Successfully represented Asahi Glass Company, Ltd., a Japanese glass manufacturer, and its subsidiary AFG Industries, Inc., a U.S. glass manufacturer, claiming patent infringement by Cardinal IG Co. of Asahi and AFG’s jointly owned patent relating to thin film, low-emissivity coatings typically used in double-pane windows. After a four-day trial, the Federal District Court Judge granted judgment to Asahi and AFG on the issue of infringement. Thereafter, the jury returned a verdict of more than $25.1 million, to which the court awarded prejudgment interest of more than $18.5 million, for a total of more than $43.7 million in damages. AFG and Asahi Glass v. Cardinal IG, (E.D. Tenn. 2005).
Obtained a $90,000 patent infringement damages award for client Dystar, a German dyestuff and chemical manufacturer, after a six-day trial in a suit involving a Dystar patent connected with its innovative Indigo Vat Solution, which has become the industry benchmark and process of choice for most international denim producers. The use of this process provides dye houses with economic and ecological advantages, increasing the producer's profits and minimizing environmental pollution. DyStar Textilfarben GmbH & Co. Deutschland KG v. C.H. Patrick Co., (S.D.S.C. Sept. 7, 2005).
Represented plaintiff Ricoh in patent infringement action involving toner containers for photocopiers, fax machines, and printers. Won summary judgment of patent infringement and validity as reported at 380 F. Supp. 2d 418 (D.N.J. 2005). Subsequently won summary judgment of enforceability, and the case settled on favorable terms just prior to a jury trial. Ricoh v. Katun Corp.
Represented Sumika in a case claiming patent infringement involving Paroxetine hydrochloride (PAXIL®) and asserting antitrust violations. Certain claims, counterclaims and defenses were partially dismissed voluntarily, and a favorable settlement was obtained for Sumika. Settled on favorable terms. Smithkline Beecham v. Sumika Fine Chemicals, Co., Ltd., et al.
Representative litigations in which Mr. Kelly has been lead counsel include:
- AFG Industries, Inc. and Asahi Glass Co. v. Cardinal IG Co., Inc.
- Ajinomoto Co. v. ChemGenes
- DyStar Textilfarben GmbH & Co. Deutschland KG v. C.H. Patrick Co. and Bann Quimica, Ltd
- George E. Fulhorst, d/b/a SAF-T-NET, USA v. Mitsubishi Motors Corp., et al.
- Multi-Tech Systems Inc. v. Net2phone, Inc.
- Ricoh Corp. v. Katun Corp.
- Smithkline Beecham v. Sumika Fine Chemicals Co., Ltd., et al.
- Kyorin v. Teva
- Kyorin, Senju, and Allergan v. Apotex
- Marion Merrill Dow v. Interchem, Rhone Poulenc Rorer, Inc. and Orion Corporation Fermion
- Zambon Group S.p.A. v. Pfizer, Inc., Warner-Lambert, L.L.C., and Goedecke Aktiengesellschaft
- Zambon Group S.p.A. v. Teva
- Teva v. Moehs
Mr. Kelly also has extensive experience as lead counsel in § 337 actions at the International Trade Commission including:
- In re Certain Polyetheresteramides
- Certain Diltiazem Hydrochloride and Diltiazem Preparations
- Certain Semiconductor Memory Devices and Products Containing Same
- Certain Salinomycin Biomass and Preparations Containing Same
- Certain Organic Photoconductor Drums and Products Containing Same