Skip to Main Content

In Brief: A Digest of Intellectual Property Litigation Projects

Client Success
  • Obtained a judgment in the amount of $14.42 million in a patent and trademark infringement case. In addition to the damages award, our clients were granted a permanent injunction against defendants' further use of clients’ patents or trademarks along with an award of attorneys' fees;
  • Represented a large biotech company, the owner of patents for herbicide-resistant soybean seeds, in a lawsuit against a defendant for breach of license agreement and consequent infringement of patents. Following a nonjury trial, the court found in favor of our client, issuing a permanent injunction against the defendant and a monetary award in favor of client in the amount of nearly $800,000. The appellate court reviewed the damage amounts and asked the trial court to recalculate damages. On remand, the trial court issued an amended judgment in favor of our client in the amount of more than $625,000;
  • Represented our client in several significant decisions, including: (1) preprinted, uniform contracts offered to customers are enforceable even if the customers claim not to have read it; (2) our client was legally entitled to license the use of patented crop seed for use during a single growing season; (3) client’s forum selection clause was enforceable; and (4) damages for self-replicating inventions such as seed can and should be greater than the cost of a bag of the seed at a retail outlet.
  •  After a favorable jury verdict and a finding of willfulness in a patent infringement case, a district court awarded our client damages of $2,937,527.07, representing a combination of patent infringement damages, attorneys’ fees and costs, and treble damages. Federal court upheld $2.9 million judgment;
  • Represented a generic drug manufacturer in a patent infringement lawsuit involving an osteoporosis drug. Husch Blackwell obtained summary judgment that two patents were invalid for obviousness. Our team also defeated motion for preliminary injunction to prevent client from launching a generic version of the drug. This preliminary injunction decision was upheld on appeal to a federal court;
  • Obtained a jury verdict and permanent injunction on behalf of a global water management company against the Purolite Co. in a patent infringement case involving ion exchange-based water treatment technology. On cross examination, we showed that the opinions of defendant’s expert were flawed because his experiments did not properly replicate the defendant’s manufacturing process;
  • Obtained summary judgment on four of six counts asserted against our client, a glass, automotive and building products manufacturer, in a $380 million false advertising and patent infringement case. The court granted client summary judgment on plaintiff’s claim for damages and on all 128 alleged instances of interference with contract, thereby removing plaintiff’s right to a jury trial and reducing potential monetary exposure to less than 2 percent of plaintiff’s original claim.
  • Achieved favorable results for pharmaceutical company in a patent infringement case alleging its generic version of Cephalon’s Amrix infringed several patents. The court found in our client’s favor following a seven-day bench trial and granted it subsequent motion to deem the case exceptional and for attorneys’ fees.
  • Brought lawsuit on behalf of a Fortune 500 manufacturer for infringement of its patent relating to polypropylene strapping material. Critical to the case was our team’s ability to understand and explain the polymer chemistry and extrusion processing technologies at issue. Following discovery and Markman claim construction briefing, we were able to obtain a settlement for the client;
  • Patent prosecution work involving semiconductor processing methods, liquid crystal display (LCD) and light emitting devices (LED), including more than 1,000 U.S. patents for a single client;
  • Defended a California-based startup company against patent infringement and misappropriation of trade secret claims relating to semiconductor technology used in cell phones. Achieved favorable results for client.
  • Represented leading provider of Microsoft Office integration software and services for law firms in patent infringement case brought in U.S. District Court, District of Oregon, related to computer tool bar customization technology, resulting in favorable settlement.
  • Obtained the dismissal of a patent infringement case for a multinational manufacturer after re-examination of the patent-in-suit resulted in all claims rejected.
  • In a patent infringement case over sports jerseys for pets, a federal judge granted summary judgment in favor of our client CDI International. The plaintiff owned two federal patents that were issued in 2011: one for a football jersey for dogs and the other for a baseball jersey for dogs. Previously, CDI had been manufacturing similar jerseys. U.S. District Judge Patricia Gaughan in the Northern District of Ohio struck down both patents because they would have been obvious to a designer of ordinary skill in the field.
  • In a patent infringement matter, Husch Blackwell defended Layne Christensen Co. Three affiliate companies of Layne, Diamantina Christensen Trading Inc., Boyles Bros Diamantina S.A. and Christensen Chile S.A., were accused by Boart Longyear Co. and Longyear TM Inc. in U.S. District Court, District of Nevada, of infringing six patents directed to core drill bits. The case against all three defendants was dismissed. We also provided counsel in the dismissal of a similar case involving the same parties in front of the U.S. International Trade Commission;
  • Husch Blackwell prosecuted a trademark infringement lawsuit on behalf of Luxco Inc. The suit began in 2007 when Luxco sought to cancel the U.S. registration of the term Tovaritch for vodka owned by Tovaritch Spirits International (TSI). Luxco’s cancellation petition was based upon its ownership of the trademark Tvarscki, which it and its predecessors have used to brand vodka and other distilled spirits since the late 1950s. TSI began bottling its own vodka in Russia under the Tovaritch mark in 1999 but did not bring the brand to the United States until 2007;
  • Our attorneys achieved a favorable outcome before the U.S. Board of Patent Appeals for TC Development Design, which owns two U.S. patents for a motorcycle stand that secures a motorcycle in an upright orientation. One of the patents was in jeopardy when a third party convinced a patent examiner that the patent was invalid. We took TC Development’s case to the federal Board of Patent Appeals, which reversed all of the examiner’s rejections;
  • Represented Bakers Footwear Group in defense of a design patent infringement case in a federal court in California for a purse design. The case settled early after we secured the cooperation of an indemnitor;
  • Represented May Department Stores International in a design patent infringement case in a federal court in Missouri, involving stereo equipment designs. This case settled in favor of our client with the defendant agreeing to cease all future sales and providing royalty-based payment for past sales;
  • Defended Brown Shoe Co. Inc. in a design patent infringement action in a federal court in Texas. The case was settled early on extremely favorable grounds for client after disclosure of relevant prior art;
  • Represented defendant Brown Shoe in a design patent infringement action involving shoe designs in a federal court in Connecticut. The case settled on extremely favorable terms for client;
  • Defended Jarden Consumer Solutions in a utility patent infringement suit in a federal court in Illinois involving coffeemaker technology. Plaintiff dismissed the case during re-examination initiated by Sunbeam. All claims were cancelled during re-examination;
  • Defended Vatech America Inc. in a multi-utility patent infringement lawsuit in a federal court in New Jersey relating to X-ray imaging technology. The case was stayed after we initiated re-examination of patents-in-suit. The case was settled on a worldwide basis after asserted claims were found not patentable in re-examination proceedings;
  • Advised True Manufacturing Co. Inc. in design patent infringement case tried before a jury in a federal court in Missouri. Specialty Equipment Cos. Inc. alleged that two refrigerated coolers manufactured by True Manufacturing infringed a U.S. patent. Following a six-day trial, the jury returned a verdict in favor of client, finding that True Manufacturing did not infringe the patent;
  • The National Law Journal released the nation’s largest verdicts of 2012, compiled by its affiliate VerdictSearch. Husch Blackwell attorneys were recognized as counsel on the third-largest jury verdict, representing 500 multinational agricultural biotech company Monsanto (now Bayer). In a patent-infringement trial against DuPont Co., Monsanto was awarded $1 billion in jury verdict involving herbicide-resistant soybeans. After a three week trial in a federal court in Missouri, the jury returned a verdict in less than an hour in favor of Monsanto. In the lawsuit filed in 2009, Monsanto claimed that DuPont and its agricultural crop subsidiary, DuPont Pioneer Hi-Bred International, violated a 2002 license agreement. DuPont was found guilty of willfully infringing Monsanto's patent for herbicide-resistant seeds that are able to survive exposure to glyphosate, the active ingredient in the Roundup weed killer made by Monsanto. Husch Blackwell utilized the novel damages theory (accelerated market entry) that netted the $1 billion judgment;
  • On behalf of Printroom Inc., we obtained dismissal of a multi-patent infringement lawsuit relating to online photo-sharing technology brought by FotoMedia Technologies, LLC. Printroom is a leading provider of web-based digital imaging products and services for professional photographers, after final rejection by the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (PTO) of certain asserted claims that were submitted for re-examination.
  • We represented Reynolds Inliner in a patent infringement matter. Reynolds is a leader in the business of lining pipes, particularly lining sewer pipes in place by applying resin-bearing liners to lateral or service pipes. Reynolds filed suit over Insituform's alleged infringement of Reynold's patented process for lining pipes. Insituform also filed suit against Reynolds in U.S. Court, Northern District of Georgia, claiming Reynolds allegedly infringed several of its patents. Reynolds countersued Insituform in the Georgia action. Ultimately, we reached a settlement agreeable to both parties.