions; and other Internet and business methods.
- 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.
In the pharmaceutical patent infringement and Hatch-Waxman ANDA context, we have been involved in numerous litigations, including the following products:
- Acetaminophen IV (Ofirmev®)
- Allopurinol (Zyloprim®)
- Aripiprazole (Abilify®)
- Bendamustine (Treanda®)
- Bortezomib (Velcade®)
- Carbidopa/Levodopa (Sinemet® CR)
- Cetuximab (Erbitux®)
- Cyclobenzaprine HCl (Amrix®)
- Dexmedetomidine hydrochloride (Precedex®)
- Dextromethorphan/Quinidine (Nuedexta®)
- Doxycycline Hyclate (Doryx®)
- Dutasteride (Avodart®)
- Esomeprazole (Nexium®)
- Erlotinib (Tarceva®)
- Fenofibrate (Antara®)
- Fesoterodine (Toviaz®)
- Gabapentin (Gralise®)
- Interferon (Roferon®-A)
- Leuprolide acetate (Eligard®)
- Levofloxacin (Levaquin®)
- Levothyroxine sodium for injection
- Loratadine (Claritin®)
- Lurasidone HCl (Latuda®)
- Micronized Glyburide (Glynase®)
- Omeprazole (Prilosec®)
- Oxybutynin Chloride (Ditropan XL®)
- Risedronate sodium delayed-release tablets (Atelvia®)
- Roflumilast (Daliresp®)
- Romidepsin (Istodax®)
- Tamoxifen Citrate (Nolvadex®)
- Tolterodine Tartate (Detrol® LA)
- tPA (Activase®)
- Vortioxetine (Trintellix®)
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 PTAB provides several 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 cost-effective methods 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 Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences (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.
Additionally, we have experience filing requests for ex parte reexamination. These proceedings can be a valuable strategic tool, allowing companies to challenge competitor’s patents with relative anonymity and without risk of estoppel that accompanies inter partes proceedings. Patent owners contemplating litigation or licensing may also use ex parte reexamination as a tool to refine claims and avoid prior art.
Since the introduction of IPRs in 2012, Wiley Rein has assisted with more than 30 IPR proceedings, involving telecommunications hardware and software, semiconductors and microprocessors, and pharmaceutical formulations and compounds. Our experience includes advising clients on IPR strategies as part of our comprehensive, business-focused patent strategy.
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.
- 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, which is designed to prevent the entry of infringing goods into the United States and to provide a resolution on an expedited schedule – typically within 12 months. We regularly serve clients in these specialized proceedings by successfully combining our expertise in international trade, intellectual property, and other fields, becoming especially active in bringing 337 actions against parties engaged in selling infringing pharmaceuticals over the Internet. Among our additional successes was a prominent victory in a case involving novel microwave filters on satellites that, based upon their light weight, enabled increased satellite life.
In this arena, we have:
- Represented Lilly ICOS LLC as a complainant in an investigation involving Cialis® (In the Matter of Certain Tadalafil of Salts and Solvates Thereof, and Products Containing Same). Our firm obtained a general exclusion order against infringing importation of the chemical in Cialis®.
- Represented Pfizer Inc. as a complainant in an investigation involving Viagra® (In re Matter of Sildenafil or any Pharmaceutically Acceptable Salt thereof, and Products Containing Same). Our firm obtained a general exclusion order prohibiting all infringing imports, regardless of source, the most favorable outcome possible for a complainant in a Section 337 investigation.
- Represented Atico International USA, Inc., as a respondent, in an investigation involving batteries (In re Matter of Certain Zero-Mercury Added Alkaline Batteries). The case was favorably settled before trial.
- Represented Space Systems/Loral in a patent infringement action before the USITC and obtained the equivalent of a preliminary injunction against Com Dev involving novel dual-mode dielectric microwave filters on satellites that, based upon their light weight, enabled increased channel capacity and/or fuel storage on the satellites.
- Successfully defended Berwick Industries in a patent infringement proceeding brought by 3M regarding gift-package bows that are shipped in flat packages to avoid damage and blossom into perfect bows on arrival when their strings are pulled (In re Pull-String Bows).
- Prepared a 337 complaint for a company owning a food-related patent, which was instrumental in resolving the dispute before an investigation was declared (resolution involved the sale of a product division to the accused infringer).
- Represented a European chemical company that was accused of infringing multiple patents and misappropriating trade secrets relating to plastic food casings; presented antitrust defenses; and subsequently settled the case on a favorable basis.
- Represented a Japanese semiconductor company accused of importing infringing memory devices. After investigation, the complaint was dismissed and refiled as a patent infringement case in U.S. District Court, where our client prevailed on the basis of an antitrust defense.
- Represented respondents accused of infringing design patents covering aspects of the Ford F-150. Resulted in the introduction of the Access to Repair Parts Act (H.R. 3059), which sought to exempt repaired components from design patent infringement.
- Represented two respondents through trial in defending against allegations of patent infringement relating to three patents covering computer forensic devices. Prevailed on an Initial Determination finding no domestic industry.
- Represented complainant in a patent infringement action relating to baby strollers and playards. Case settled favorably while summary determination motions were pending.
- Represented complainant as lead counsel in a patent infringement action relating to hand-held underground cable and pipe locators. The parties reached a global settlement during the investigation.
News & Insights
News & Insights
- June 22, 2018 | ALERTSupreme Court Holds that Lost Profits from Foreign Sales Are Recoverable for Patent Infringement Under 35 U.S.C. § 271(f)(2)
- May 10, 2017 | ARTICLEBiosimilar Development
- April 27, 2017 | ARTICLEBiosimilar Development
- June 16, 2016 | PRESS RELEASE
- June 9, 2016 | PRESS RELEASEFloyd Chapman and Brian Pandya Are Featured Speakers in AUVSI Webinar to Address Patent Infringement in UAS Industry, June 15
- November 2, 2015 | PRESS RELEASE
- October 29, 2015 | PRESS RELEASE
- March 3, 2015 | Webinar | EVENTAmerican Intellectual Property Law Association
- August 26, 2014 | EVENTAttorney Fees and Claim Construction in Patent Litigation: More Federal Circuit Deference to the District Courts?Bloomberg BNA Webinar
- March 2014 | ARTICLEThe Rocket Docket News
- February 3, 2014 | PRESS RELEASE
- October 2, 2013 | PRESS RELEASEWiley Rein Amicus Brief Helps Persuade U.S. Supreme Court to Review Federal Circuit Ruling on Patent Litigation Attorney Fees
- August 15, 2013 | PRESS RELEASETwenty-Six Wiley Rein Partners Recognized Across 18 Practice Areas in the 2014 Edition of Best Lawyers
- July 17, 2013 | ARTICLEWashington Legal Foundation's The Legal Pulse
- July 1, 2013 | PRESS RELEASESupreme Court’s Drug-Patent Antitrust Ruling Analyzed by Wiley Rein’s James Czaban, Brian Pandya and Christin Helms
- April 29, 2013 | PRESS RELEASEWiley Rein Amicus Brief Urges Supreme Court Review of Federal Circuit Ruling on Patent Litigation Attorney Fees
- April 26, 2013 | ARTICLEBloomberg BNA's Class Action Litigation Report
- April 19, 2013 | PRESS RELEASE
- March 4, 2013 | PRESS RELEASE
- February 21, 2013 | MEDIA MENTIONLaw360
- January 31, 2013 | Ahmedabad, India | EVENTAn Interactive Session on Intellectual Property Rights in the U.S.Confederation of Indian Industry
- January 28, 2013 | Bangalore, India | EVENTAre Business Method Patents Still Alive in the United States?Global IP Convention
- November 1, 2012 | PRESS RELEASE
- October 2, 2012 | PRESS RELEASE
- June 11, 2012 | PRESS RELEASE
- June 7, 2012 | PRESS RELEASEChambers USA Recognizes Thirty-Two Wiley Rein Attorneys Across Fifteen Practice Areas as Best in the Country
- April 27, 2012 | PRESS RELEASE
- April 16, 2012 | Las Vegas, NV | EVENTBroadcaster and the Beast: Tales of Copyright and Patent AdventuresThe NAB Show
- March 13, 2012 | Columbia, MO | EVENTHow the America Invents Act Affects Innovation and ResearchUniversity of Missouri
- January 20, 2012 | ARTICLEFirst-Inventor-to-File, or First-to-Disclose?-Understanding the America Invents ActBloomberg BNA's Patent, Trademark & Copyright Journal
- December 7, 2011 | ARTICLEHealth Law360
- December 5, 2011 | ARTICLELast Gasp for False Patent Marking Cases? The Public Patent Foundation Challenges the Constitutionality of the America Invents ActWashington Legal Foundation's The Legal Pulse
- December 2011 | ARTICLEThe Metropolitan Corporate Counsel Vol. 19, No. 12
- November 23, 2011 | PRESS RELEASE
- November 2, 2011 | ARTICLEBankruptcy Law360
- November 1, 2011 | PRESS RELEASE
- October 11, 2011 | EVENTBNA Webinar
- September 22, 2011 | Arlington, VA | EVENTWill a New Breed of NPEs Change the Role of Patents?Bureau of National Affairs Patent Trademark and Copyright Journal Advisory Board Meeting
- September 19, 2011 | Alexandria, VA | EVENTCopyright Technology 101United States Copyright Office and the Patent and Trademark Office Conference on Copyright in the Digital Age
- August 30, 2011 | PRESS RELEASE
- July 13, 2011 | ARTICLETask Force Report on Mayo Collaborative Services v. Prometheus LabsABA Section of Intellectual Property Law
- June 13, 2011 | PRESS RELEASE
- June 10, 2011 | PRESS RELEASEThirty Wiley Rein Attorneys from More than a Dozen Practice Areas Included as Best in Class by Chambers USA
- June 8, 2011 | ALERTSupreme Court Holds Bayh-Dole Act Does Not Automatically Vest Patent Rights in Federally Funded Inventions to Federal Contractors
- May 14, 2011 | Las Vegas, NV | EVENTThere's More Than One Way to Exercise a Cat: The Supreme Court and Inducement of InfringementABA Young Lawyers Division Spring Conference 2011
- May 3, 2011 | PRESS RELEASE
- March 2, 2011 | PRESS RELEASE
- January 13, 2011 | EVENTA New World for Indirect Infringement?: The Supreme Court's View of Patent and Copyright Inducement StandardsABA Intellectual Property Law Committee Webinar
- January 11, 2011 | PRESS RELEASE
- December 29, 2010 | PRESS RELEASE
- September 15, 2010 | PRESS RELEASEU.S. News & World Report and "Best Lawyers" Rate Seven Wiley Rein Practices among the Nation's and Region's Best
- August 4, 2010 | PRESS RELEASE
- June 14, 2010 | PRESS RELEASEChambers USA Ranks Wiley Rein Intellectual Property Practice among Washington, DC's Best; Names James H. Wallace, Jr. and Bruce G. Joseph "Leading Lawyers"
- April 1, 2010 | PRESS RELEASE
- November 24, 2009 | PRESS RELEASEWashingtonian Magazine Dubs Richard E. Wiley a "Star of the Bar;" Names a Dozen Attorneys to its List of DC's "Top Lawyers"
- March 23, 2009 | PRESS RELEASE
- December 31, 2008 | PRESS RELEASE
- July 10, 2008 | PRESS RELEASE
- June 10, 2008 | PRESS RELEASE
- May 12, 2008 | PRESS RELEASEWiley Rein Client ARM Wins Significant Patent Infringement Dispute As A Defendant In The Eastern District of Texas
- December 31, 2007 | PRESS RELEASE
- June 1, 2007 | PRESS RELEASE
- March 26, 2007 | PRESS RELEASE
- September 7, 2006 | PRESS RELEASEWiley Rein & Fielding Client Mylan Wins Significant Patent Dispute as Appeals Court Upholds Ruling on Oxybutynin
- March 3, 2006 | PRESS RELEASE
- November 30, 2005 | PRESS RELEASEDistrict Court Denies Attempt to Stay Proceedings and Rejects a Purported Settlement in Blackberry Patent Dispute
- October 26, 2005 | PRESS RELEASESupreme Court Denies RIM's Motion in NTP v. Research In Motion Patent Dispute
- September 28, 2005 | PRESS RELEASE
- May 23, 2005 | PRESS RELEASE
- March 16, 2005 | PRESS RELEASE
- December 14, 2004 | PRESS RELEASECourt of Appeals Unanimously Affirms BlackBerry Injunction and Final Judgment in NTP v. Research In Motion Patent Dispute
- December 1, 2004 | PRESS RELEASE
- February 20, 2004 | PRESS RELEASE
- May 30, 2003 | PRESS RELEASE
- November 25, 2002 | PRESS RELEASEWiley Rein & Fielding Attorneys Win $23 Million Patent Infringement Verdict against BlackBerry Maker
- June 25, 2001 | ARTICLECompliance with the Access Requirements of Section 508: Added Procurement Complexity for IT Industry and Federal Agencies