Arthur I. Neustadt is a founding member and a named partner in the firm. He established the firm’s litigation practice and has been actively involved in intellectual property litigation in courts throughout the United States for many years. He has successfully tried jury and bench cases in varied areas of technology before the federal district courts and the ITC and has argued appeals before the Supreme Court, the Federal Circuit and the federal regional circuit courts of appeal. Mr. Neustadt has lectured widely, both domestically and internationally, on intellectual property litigation. He litigated the landmark Festo v. SMC case over a twenty year period in which he successfully argued before the Supreme Court and twice before the en banc Federal Circuit. He argued again before the Supreme Court in Medtronic v. Boston Scientific.
Mr. Neustadt was designated by Legal Times as one of the top Washington, D.C. area intellectual property attorneys. Chambers USA refers to him as “very conscientious, very bright and very knowledgeable,” “an inspirational and highly creative attorney,” “a true landmark setter,” “known to get great settlements quickly due in part to the good grasp he has of the dynamics of litigation” and “according to competitors, ‘proficient at identifying issues and working with a cost-benefit approach.’” Intellectual Asset Management describes him as a “luminary.” Mr. Neustadt was selected by his peers for inclusion in Best Lawyers in America, was named as a Super Lawyer for both Washington, D.C. and Virginia and was selected as a finalist in the Lawdragon 500 Leading Lawyers in America. He has also served on the Intellectual Property Advisory Committee to the U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware.
Mr. Neustadt’s cases include
Norgren v. ITC (FRL connector patent held invalid as obvious);
Medtronic v. Boston Scientific (non-relief requesting patent licensor held to have burden of proof);
Saint-Gobain v. Xinyi (automotive windshield patents held valid and infringed, double damages and attorney fees awarded);
Cardiac Pacemakers v. St. Jude (en banc) (invalidity ruling for pioneer implantable cardioverter defibrillator (“ICD”) patent reversed, 271(f) construed);
Tokyo Keiso v. SMC (volume flowmeter patent held invalid as obvious);
Festo v. SMC (doctrine of equivalents restricted by prosecution history estoppel);
Medtronic v. Guidant (pioneer patent for treatment of congestive heart failure held valid);
Cardiac Pacemakers v. St. Jude (jury validity verdict for pioneer ICD patent reinstated);
Loral Fairchild v. Toshiba (Rader, J. sitting by designation) (early charge coupled device (CCD) patent held invalid and not infringed),
Li v. Toshiba (early semiconductor patent held inequitably procured, attorney fees awarded)
Ajinomoto v. ADM (multi-million dollar damages award for infringement of mutation genetics and recombinant DNA patent).