Representative Matters

  • Represented Valeo as both complainant and respondent in Section 337 investigations at the ITC involving windshield wiper blade technology. Certain Windshield Wipers and Components Thereof (Inv. No. 337-TA-928/937), Certain Windscreen Wipers and Components Thereof (Inv. No. 337-TA-964).
  • Represented Otis Elevator Company in inter partes reexaminations of Inventio AG patents related to modernization of elevator installations.
  • Represented patentee Mirowski Family Ventures in action against Medtronic involving patent for treatment of congestive heart failure. Medtronic Inc. v. Boston Scientific Corp., et al., C.A. No. 07-823 (D. Del.). The case was remanded following a seminal decision by the U.S. Supreme Court on the burden of proof in a licensee’s declaratory judgment action.
  • Represented Covance Inc. in a copyright infringement and software licensing dispute with Attachmate Corp. Covance Inc. v. Attachmate Corp., C.A. No. 12-4088 (D.N.J.).
  • Represented Toyota and Subaru in action involving RFID-based vehicle immobilization. Rydex, Ltd. v. General Motors Co. et al., C.A. No. 11-122 (S.D. Tex.).
  • Represented defendant Optrex America in a multi-defendant action brought by Honeywell against the entire LCD industry involving a patent on a directional diffuser for an LCD. Optrex settled on favorable terms and the patent was subsequently held invalid on summary judgment. Honeywell Int’l Inc., et al. v. Apple Computer, et al., C.A. No. 04-1337 (D. Del.).
  • Represented plaintiff ArcelorMittal in a case involving aluminum coated boron steel products and methods for making same. ArcelorMittal France, et. al. v. AK Steel Corp., et al., C.A. No. 10-050 (D. Del.).
  • Represented plaintiff Solvay in an action involving a process for making a hydrofluorocarbon for use as a foam insulation blowing agent. Solvay S.A. v. Honeywell Int'l Inc., C.A. No. 06-557 (D. Del.). The case was remanded to the district court following a seminal decision by the Federal Circuit in Solvay’s favor on the applicability of Section 102(g). 622 F.3d 1367 (Fed. Cir. 2010).
  • Represented Hooker Furniture Corp. in a trademark dispute with construction company Opus Group involving Hooker Furniture's activities in connection with its OPUS DESIGNS mark, which Opus Group claimed violated its trademark rights. Hooker Furniture Corp. v. Opus Corp., et al., C.A. No. 08-390 (E.D. Va.). The case settled on terms favorable to Hooker Furniture.