Heller Ehrman - Intellectual Property Litigation

Intellectual Property Litigation Practice

Leading companies around the world look to Heller Ehrman’s depth of experience and breadth of resources in intellectual property litigation when they want to protect their most valuable intellectual property assets. We have an established reputation for high-caliber intellectual property litigation. We use our advocacy skills and technical competence to assist clients across a range of industries, including semiconductors, wireless, software, cryptography, networking, computers, secure digital payment, telecommunications, pharmaceuticals, biotechnology and medical devices. Our clients include industry leaders such as Genentech, Maxim, Allergan, Texas Instruments, Merck KGaA, Yahoo!, Innogenetics, CA, SonoSite, IAC, Palm, Depomed, Apple, S.C. Johnson and Seagate.

Facts About Our Practice

Comprised of more than 90 lawyers involved in IP litigation - including four members of the American College of Trial Lawyers, a member and former chair of the Northern District of California’s Patent Rules Revision Committee, and five members recognized by Chambers USA for their IP and complex litigation capabilities.
Possess courtroom experience in state and federal courts across the country, including all leading patent litigation districts, as well as before the U.S. Supreme Court, International Trade Commission, Court of International Trade and Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit.
Won 17 IP trials in the last five years, including a jury verdict for Texas Instruments and Stanford University in TI v. Globespan Virata of $112 million. The $112 million verdict was named one of the “Top 10 IP Verdicts in 2006” by IP Law & Business.
Successfully obtained a unanimous U.S. Supreme Court decision for Merck, which the National Law Journal called “the most significant patent infringement case to confront the pharmaceutical and biotech industries in a generation.”
Represented Yahoo! Inc. in a patent litigation against Google. Case resulted in a settlement of approximately $450 million in our client’s favor.

Our Capabilities

Patents

Our combination of our experienced trial lawyers and patent counsel produces consistently powerful and efficient litigation and trial teams, which have been successful in state and federal courts and at the U.S. International Trade Commission. Our litigators are supported by our in-house patent group.

Copyrights and Trademarks

We have coordinated and implemented anti-piracy and seizure efforts around the world for products ranging from blue jeans to computer software, from handbags to other luxury goods. We manage our global network to oppose or cancel marks, as well as to institute or defend litigation when necessary. We institute and defend opposition and cancellation actions before the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board and handle Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (UDRP) arbitration proceedings for the resolution of domain name disputes.

Trade Secrets

We have experience representing a host of life sciences, electronics and software clients in issues ranging from the allegation of illicit payments in exchange for confidential information to the misappropriation of confidential financial information and the unauthorized use of technologies.

Intellectual Property Services

Our multidisciplinary team includes transactional attorneys, litigators, trademark attorneys, patent prosecutors and patent professionals. We counsel clients with respect to obtaining and protecting patents, trademarks and other intellectual property assets. We also have a reputation for high-quality litigation and trial work to defend those assets, and our attorneys have extensive experience litigating complex patent, copyright, trademark and trade secret cases. A significant part of our practice also involves counseling clients and negotiating transactions with respect to licensing and distribution of their products, technology and related intellectual property.

China IP Services

The explosive growth of commercial and trade relations with China has given rise to a multitude of IPR protection issues. Combining the resources of its strong global IP Litigation practice, its Patent Group and its China offices, Heller Ehrman has provided practical and effective solutions to many inbound and outbound business issues that implicate IP in China.

Our Capabilities

Comprehensive "IPR Audits" designed to evaluate the IPR protections that clients currently maintain in China and to assess the effectiveness of those protections. Following an IPR Audit, we make recommendations regarding potential improvements.
Assistance with the preparation and drafting of various contractual and other legal documents designed to help IPR holders defend their rights in a legally enforceable manner in China.
Assistance with administrative raid actions against IP infringing organizations.
Assistance with the Chinese Customs authority's IP border measure, which allows IPR holders to identify and take action against any infringing imports and (often more importantly) infringing exports.
Protection and enforcement of patents, copyrights and trademarks in China and throughout Asia through dispute resolution mechanisms, including judicial representation in the Chinese courts and through representation in the alternative dispute resolution context.
Assistance with patent and trademark prosecution, technology transfer issues and criminal proceedings in relation to intellectual property rights in China.

Representative Engagements: China Intellectual Property Services

Advised U.S. high-tech trade association on strategies for counteracting IPR infringement in China through local judicial remedies, use of Chinese border measures and use of trade policy tools.
Represented a Hong Kong company in design patent infringement litigation in Guangdong Province; supervised pre-litigation investigations.
Successfully represented Shanghai Semiconductor Manufacturing International Corporation (SMIC), in a multiple jurisdiction litigation against Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Company Ltd. (TSMC). SMIC was accused of infringing several TSMC patents and misappropriating TSMC's trade secrets.
Represented the Hong Kong subsidiary of a well-known French magazine in a copyright infringement litigation against a local magazine publisher. The Court took steps to perpetuate evidence for the litigation by seizing documents from the premises of the defendant. This case was settled after the defendant paid an agreed amount of damages to the plaintiff and signed a letter of undertaking.
Represented a Fortune Global 500 electronics company in a design patent infringement litigation. Under our advice, the local Public Notary visited the infringing factory and its sales outlets to collect evidence for infringement. In the invalidation action the defendant later initiated, our consultants also represented the client.
Represented a Chinese subsidiary of a German manufacturing company in a trademark infringement brought against it by a local Chinese company. As a result of our successful defense, the plaintiff withdrew the case two hours after the hearing without any conditions.
Represented a Chinese subsidiary of a U.S. manufacturer of ATMs in a trademark infringement brought against it by a local Chinese company. In our successful defense, the claims of the plaintiff were all rejected.
Represented a Fortune Global 500 French cosmetics company in a litigation against a local Chinese company who registered the client's brand as domain name. The Court decided in favor of the client and concluded the trademark of the client had gained significant reputation in China, aiding the client's subsequent enforcement actions in China.
Regularly advise multinational companies on IP enforcement in China, including a prominent U.S.-based developer of cellular telephone technology and U.S. pharmaceutical companies.

Foreign IP Border Measures

Many countries around the world have adopted IP border measures, which authorize their national Customs officials to seize shipments of allegedly infringing products and/or block future importations (and, in some cases, exportations) of such products. Surprisingly, many of these foreign border measures are underutilized. Companies that develop coordinated global IP border enforcement strategies can engineer effective international IP protection against infringers worldwide, thereby protecting their proprietary technology and brands in multiple markets simultaneously. In a defensive posture, the proliferation of these border measures requires companies which have multiple major foreign markets and face the threat of IP litigation to have developed a sound strategy to mitigate the impact of such measures.

Our Capabilities

International Measures

Trade in merchandise that infringes IP rights has increased sharply in the past five years. As this trade swells, countries realize that they must have more tools to address these problems than have historically been available as purely domestic remedies. In response, there has been a rapid growth in the adoption of IP border measures, which in turn has added a challenging new set of factors to consider in developing global competitive and litigation strategy Multinational companies that do so proactively can obtain rapid and robust IP border enforcement in multiple markets, thereby maximizing the returns from their IP investments, while protecting brand equity and overall financial health. Companies that fail to take these tools into account can find themselves severely disadvantaged in unfamiliar and fast-moving foreign proceedings that may offer limited adversarial rights. Inasmuch as these foreign proceedings can result in de facto bans on future import activity, companies ignore such proceedings at their peril.

Heller Ehrman's IP and trade attorneys in Washington, D.C. and Asia have extensive experience in international border measures and offer companies a truly "global" approach to IP border enforcement and global litigation strategy development. We have advised clients on coordinated strategies involving the IP border measures maintained in the United States, Japan, Korea, China and the European Union.

Representative Engagements: Foreign Intellectual Property Border Measures

Advised private companies and foreign governments on the operation of IP border enforcement regimes in the United States, Europe, Japan, China and South Korea.
Advised consumer products manufacturers on coordinated use of China's export-focused IP border measure along with U.S. import-focused IP border measure, thereby helping the company develop strategies to choke off the supply of infringing goods from the primary country of export, while at the same time blocking importation of such goods into the primary consumer market.
Assisted major semiconductor manufacturer in designing and implementing coordinated strategy to use U.S. and European border enforcement measures both defensively and offensively.
Advised U.S. high-tech trade association on strategies for coordinating the use of Chinese IP border enforcement measures and U.S. Section 337 and Customs border enforcement remedies.

Section 337 & International IP Enforcement

In today's global economy, strategies that successfully leverage and defend valuable intellectual property rights are not confined by national borders. Heller Ehrman's IP litigation practice professionals are at the forefront of this complex field, and offer comprehensive business solutions through integrated international IP counseling, litigation, and enforcement.

Our Capabilities

Section 337 Investigations

U.S. law allows an intellectual property owner to seek remedies before the U.S. International Trade Commission ("ITC") for unfair practices related to imports into the United States. This includes imports that infringe U.S. patents, trademarks and copyrights. The proceedings are expedited: The ITC issues a final decision and remedial order within 12-18 months from filing. The remedy is powerful: An exclusion order enforced by U.S. Customs and Border Protection ("Customs") barring importation of all infringing products. The remedy is available to any company – whether based in the United States or abroad – that owns a U.S. intellectual property right and exploits that right within the United States. A more extensive overview of the proceeding can be found in our Guide to Section 337 Investigations.

Heller Ehrman's attorneys have appeared in over 65 Section 337 cases spanning more than 20 years, including some of the largest and most high-profile matters to have come before the ITC. This cumulative experience is critical in the setting of fast paced litigation – where discovery lasts only a few months and the case is brought to trial in 8-10 months, there is little room for "learning on the job." In addition to our track record of successfully litigating original investigations before the ITC, our attorneys routinely remain involved after an order issues, and have significant experience in working with Customs and the ITC to successfully implement and enforce both limited and general exclusion orders. Knowledge of the nuances of real-world enforcement translates directly into increased efficiency in preparation and case management, more effective results-focused litigation strategy, and better business outcomes at the border after an exclusion order issues.

Drawing on the strengths of a dedicated and knowledgeable team of Section 337 attorneys in Heller Ehrman's Washington, D.C. office, highly regarded IP litigators and attorneys with technical backgrounds throughout the firm, and local presence in key foreign countries such as China, Heller Ehrman has the capacity to assemble Section 337 case teams to handle the largest and most complex matters.

Representative Engagements: Section 337 Investigations

3M (Complainant): Certain Gel-Filled Wrist Rests and Products Containing Same, USITC Inv. No. 337-TA-456.
Altera Corporation (Complainant): Certain Programmable Logic Devices and Products Containing Same, USITC Inv. No. 337-TA-453.
Atmel Corporation (Complainant): Certain Erasable Programmable Read Only Memories and Products Containing Same, USITC Inv. No. 337-TA-395.
Crews, Inc. (Respondent): Certain Safety Eyewear and Components Thereof, USITC Inv. No. 337-TA-433.
Eaton Corp. (Complainant): Certain Automated Mechanical Transmission Systems for Medium-Duty and Heavy-Duty Trucks and Components Thereof, USITC Inv. No. 337-TA-503.
Fortinet, Inc. (Respondent): Certain System for Detecting and Removing Viruses or Worms, Components Thereof and Products Containing the Same, USITC Inv. No. 337-TA-510.
Genentech, Inc. (Complainant): Certain Recombinantly Produced Human Growth Hormone, USITC Inv. No. 337-TA-358.
Meretek Diagnostics, Inc., and Medquest PTY, Ltd (Complainants): Certain Breath Test Systems for the Detection of Gastrointestinal Disorders and Components Thereof, USITC Inv. No. 337-TA-495.
NEC (Respondent): Certain Dynamic Random Access Memories, Components Thereof, and Products Containing Same, USITC Inv. No. 337-TA-242.
New Holland North America, Inc (Complainant): Certain Agricultural Tractors, Lawn Tractors, Riding Lawnmowers and Components Thereof, USITC Inv. No. 337-TA-486.
Nidek (Respondent): Certain Excimer Laser Systems for Vision Correction Surgery and Components Thereof and Methods for Performing Such Surgery, Inv. No. 337-TA- 419.
Nokia (Respondent): Certain Cellular Radiotelephones and Subassemblies and Component Parts Thereof, USITC Inv. No. 337-TA-297.
Old Dominion Footwear, Inc. (Respondent): Certain Foam Footwear, USITC Inv. No. 337-TA-567.
PhotoWorks,Inc. (Respondent): Certain Lens-Fitted Film Packages, USITC Inv. No. 337-TA-406.
Tilia Inc. (Complainant): Certain Vacuum Packaging Machines, USITC Inv. No. 337-TA-496.

Trade Policy For IP Protection

The United States Government offers a variety of resources to help protect valuable IP rights at our borders and beyond. There range from formal investigations under Section 301 of the Trade Act of 1974, to WTO dispute resolution proceedings, to less formal diplomatic channels. At times, the shortest route to the resolution of IP disputes around the globe is through political measures carefully applied in Washington, D.C. Our attorneys can provide counseling regarding the potential benefits and drawbacks of these measures, and help access the necessary tools to achieve business objectives.

Intellectual Property Protection

Heller Ehrman can design programs to help companies elevate their particular IPR protection concerns in bilateral government-to-government discussions by:

Mobilizing direct Congressional pressure on foreign government representatives.
Arranging for U.S. diplomatic discussions with foreign government representatives.
Raising particular issues in the context of U.S. government delegation visits overseas (e.g., USPTO or U.S. Department of Commerce delegations).
Working with U.S. officials in the context of negotiations at the World Intellectual Property Organization or the TRIPs Council of the World Trade Organization ("WTO").
Working with United States Trade Representative ("USTR") officials to raise priority concerns in the context of U.S. trade agreement negotiations.
Working with USTR officials to launch WTO dispute settlement proceedings.
Working with USTR officials to launch Section 301 trade investigations, place specific countries on Special 301 lists and/or suspend benefits to countries that fail to protect IP rights.
Working with the ITC to launch Section 332 investigations on issues of concern.

Representative Engagements: Trade Policy Resources

Advised a U.S. high-tech trade association on strategies for counteracting IPR infringement in China through local judicial remedies, use of Chinese border measures and use of trade policy tools.
Advised a foreign government on the availability, application and efficacy of U.S. trade policy measures to a range of IPR issues.
Advised a large U.S. high technology company in development of a policy program, including legislative, agency, and White House resources, aimed at putting pressure on a foreign government to resolve an IP dispute.

U.S. Customs IP Border Enforcement

U.S. Customs and Border Protection ("Customs") is charged with enforcing the U.S. IP border enforcement regime by taking action against imports that infringe registered trademarks, trade names and copyrights, as well as imports that violate exclusion orders issued in Section 337 investigations. While Customs offers significant governmental resources to help IPR owners, to obtain the full benefit of these resources, companies must be pro-active.

Our Capabilities

U.S. and Foreign Companies

U.S. and foreign companies that own U.S. IP rights are often not aware of the many ways in which Customs can help protect their rights. Similarly, U.S. and foreign companies that import merchandise into the United States may need to interact with Customs to avoid or mitigate adverse effects of Customs' enforcement activities. Utilizing years of experience with both IPR litigation and Customs issues, we work closely with Customs Headquarters' IPR Branch officials and port officials to help companies in three major areas:

Section 337 Exclusion Order Enforcement

Heller Ehrman advises companies in dealing with issues arising out of Section 337 exclusion orders. Customs is vested with significant authority and discretion in the enforcement of Section 337 exclusion orders. Difficulties in enforcement arise because of the complex technology that is frequently at issue and because such orders are frequently drafted in broad language that provides Customs with little guidance on the distinguishing characteristics of infringing and non-infringing imports or how the order should be applied to new or redesigned products.

Heller Ehrman represents both complainant and respondent companies in informal consultations as well as formal inter partes proceedings before the Customs IPR Branch. We helps complainant companies ensure that Customs gives exclusion orders full effect by identifying, understanding, and excluding all infringing imports. Heller Ehrman also helps respondents and third parties whose future importations could be jeopardized, by identifying for Customs the proper limits to the scope of an exclusion order, or by helping to obtain Customs approval of redesigned products that can legitimately be imported consistent with the boundaries of an exclusion order.

Border Enforcement Strategies to Protect Against Imports that Infringe Trademarks and Copyrights

U.S. law provides an opportunity for trademark and copyright holders to register their rights with Customs for border enforcement. While the registration process is relatively simple, real enforcement often requires a cooperative, ongoing effort between Customs and the IPR owner. Heller Ehrman helps IPR holders ensure that their trademarks and copyrights are enforced to the full extent of Customs' abilities. We help IPR holders prepare and file "recordations" for their federally registered trademarks or copyrights, which is a prerequisite for direct Customs border enforcement outside of the Section 337 context. Further, we help clients monitor for evidence of infringing activity, locate the sources of infringing imports, educate Customs port officials that infringing imports are likely to arrive on their docks and demonstrate how to identify those infringing imports, and otherwise work closely with Customs on IPR border enforcement issues.

Border Enforcement Strategies Against Gray Market Imports

Heller Ehrman advises IPR holders on strategies for combating illegal gray market imports – goods that are not authorized for U.S. importation and sale, but bear a valid trademark from a foreign jurisdiction. With the legal tools offered by Customs, we help companies protect their ability to segregate products with different packaging, labels, prices or warranties into different markets, thereby maximizing brand value and consumer goodwill. In recognition of the fact that there are limits to what Customs can do to help protect against gray market imports based simply on recordation, we can also help trademark owners obtain Section 337 exclusion orders barring imports of gray market imports that would otherwise not be reached by either mere recordation or district court litigation.

Representative Engagements: U.S. Customs Intellectual Property Border Enforcement of Section 337

Heller Ehrman attorneys have represented parties in connection with questions relating to Customs' enforcement of Section 337 enforcement orders, including in the following matters:

Atmel Corp. v. Winbond Electronics Corp.: Certain Erasable Programmable Read Only Memories and Products Containing Same, USITC Inv. No. 337-TA-395.
Eaton Corp. v. ArvinMeritor: Certain Automated Mechanical Transmission Systems for Medium-Duty and Heavy-Duty Trucks and Components Thereof, USITC Inv. No. 337-TA-503.
Genesis Microchip Inc. v. MStar Semiconductor: Certain Display Controllers with Upscaling Functionality and Products Containing the Same, USITC Inv. No. 337-TA-481.
SigmaTel, Inc. v. Actions Semiconductor, Inc.: Certain Audio Processing Integrated Circuits and Products Containing the Same, USITC Inv. No. 337-TA-538.

Heller Ehrman has also advised companies on a wide array of other Customs IP border enforcement matters. Heller Ehrman attorneys have:

Advised consumer product companies on IPR border enforcement strategies, including the recordation of trademarks, on-the-ground training for Customs port officials, gray market IPR enforcement, and other matters.
Helped a major beverage company protect its ability to sell genuine trademarked merchandise in the face of a competitor's attempts to exclude it from the U.S. market.
Represented an apparel importer facing penalties exceeding a quarter million dollars before Customs' IPR Branch, and mitigated the penalties to two percent of the original assessment.

Engagements

A-Data, Chipsbank, AFA, Skymedi, PQI, Corsair Memory: Representing six separate Asian manufacturers of key components of and finished flash memory devices, the most popular of which are so-called USB pen or thumb drives, in the ITC Section 337 investigation Certain Flash Memory Controllers, Drivers, Memory Cards and Media Players and Products Containing Same.
Allergan: Obtained a verdict in favor of Syntex and Allergan in a Hatch-Waxman patent infringement action against Apotex Corporation involving a patent covering an ophthalmic pharmaceutical formulation.
Apple, Inc.: Represented Apple in a patent infringement action brought by PhatRat Technology involving sensors which calculate biometric data for athletes.
Applied Precision/Rudolph Technologies: Represent Applied Precision (now Rudolph Technologies) in patent infringement action brought by Integrated Technology Corporation involving probe card analyzers.
Ariba, Inc.: Representing Ariba in a patent infringement action where they contend that Emptoris infringes four patents directed to methods and systems for electronic auctions. Also represented Ariba in a patent infringement action against Sky Technologies relating to technology for online contract negotiations, which settled successfully at trial immediately prior to closing arguments.
ArrayCom: Representing ArrayCom in a patent infringement action in the Eastern District of Texas involving three patents relating to wireless communications systems.
Atmel Corporation:

Represented Atmel in a major victory in the Philadelphia federal court jury trial Agere v. Atmel. Agere claimed that Atmel infringed four semiconductor patents, including what it touted as its key tungsten patents. Agere sought damages of approximately $200 million, as well as enhancement for claimed willful infringement. After a three-week trial, the jury returned a verdict in Atmel's favor, invalidating the tungsten patents and finding the fourth not infringed as well as invalid, and awarding Agere zero in damages.
Represented Atmel in a series of patent infringement actions over the last decade as counsel on both federal circuit and appellate matters. The federal circuit affirmed the issuance of an International Trade Commission exclusion order barring the importation of infringing flash and other memory chips and circuit boards. In Atmel v. SST, Atmel was awarded a $36.5 million judgment following a jury verdict for willful infringement in its favor.

Bank of America:

Representing Bank of America in a patent infringement action directed to systems and methods for authenticating users and updating personal financial information on network or web-based systems. The technology involved in the dispute enables access to and facilitates user-controlled interaction with databases maintained by the bank and/or vendors.
Representing Bank of America in a patent infringement action involving patents directed to systems and methods for serving web pages of customizable viewable data to browsing devices connected to a network.

Becton, Dickinson and Company: Represented Becton, Dickinson as lead trial and appellate counsel in connection with an application by a foreign company to take discovery in the United States under 28 U.S.C. §1782 for use in foreign proceedings. The matter related to patent rights in Methicillin-resistant Staph aureus (MRSA) detection technology.
BiTEK: Won an appeal to the Federal Circuit, vacating a jury verdict of infringement and a permanent injunction against client, Beyond Innovation Technology Co. Ltd. (BiTEK), in a patent case originally filed by O2 Micro International Ltd. in the Eastern District of Texas.
Blue Heron: Represented Blue Heron in a five patent infringement suit brought by Codon Devices in the District of Delaware on technology related to automated gene synthesis. Obtained a very favorable settlement for the client.
CA, Inc.: Representing CA in a patent infringement action before the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York in which CA seeks declaratory judgment of invalidity, unenforceability and non-infringement of patents relating to Internet portal technology. We secured a Report & Recommendation of non infringement from the Special Master.
Depomed Inc: Represented Depomed in a patent infringement action against generic pharmaceutical manufacturer Ivax. At issue was how to interpret the claims of Depomed patents covering the company's extended release drug dosage technology and whether Ivax infringed those patents. Our client was granted summary judgment of patent infringement, and the case subsequently settled.
Emine Technology: Obtained a finding of no violation by our client Emine Technology in an ITC Section 337 investigation where they had been accused of infringing a patent related to KVM switches made by ATEN Technology, Inc.
Genentech, Inc.:

Represented Genentech in a patent infringement action with its licensee Tercica against several biotechnology companies related to Insmed. The case involved three Genentech patents: one covering the method of producing a special protein by recombinant DNA technology, a second covering DNA molecules related to another special protein and the third covering a method of using those two special proteins to treat children with severe growth deficiency. The jury found the production patent to be valid, the molecule patent had been infringed, and the treatment patent had been willfully infringed.
Represented Genentech in a patent infringement action brought against Amgen in connection with three patents covering the construction of plasmids and production of proteins in host cells. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit overturned a summary judgment ruling in favor of Amgen and the case was remanded to the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California. On the eve of trial, the case was settled very favorably for Genentech.

Huawei Technologies: Represented Huawei in an action brought by Cisco Systems in the Eastern District of Texas, in which Cisco asserted patent infringement, copyright, and trade secret claims relating to the software for network routers. Defeated preliminary injunction seeking worldwide ban on distributing product.
Innogenetics, N.V.: Obtained a jury verdict of $7 million for Innogenetics for Abbott’s infringement of patents involving a method for genotyping the Hepatitis C virus (HCV). A post-trial victory resulted in a permanent injunction against Abbott.
Maxim Integrated Products: Representing Maxim in a declaratory judgment action against Freescale Semiconductor involving process, packaging and circuit patents.
Merck KGaA: Prevailed in the U.S. Supreme Court on behalf of Merck KGaA. The Court's unanimous opinion vindicates the right to conduct pre-clinical cancer research to provide data for FDA approval of clinical trials of new drugs, without fear of patent liability. Considered to be the most significant patent case in the biotech and pharmaceutical industries in a generation. On remand to the Federal Circuit, we won full judgment of non-infringement with respect to all asserted patents.
MorphoSys AG: Represented declaratory judgment plaintiff MorphoSys AG in four separate actions against Cambridge Antibody Technology (CAT) involving patents pertaining to phage display of antibodies. The case filed was tried to a hung jury and later dismissed based on a finding that MorphoSys could not infringe the CAT patent as a matter of law. We also represented MorphoSys in defending against five patents issued to Stuart Kauffman regarding Stochastic Libraries of DNA and peptides.
Mylan: Obtained a stay of injunction from the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit permitting Mylan to launch a generic version of hypertension drug Norvasc. Mylan’s market position was further cemented when we sought and obtained an emergency injunction from the District Court for the District of Columbia enjoining the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) from approving any other generic Norvasc applications, at least until the FDA takes public comment and issues a formal position statement.
Palm, Inc.: Representing Palm in a patent infringement action brought by NTP relating to patents alleged to cover wireless data systems. The Court granted Palm’s motion to stay pending re-examination of the patents at the U.S. PTO.
PPC: Tried and won two patent infringement jury trials against two separate defendants on the same patent owned by PPC relating to coaxial cable connectors.
Power Dekor Group Co.: Representing the Chinese wood flooring industry in their appeal of Certain Laminated Floor Panels, 337-545, to the Federal Circuit where the amount of trade at stake runs into the hundreds of millions of dollars.
RSA Security, Inc.: Represented RSA Security in a patent infringement action against Cylink and Stanford University involving the validity of the basic Stanford public key cryptography patents (Hellman-Merkle and Diffie-Hellman) and the issue of whether those patents dominated the RSA patent on its public key cryptosystem. Following a Markman hearing, the case settled favorably to RSA. We have represented RSA in other matters involving the same technology, including suits against Network Associates and Pretty Good Privacy, Inc., and IONA Technology.
Samsung: Representing Samsung in a patent infringement action where the plaintiffs Advanced Micro Devices and ATI Technologies are asserting six patents related to semiconductor chip fabrication and design used in flash memory chips.
SAP: Represented SAP in the Disc Link litigation in the Eastern District of Texas against well-known licensing company, Acacia, concerning hyperlink technology. Additional defendants we represented in this case include Novell, CA, Altera, Sonic Solutions, and Eastman Kodak.
Seagate:

Representing Seagate in a patent infringement action against STEC where the patents relate to solid-state drives.
Defended Seagate in an ITC Section 337 investigation involving three patents where the plaintiffs sought an exclusion order against Seagate Hard Disk Drives (HDDs), as well as all computers manufactured by Dell and Hewlett Packard that contain Seagate HDDs. The matter settled, terminating Seagate's inclusion in the ITC and parallel district court cases.

SonoSite: Representing SonoSite in defense and counterclaims against General Electric regarding patents on features of ultrasound instruments
Superconductor Technologies, Inc.: Represented defendant and counter-plaintiff Superconductor Technologies (STI) in this patent infringement action involving high-temperature superconductive receiver front ends used in cellular telephone systems. Obtained a verdict finding the patent asserted against STI to be invalid, unenforceable and not infringed. The verdict has been affirmed by the Federal Circuit.
Texas Instruments, Inc. (TI):

Defended Unitrode Corporation, a TI affiliate, in a patent case brought by Linear Technology involving "sleep mode" and current reversal protection aspects of voltage regulators.
Represented TI and Stanford University in litigation concerning ADSL modem technology that involves both patent infringement and antitrust claims, and obtained a $112 million jury verdict.

UMC, ProMOS, Microchip, and Micronas: Representing respondents in USITC Inv. No. 337-TA-648, a multiparty representation concerning semiconductor integrated circuits.
Visa U.S.A. and Visa International: Won summary judgment of non-infringement in a patent infringement action brought by Safeclick over a patent alleged to cover the “Verified by Visa” service for authenticating the identity of a payment cardholder in an on-line transaction. The judgment was affirmed on appeal.
WARF: Successfully resolved a dispute on behalf of The Wisconsin Alumni Research Foundation involving the organization's pioneering stem cell technology. The patent for WARF's primate embryonic stem cells was named one of 10 patents that changed the world by IP Worldwide.
Yahoo! Inc.: Represented Overture Services, a Yahoo! subsidiary, in an action alleging infringement of Overture's pioneering paid search patent by Google's top revenue-producing Internet advertising services. In a highly publicized settlement, Google took a license to this patent and several related patents in exchange for 2.7 million shares of Google stock.

Contacts

Michael K. Plimack
michael.plimack@hellerehrman.com
+1 (415) 772-6821

M. Patricia Thayer
patricia.thayer@hellerehrman.com
+1 (415) 772-6794

Attorneys

Aaron S. Jacobs aaron.jacobs@hellerehrman.com	Silicon Valley +1 (650) 324-7126
Alan H. Blankenheimer alan.blankenheimer@hellerehrman.com	San Diego +1 (858) 450-5817
Alexander D. Chinoy alexander.chinoy@hellerehrman.com	Washington, D.C. +1 (202) 912-2183
Alexander L. Brainerd alexander.brainerd@hellerehrman.com	San Francisco +1 (415) 772-6049
Amy K. Van Zant amy.vanzant@hellerehrman.com	Silicon Valley +1 (650) 324-7019
Andrew C. Byrnes andrew.byrnes@hellerehrman.com	Silicon Valley +1 (650) 324-7021
Annette L. Hurst annette.hurst@hellerehrman.com	San Francisco +1 (415) 772-6840
Anupam Sharma anupam.sharma@hellerehrman.com	Silicon Valley +1 (650) 324-6735
Aseem Gupta aseem.gupta@hellerehrman.com	San Francisco +1 (415) 772-6214
Autumn N. Nero autumn.nero@hellerehrman.com	Madison, WI +1 (608) 663-7467
Barry J. Tucker barry.tucker@hellerehrman.com	San Diego +1 (858) 450-8455
Bhanu K. Sadasivan bhanu.sadasivan@hellerehrman.com	Silicon Valley +1 (650) 324-7169
Bhavana Joneja bhavana.joneja@hellerehrman.com	New York +1 (212) 847-8621
Brandon H. Pace brandon.pace@hellerehrman.com	San Diego +1 (858) 450-5848
Brendan T. Mangan brendan.mangan@hellerehrman.com	Seattle +1 (206) 389-6204
Brian D. Kaider brian.kaider@hellerehrman.com	Washington, D.C. +1 (202) 912-2167
Brittany L. Little brittany.little@hellerehrman.com	San Diego +1 (858) 450-8445
Bryce Baker bryce.baker@hellerehrman.com	Silicon Valley +1 (650) 324-7135
Carl S. Nadler carl.nadler@hellerehrman.com	Washington, D.C. +1 (202) 912-2575
Carol Lynn Thompson carollynn.thompson@hellerehrman.com	San Francisco +1 (415) 772-6969
Catherine Shiang catherine.shiang@hellerehrman.com	Silicon Valley +1 (650) 324-7062
Chad R. Fuller chad.fuller@hellerehrman.com	San Diego +1 (858) 450-8465
Charles G. Curtis, Jr. charles.curtis@hellerehrman.com	Madison, WI +1 (608) 663-7480
Christina Olson christina.olson@hellerehrman.com	Washington, D.C. +1 (202) 912-2053
Christine Saunders Haskett christine.haskett@hellerehrman.com	San Francisco +1 (415) 772-6426
Christopher K. Eppich christopher.eppich@hellerehrman.com	San Diego +1 (858) 450-8405
Christopher F. Stoll christopher.stoll@hellerehrman.com	San Francisco +1 (415) 772-6508
Christopher D. Moon chris.moon@hellerehrman.com	San Diego +1 (858) 450-8484
Christopher Longman chris.longman@hellerehrman.com	San Diego +1 (858) 450-5824
Christopher G. Hanewicz christopher.hanewicz@hellerehrman.com	Madison, WI +1 (608) 663-7468
Christopher Dunn Chris.Dunn@hellerehrman.com	Washington, D.C. +1 (202) 912-2520
Conway Ekpo conway.ekpo@hellerehrman.com	New York +1 (212) 847-8564
Dale A. Rice dale.rice@hellerehrman.com	San Francisco +1 (415) 772-6361
Daniel S. Silverman dan.silverman@hellerehrman.com	San Diego +1 (858) 450-8466
Daniel L. Porter Daniel.Porter@HellerEhrman.com	Washington, D.C. +1 (202) 912-2001
Daniel N. Kassabian daniel.kassabian@hellerehrman.com	San Francisco +1 (415) 772-6098
Danielle Coleman danielle.coleman@hellerehrman.com	San Francisco +1 (415) 772-6168
David C. Brownstein david.brownstein@hellerehrman.com	San Francisco +1 (415) 772-6356
David E. Kleinfeld david.kleinfeld@hellerehrman.com	San Diego +1 (858) 450-8478
David E. Jones david.jones@hellerehrman.com	Madison, WI +1 (608) 663-7478
David J. Harth david.harth@hellerehrman.com	Madison, WI +1 (608) 663-7470 Washington, D.C. +1 (202) 912-2193
David L. Anstaett david.anstaett@hellerehrman.com	Madison, WI +1 (608) 663-5408
Derek F. Knerr derek.knerr@hellerehrman.com	San Francisco +1 (415) 772-6298
Diana I. Valat diana.valat@hellerehrman.com	New York +1 (212) 847-8594
E. Joshua Rosenkranz joshua.rosenkranz@hellerehrman.com	New York +1 (212) 847-8748
Elizabeth S. Pehrson elizabeth.pehrson@hellerehrman.com	Silicon Valley +1 (650) 324-6732
Gabrielle E. Bina gabrielle.bina@hellerehrman.com	Madison, WI +1 (608) 663-7484
Geoffrey W. Baldwin geoffrey.baldwin@hellerehrman.com	San Diego +1 (858) 450-8481
Heather L. Dietrick heather.dietrick@hellerehrman.com	New York +1 (212) 847-8653
Heidi Maley Gutierrez heidi.gutierrez@hellerehrman.com	San Diego +1 (858) 450-8422
Holly Baudler holly.baudler@hellerehrman.com	Silicon Valley +1 (650) 324-7082
Ing Loong Yang ingloong.yang@hellerehrman.com	Beijing +86 (10) 5825 9688 Hong Kong +852 2292 2162 Singapore +65 6885 0228
Jaideep Venkatesan jay.venkatesan@hellerehrman.com	Silicon Valley +1 (650) 833-7317
James P. Durling James.Durling@HellerEhrman.com	Washington, D.C. +1 (202) 912-2190
Jamie K. Wolszon jamie.wolszon@hellerehrman.com	Washington, D.C. +1 (202) 912-2702
Jason F. Ma jason.ma@hellerehrman.com	San Francisco +1 (415) 772.6029
Jeffrey S. Walker jeffrey.walker@hellerehrman.com	Madison, WI +1 (608) 663-5407
Jennifer L. Larson jennifer.larson@hellerehrman.com	New York +1 (212) 847-8778
Jessica S. Pers jessica.pers@hellerehrman.com	San Francisco +1 (415) 772-6126
Jo Dale Carothers jodale.carothers@hellerehrman.com	San Diego +1 (858) 450-5818
John C. Ulin john.ulin@hellerehrman.com	Los Angeles +1 (213) 689-7609
John A. Jurata, Jr. jay.jurata@hellerehrman.com	Washington, D.C. +1 (202) 912-2132
John S. Skilton john.skilton@hellerehrman.com	Washington, D.C. +1 (202) 912-2121 Madison, WI +1 (608) 663-7474
John P. Hanish john.hanish@hellerehrman.com	New York +1 (212) 847-8727
Johnny C. Chiu johnny.chiu@hellerehrman.com	Shanghai +86 (21) 5298 6682 Washington, D.C. +1 (202) 912-2720
Joseph P. Whitlock joe.whitlock@hellerehrman.com	Washington, D.C. +1 (202) 912-2170
Joy Arnold joy.Arnold@hellerehrman.com	New York +1 (212) 847-8725
Kenneth L. Chernof ken.chernof@hellerehrman.com	Washington, D.C. +1 (202) 912-2199
Kevin J. Culligan kevin.culligan@hellerehrman.com	New York +1 (212) 847-8726
Krista Harris Cheatham krista.cheatham@hellerehrman.com	San Diego +1 (858) 450-5811
Kristen Owen kristen.owen@hellerehrman.com	San Diego +1 (858) 450-5812
Kurt M. Kjelland kurt.kjelland@hellerehrman.com	San Diego +1 (858) 450-5845
L.J. Chris Martiniak chris.martiniak@hellerehrman.com	San Francisco +1 (415) 772-6082
Laura E. Underwood-Muschamp laura.muschamp@hellerehrman.com	San Diego +1 (858) 450-5816
Laura Collins laura.collins@hellerehrman.com	San Diego +1 (858) 450-8403
Laurie B. Adams laurie.adams@hellerehrman.com	Washington, D.C. +1 (202) 912-2504
Lesli A. Rawles lesli.rawles@hellerehrman.com	San Diego +1 (858) 450-8446
Leslie N. Harvey leslie.harvey@hellerehrman.com	San Francisco +1 (415) 772-6315
Lissa R. Koop lissa.koop@hellerehrman.com	Madison, WI +1 (608) 663-7489
M. Patricia Thayer patricia.thayer@hellerehrman.com	San Francisco +1 (415) 772-6794
Mark S. Parris mark.parris@hellerehrman.com	Seattle +1 (206) 389-6004
Matthew Lapple matt.lapple@hellerehrman.com	San Diego +1 (858) 450-8401
Matthew P. McCullough Matthew.McCullough@HellerEhrman.com	Washington, D.C. +1 (202) 912-2036
Matthew James Hawkinson matthew.hawkinson@hellerehrman.com	San Francisco +1 (415) 772-6238
Maureen F. Browne maureen.browne@hellerehrman.com	Washington, D.C. +1 (202) 912-2138
Melody K. Glazer melody.glazer@hellerehrman.com	Madison, WI +1 (608) 663-7485
Michael P. Wickey michael.wickey@hellerehrman.com	Silicon Valley +1 (650) 324-7158
Michael K. Plimack michael.plimack@hellerehrman.com	San Francisco +1 (415) 772-6821
Michael M. Markman michael.markman@hellerehrman.com	San Francisco +1 (415) 772-6926
Michelle M. Umberger michelle.umberger@hellerehrman.com	Madison, WI +1 (608) 663-7466
Molly A. Terwilliger molly.terwilliger@hellerehrman.com	Seattle +1 (206) 389-6141
Naomi Spector naomi.spector@hellerehrman.com	San Diego +1 (858) 450-5744
Nathan Shafroth nathan.shafroth@hellerehrman.com	San Francisco +1 (415) 772-6182
Nicole Cunningham nicole.cunningham@hellerehrman.com	San Diego +1 (858) 450-8406
Nitin Subhedar nitin.subhedar@hellerehrman.com	Silicon Valley +1 (650) 324-7081
Owais Siddiqui owais.siddiqui@hellerehrman.com	San Diego +1 (858) 450-8483
Paul J. Wilson Paul.Wilson@hellerehrman.com	+1 (202) 912-2030
Paul A. Rose paul.rose@hellerehrman.com	San Diego +1 (858) 450-5808
Richard Thill richard.thill@hellerehrman.com	San Diego +1 (858) 450-5821
Robert T. Haslam robert.haslam@hellerehrman.com	Silicon Valley +1 (650) 324-7073
Robert Palmer bob.palmer@hellerehrman.com	San Diego +1 (858) 450-5832
Robert D. Fram robert.fram@hellerehrman.com	San Francisco +1 (415) 772-6160
Robert J. Williams robert.williams@hellerehrman.com	San Francisco +1 (415) 772-6598
Robert G. Badal robert.badal@hellerehrman.com	Los Angeles +1 (213) 689-7645
Russell T. Boggs russ.boggs@hellerehrman.com	San Diego +1 (858) 450-5758
Samuel R. Hellfeld sam.hellfeld@hellerehrman.com	San Diego +1 (858) 450-8419
Samuel F. Ernst sam.ernst@hellerehrman.com	San Francisco +1 (415) 772-6964
Sarah C. Walkenhorst sarah.walkenhorst@hellerehrman.com	Madison, WI +1 (608) 663-7465
Shannon M. Bloodworth shannon.bloodworth@hellerehrman.com	Washington, D.C. +1 (202) 912-2165
Stanley Young stanley.young@hellerehrman.com	Silicon Valley +1 (650) 324-7049
Steven A. Moore steve.moore@hellerehrman.com	San Diego +1 (858) 450-5767
Sturgis Sobin sturgis.sobin@hellerehrman.com	Washington, D.C. +1 (202) 912-2080
Valerie Ellis Valerie.Ellis@hellerehrman.com	Washington, D.C. +1 (202) 912-2013
W. Edward Bailey edward.bailey@hellerehrman.com	New York +1 (212) 847-8723
Warren J. Rheaume warren.rheaume@hellerehrman.com	Seattle +1 (206) 389-4226
Wayne Gu wayne.gu@hellerehrman.com	Shanghai +86 (21) 5298 6682
Wei-Drin Lee weidrin.lee@hellerehrman.com	Anchorage +1 (907) 263-8436
William H. Barringer William.Barringer@hellerehrman.com	Washington, D.C. +1 (202) 912-2040
Yu Li Yu.Li@HellerEhrman.com	Beijing +86.10.5825.9623