Search

PrintEmail

Antitrust & Dispute Resolution
Business & Securities Law
Corporate & Finance
Energy
Government Law & Strategy
Insurance Coverage
Intellectual Property
People | News | Publications | Alerts | Newsletters | Experience | PrimersWhite Papers

Representative Engagements Clients

  • Intellectual Property Litigation/Settlement Victories
     A sampling of intellectual property litigation/settlement victories:
    • Alloc, Inc., Berry Finance N.V., and Välinge Innovation AB, v. Kronotex USA, Inc., U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois
      Dickstein Shapiro represented the defendant in this patent litigation between global competitors involving interlocking systems for glueless flooring material.
    • Arbitron Inc. v. International Demographics Inc., d/b/a The Media Audit & IPSOS, U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Texas
      Dickstein Shapiro represents Arbitron, one of the world leaders in audience ratings and measurement for radio, in this patent infringement case. The patents in the suit involve technology for a portable electronic ratings system employing audio encoding.
    • Arthrex v. dj Orthopedics, U.S. District Court of Delaware
      Dickstein Shapiro represented Arthrex in this patent litigation involving a medical device. The case was settled, and the defendant agreed to discontinue the product at issue and pay back damages.
    • Arthrex, Inc. v. DePuy Mitek, Inc.
      Dickstein Shapiro obtained a very favorable Markman ruling in a patent infringement action on behalf of Arthrex, Inc. in the Middle District of Florida for ongoing litigation with Johnson & Johnson subsidiary, DePuy Mitek, Inc. Arthrex’s patent covers a method of replacing the anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) in the knee, and at issue in the hearing was the claim construction of one of six limitations (five of which previously had been decided in favor of Arthrex) specifically related to securing the graft in the opening of the knee. Significantly, this ruling eliminates the one remaining fact issue and clears the way for Arthrex’s motion for summary judgment on the issue of DePuy Mitek’s infringement.
    • Arthrex v. Linvatec, U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Florida
      Dickstein Shapiro represented Arthrex in a patent litigation suit involving a medical device. The defendant took a royalty bearing license.
    • Automotive Technology v. NEC Technologies, U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York
      Dickstein Shapiro successfully defended NEC Technologies in this patent infringement case dealing with air bag technology. The case was settled prior to the sale of the client’s business and under terms highly favorable to the client.
    • Avid Identification Systems, Inc. v. Datamars SA, Crystal Import Corporation, and Philips Electronics North America Corporation, U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Texas
      The Firm defended Datamars SA and Crystal Import Co. in a patent infringement action concerning a radio frequency identification system for tagging companion animals so that these pets, when lost, can be identified using a handheld radio-frequency identification reader. The jury found the patents to be infringed; however, the District Judge, after trial, rendered the key patent unenforceable due to inequitable conduct.
    • Ballard Medical Products v. Concord Medical Center, U.S. District Court for the District of New Hampshire
      Dickstein Shapiro represented Ballard Medical in its suit for patent infringement against Concord Medical. The Firm successfully settled the case for a seven-figure amount for past royalties and a double-digit royalty rate for the future.
    • Black & Decker v. Greenfield Industries, U.S. District Court for the District of Maryland
      After successfully defeating plaintiff’s motion for preliminary injunction in this patent infringement action, Dickstein Shapiro obtained a favorable settlement for its client in which it continued to sell its challenged product without payment.
    • Black & Decker v. Greenfield Industries, U.S. District Court for the District of Maryland
      Dickstein Shapiro’s client, Greenfield Industries, was sued for patent infringement involving drilling tools and for damages of more than tens of millions. The case settled with dismissal; the client paid no damages.
    • Blue & White Food Products v. Salatey Tzabar Food Industries, U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York
      Dickstein Shapiro successfully represented Blue & White in this declaratory judgment action adjudging ownership of its SABRA SALADS trademark and non-breach of a contract relating to that same mark. The action settled favorably for the client, allowing Blue & White to further expand its use of the SABRA mark in the United States.
    • Blue & White Food Products v. Shamir Food Industries, U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York
      Dickstein Shapiro successfully represented Blue & White in this trademark infringement and unfair competition action enforcing Blue & White’s rights in its SHAMIR trademark. After Dickstein Shapiro successfully obtained a preliminary injunction against the defendant, the action settled favorably for the client.
    • Boehringer Ingelheim Vetmedica v. Schering-Plough and Schering, U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey
      Dickstein Shapiro successfully represented Boehringer Ingelheim Vetmedica in the damage phase of a patent infringement suit. The client obtained an award of lost profits.
    • Books Are Fun v. Mosdell, U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylania
      Dickstein Shapiro obtained a preliminary injunction in the trademark infringement action and then negotiated a settlement in which it obtained a consent judgment that required all challenged infringing activities to cease immediately.
    • Daikin Industries v. Vent Right Valve, U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York
      Dickstein Shapiro successfully represented Daikin Industries in this trademark case involving a mark that had not been used by the client in the United States for 10 years. During much of that period, the defendant had been using the mark. The case was settled with an agreement that the defendant would discontinue use of the mark and transfer all of its goodwill in the mark to the Firm’s client.
    • DePuy Mitek, Inc. v. Arthrex, Inc., U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts
      Dickstein Shapiro successfully represented Arthrex against patent infringement claims involving the company’s development of FiberWire® surgical sutures. As a result of the victory, the Firm protected Arthrex from potential losses of as much as $300 million.
    • Digital Angel Corp. v. The Crystal Import Corp., Medical Management International Inc., and DataMars SA, U.S. District Court for the District of Minnesota
      Dickstein Shapiro represents all defendants in this patent case regarding a type of glass encapsulated transponder chip intended to be injected into animals for identification and tracking purposes.
    • EBS Dealing Resources v. Intercontinental Exchange, U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York
      Dickstein Shapiro successfully represented EBS in this patent infringement action enforcing EBS’s rights in the electronic trading systems industry. The action settled in favor of the client after a very favorable Markman decision.
    • Edwards Lifesciences, LLC et al. v. Medtronic, Inc. et al.
      Dickstein Shapiro LLP, as co-counsel, obtained a favorable summary judgment of noninfringement in a patent case on behalf of W.L. Gore & Associates, Inc., brought by medical device maker Edwards Lifesciences LLC. Judge Jeffrey S. White of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California granted summary judgment in September 2008.
    • Entegris, Inc. v. Miraial Co., Ltd., U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York
      Dickstein Shapiro represented Miraial in a suit alleging infringement of Entegris’ portfolio of U.S. patents on containers for shipping and storing silicon wafers for use in manufacturing semiconductors. Following protracted pretrial maneuvering that resulted in transfer of the action from the District of Minnesota, Dickstein Shapiro successfully negotiated a favorable out-of-court settlement pursuant to which Entegris’ complaint was dismissed and the parties concluded a cross-licensing agreement under their respective patents. The settlement gave Miraial freedom-to-operate in the United States in accord with Miraial’s original business goals.
    • FashionCraft-Excello, Inc. v. Kate Aspen, Inc., Jennifer Nichols and Brad Fallon, U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York
      Dickstein Shapiro represented FashionCraft-Excello in an action for declaratory judgment, finding unfair competition and tortious interference with business relations, and defended it against copyright infringement counterclaims involving wedding favor designs. The action settled favorably for the client, allowing FashionCraft to continue selling wedding favor designs.
    • F.C. Cycles v. Fila Sports, U.S. District Court for the District of Maryland
      Dickstein Shapiro obtained a multimillion-dollar settlement for F.C. Cycles, after successfully defeating a summary judgment motion filed by the defendant in an action for breach of a trademark license agreement.
    • Honeywell v. Windmere, U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts
      Dickstein Shapiro successfully defended Windmere against a motion for preliminary injunction in this trade dress and design patent infringement case. The case subsequently was settled on terms favorable to Windmere.
    • In re Memory Devices, U.S. International Trade Commission (ITC)
      In this ITC action brought by Wang, Dickstein Shapiro represented Hitachi, which was one of the named respondents in the action. Hitachi settled on favorable terms.
    • Kate Aspen, Inc. v. FashionCraft-Excello, Inc., U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Georgia
      Dickstein Shapiro successfully defended FashionCraft-Excello against copyright infringement claims, and represented the company in its counterclaims seeking a declaratory judgment finding unfair competition, and tortious interference with business relations involving wedding favor designs. Not only did Dickstein Shapiro successfully defend FashionCraft at a TRO hearing, but the Firm also obtained an administrative termination of the case in favor of a first-filed DJ action in the Southern District of New York.
    • Knowledgeplex, Inc. v. Metonymy, Inc. d/b/a Placebase
      Dickstein Shapiro obtained two victories in a copyright infringement case on behalf of Placebase, a subcontractor on a software development project for the predecessor-in-interest to a company named, KPI. In December 2007, KPI sued Placebase in Washington, DC alleging copyright infringement, breach of contract, and theft of trade secrets. Placebase moved to dismiss on multiple grounds, and in early September 2008, Judge Urbina granted Placebase’s motion to dismiss the original complaint on jurisdictional grounds, agreeing that Placebase could not be sued in Washington, DC. Undeterred, KPI sued Placebase in the Northern District of California and also issued a take down notice to Placebase’s internet service provider. Placebase sought and obtained a temporary restraining order blocking enforcement of the take down notice, and also finding that KPI could not publicly assert that Placebase’s code infringed KPI’s copyrights.
    • Laserfacturing, Inc. v. DaimlerChrysler Corporation
      Dickstein Shapiro obtained a favorable summary judgment in a patent infringement case on behalf of DaimlerChrysler Corporation. The case pertains to whether the welding process proposed by DaimlerChrysler in the construction of automobile transmissions at its Kokomo, Indiana plant was consistent with the definition of the term “sheet” expressed in the ‘670 Patent. The Court found that DaimlerChrysler’s proposed construction reflects the term’s ordinary meaning for the purposes of the ‘670 Patent as “broad thin pieces of material, each with generally uniform thickness.” The matter was deliberated in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Texas and heard by Judge Melinda Harmon. The summary judgment follows a Markman hearing that was held on October 19, 2007.
    • Leung & Littau v. Sandhu, U.S. Patent and Trademark Office
      Dickstein Shapiro represented Sandhu (Micron) as the senior party in this patent interference case. Micron was successfully defended against the claims of Applied Materials.
    • Lectrolarm v. Pelco, U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of California
      Dickstein Shapiro successfully represented Lectrolarm in this patent and trademark infringement action enforcing Lectrolarm’s rights in the security camera industry. The action settled favorably for the client after a favorable Markman decision. 
    • Lectrolarm v. Vicon, U.S. District Court for the Western District of Tennessee
      Following the successful resolution of the Lectrolarm v. Pelco matter, the client authorized Dickstein Shapiro to enforce its patent rights against the rest of the security camera industry. Lectrolarm subsequently has obtained many additional licensees and substantial royalty revenue.
    • LINQ Industrial Fabrics v. Intertape, U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Florida
      Dickstein Shapiro, on behalf of LINQ, successfully proved infringement of three patents in a 2006 jury trial (liability only) involving Flexible Intermediate Bulk Containers (FIBCs), a product used for storing and transporting chemicals (and other fine solids) in industry.
    • LINQ Industrial Fabrics v. Intertape, U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit
      The jury verdict from the district court was upheld on appeal by the Federal Circuit in early 2007. The Firm’s position on appeal received a summary affirmance by the Federal Circuit just three days after the oral arguments.
    • Macdermid v. DuPont
      On September 4, 2008, Judge Mary Cooper of the U.S. District Court for New Jersey ruled in favor of the Firm’s client, E.I. du Pont de Nemours and Company, in denying a motion for preliminary injunction filed by one of DuPont’s primary competitors in the area of flexographic printing plates, MacDermid Printing Solutions, LLC. After extensive briefing and a hearing, but no actual discovery, the Court adopted, in large part, the arguments advanced by DuPont and found that there was a substantial question regarding the validity of MacDermid’s patent.
    • McGuire v. Schmieding, U.S. Patent and Trademark Office
      Dickstein Shapiro represented Schmieding (Arthrex) in this patent interference case. Arthrex contested patentability during the interference and ultimately was successful in having the subject matter at issue declared to be unpatentable, via a concurrently-filed reissue application.
    • McKesson v. Swisslog S.A., et al., U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware
      The Firm represents the defendants Swisslog S.A. and Translogic Corporation in defense of this patent infringement action pending in the District of Delaware. The patents at issue concern the technology of robotic systems for the automatic storage, retrieval, and distribution of pharmaceutical products from a hospital pharmacy to hospital patients. In addition to the defenses of non-infringement and invalidity, the defendants have raised counterclaims under antitrust laws and the Lanham Act. The case is in the midst of discovery.
    • Merit Industries, Inc. v. JVL Corporation, U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania
      Dickstein Shapiro obtained a favorable verdict in a multiple-patent infringement case on behalf of Merit Industries, Inc., a worldwide leader in touchscreen entertainment devices. The verdict includes a damages award and a finding of willful infringement, rendering Merit eligible for enhanced damages up to a trebling of the award and giving Merit the potential for an award of attorneys fees. The jury trial lasted two weeks. The jury returned its verdict after deliberating for just one afternoon, finding, among other things, that JVL, Merit’s chief competitor in the video game manufacturing industry, had violated U.S. patent laws by selling products that use Merit’s patented technologies.
    • NTN Corporation v. Iljin, International Trade Commission Investigation/In the Matter of Certain Axle Bearing Assemblies, Components Thereof, and Products Containing the Same Investigation No. 337-554
      Dickstein Shapiro represented complainant NTN in this action to block imported wheel bearing hub assemblies from Korea. NTN manufactures its products in the United States and brought the action before the U.S. International Trade Commission for patent infringement against Iljin, which manufactures its products in Korea. The case was settled before trial in June 2007.
    • Noble Gift Packaging, Inc. v. Ovadia Corp. and Joseph Ovadia, United States District Court for the Southern District of New York
      Dickstein Shapiro successfully represented Noble Gift Packaging, Inc. in an action for a declaratory judgment of noninfringement of Ovadia Corp.’s patents involving magnetic-closure jewelry storage products.
    • NovaSeptum AB et al. v. Amesil, Inc., U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey
      (In mid-2006, Millipore, Corp. purchased all rights to Novaseptum AB, NovaSeptic AB, NovaSeptum, and USA, Inc.) NovaSeptum brought this case under its U.S. Patent No. 6,779,575 patent in order to stop Amesil’s infringement of NovaSeptum’s novel crimper technology claimed in the 575 patent, as such infringment was harming plaintiffs’ disposable collection products market.
    • Ovadia Corp. v. Noble Gift Packing, Division of Quality International Pack d/b/a Quality International, Inc., Noble Packaging, Inc., Moses Gancfried and Isaac Gancfried (“Noble”), United States District Court for the District of New Jersey
      Dickstein Shapiro successfully defended Noble against claims of patent infringement, and represented Noble for its counterclaims of unfair competition, tortious interference with prospective economic advantage, and false marking involving jewelry display and storage products.
    • Phillips North America v. Compo Micro Tech et al., U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware
      Dickstein Shapiro represented Compo Micro Tech (CMT), a Korean distributor of universal remote control devices, against claims of patent infringement involving apparatus and methods for programming universal remote control devices for home electronics. Plaintiff Philips accused CMT of, among other things, employing the “direct entry” method of programming in its products. The case was tried before a jury in Wilmington, DE, which resulted in a finding of non-infringement of the “direct entry” patent. The result has allowed CMT and its affiliated company, Universal Remote Control, to become one of the market leaders in the United States for universal remote control products.
    • Phillips Screw Company v. PrimeSource (two related cases, one pending in the U.S. District Court of the Eastern District of Texas; other pending in the U.S. District Court of the District of Massachusetts)
      This patent infringement case involves screws used in securing alternative lumber materials. The first case is a declaratory judgment, filed by PrimeSource against the Firm’s client, Phillips Screw Company, and challenges the infringement and validity of the PrimeSource’s patent. In the second lawsuit, Phillips is asserting infringement of its patent. To date, Dickstein Shapiro has been fighting the jurisdiction issues in the Texas lawsuit. The Magistrate in the Texas declaratory judgment lawsuit agreed with Dickstein Shapiro’s position and dismissed the case for lack of personal jurisdicition. PrimeSource has since appealed the Magistrate’s recommendation to the district court judge and the Firm is awaiting the decision.
    • Qualcomm Inc. v. InterDigital Communications, U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania
      Dickstein Shapiro represented InterDigital in its suit against Qualcomm for patent infringement. The case settled with Qualcomm’s paying InterDigital $5.3 million, in addition to giving InterDigital certain royalty-free cross licensing rights. InterDigital subsequently has obtained more than $300 million in licensing fees from other companies.
    • RareDomains v. VeriSign, U.S. District Court for the District of Maryland
      Dickstein Shapiro represented VeriSign in this patent infringement case. The case was favorably settled for the client.
    • Renishaw v. Marposs, U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan
      Dickstein Shapiro represented Marposs in this patent infringement suit involving machine tool touch probes. The court found no infringement, and the judgment was affirmed by the Federal Circuit.
    • Rheox, Inc. v. Entact, Inc., U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit
      The Firm obtained a summary judgment of non-infringement for Entact. The Firm also represented Entact before the Federal Circuit, which affirmed the summary judgment.
    • Ricoh Company, Ltd. v. Aeroflex et al./Synopsys v. Ricoh, U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California
      Dickstein Shapiro represents Ricoh in a patent infringement action enforcing a patent relating to the automated electronic design of application-specific integrated circuits, and defending against a parallel declaratory judgment action brought by the software vendor and indemnitor.
    • Ronald A. Katz Technology Licensing v. Global Crossing et al., U.S. District Court for the Central District of California
      Dickstein Shapiro represents the defendant, Global Crossing, in defense of claims of patent infringement concerning telephone teleconferencing technology. The plaintiff instituted more than 30 lawsuits against more than 150 defendants on these same patents involving interactive call processing. The Firm made a motion to the panel on multidistrict litigation to centralize all of the cases in the Central District of California for purposes of pre-trial discovery, Markman hearing, and summary judgment. The motion was granted and the cases assigned to Judge Klausner in Los Angeles. The case is in the discovery stage with Markman hearings set for early 2008.
    • Rowe International Corp. v. Ecast Inc., U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois
      Dickstein Shapiro obtained a favorable summary judgment in a patent infringement action on behalf of Rowe International, a Harbour Group Company. Five patents were at issue in the motion for summary judgment, which related to computer jukeboxes and computer jukebox networks that manage and distribute digital music to multiple jukeboxes. The motion was heard in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, and Judge Matthew F. Kennelly presided. The case was settled favorably for the Firm’s client days before the trial was scheduled to begin.
    • Saffran, M.D., Ph.D. v. Boston Scientific Corporation, U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Texas
      The Firm obtained a total judgment of $501,261,011 in a patent infringement action for its client Dr. Bruce N. Saffran. At issue in the case was whether Boston Scientific’s Taxus Express and Taxus Liberte drug eluting stents infringed on Dr. Saffran’s patent directed to a layer for directionally delivering a drug to damaged tissue, which is valid until 2013. More than $3 billion worth of drug-eluting stents are sold each year in the United States, and the jury’s decision is tremendously significant because of Boston Scientific’s current 55 percent market share. After only 1 hour and 52 minutes of deliberation, the jury found in favor of Dr. Saffran and awarded $431,867,351, exactly the amount of damages he had requested. Three days after the jury’s judgment, Judge T. John Ward additionally awarded more than $69 million in pre-trial interest, extending the accrual of interest to first date of infringement by Boston Scientific.  The jury’s award in this case is one of the largest ever to be delivered in a patent infringement matter in the United States.
    • Safe Strap Corporation v. National Molding, et al., U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Texas
      The Firm represents the plaintiff in this patent infringement case against four groups of defendants. The patents in the suit cover technology for child-resistant safety straps and buckles.
    • Samsung Electronics America, Inc. v. Brody Enterprises and Efraim Brody
      Dickstein Shapiro LLP obtained a favorable summary judgment in a patent infringement case on behalf of Samsung Electronics America, Inc. The case pertains to a shipment of toner cartridges purporting to be authentic Samsung products that Samsung believed to be counterfeit. Judge Denny Chin of the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York granted Samsung an ex parte temporary restraining order, including expedited discovery.
    • Sara Lee v. Maidenform, U.S. District Court for the Middle District of North Carolina
      Dickstein Shapiro asserted an aggressive defense in this copyright case, resulting in a very favorable settlement for our client, the majority of which was covered by insurance. 
    • Scholastic Inc. v. Harris Entertainment Inc., U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York
      The Firm represented Harris Entertainment Inc. in this entertainment litigation case involving the making of theatrical motion pictures. Scholastic and Harris were joint venture partners in the formation of an independent motion picture production company, and numerous disputes arose between the partners concerning the selection of screenplays and production of films. Scholastic sought to terminate the partnership and Harris sought, among other things, to be paid the Scholastic stock options that it had been promised at the outset of the venture. The jury trial in the Southern District of New York resulted in the dismissal of all of Scholastic’s claims against Harris and a multimillion-dollar award in favor of Harris, representing the full value of the promised Scholastic stock.
    • S.F. Hoechst v. Allied Colloids, U.S. District Court for the Northern District of New York
      Allied Colloids, represented by Dickstein Shapiro, was sued for patent infringement and for damages exceeding $90 million. The case settled with a dismissal; the client paid no damages.
    • Shimano v. Suntour, U.S. District Court for the Northern District of New Jersey
      Dickstein Shapiro successfully represented Suntour in a patent infringement case that settled favorably for the client on the eve of trial.
    • Société Française v. Allied Colloids Ltd., U.S. District Court for the Northern District of New York
      Dickstein Shapiro successfully represented Allied Colloids in a $90 million suit filed by Hoechst. The case was settled with no payment being made by Allied Colloids.
    • Soundview v. EIA and CEMA et al., U.S. District Court for the District of Connecticut
      Dickstein Shapiro defended the Electronic Industry Alliance/Consumer Electronics Manufacturing Association in this patent infringement and antitrust action brought by Soundview. The defendants’ motion for summary judgment was granted and affirmed on appeal.
    • Sumitomo Electric Industries v. Corning, U.S. District Court for the Middle District of North Carolina
      Dickstein Shapiro represented Sumitomo Electric Industries (SEI) in this patent infringement action. SEI brought the action to enforce several of its patents, and Dickstein Shapiro obtained a very favorable settlement for SEI.
    • Sumitomo Electric Industries v. Seicor, U.S. District Court for the Middle District of North Carolina
      Dickstein Shapiro’s client, Sumitomo Electric Industries, brought a patent infringement suit involving fiber optics. The case settled with a cross-license and a substantial payment for the client.
    • Sunshine Foods v. Ralston Purina, U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Alabama
      In this Lahnam Act false advertising and antitrust action, Dickstein Shapiro obtained a multimillion-dollar settlement favorable to Sunshine Foods.
    • SynQor, Inc. v. Murata Manufacturing Co., et al., U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Texas
      Dickstein Shapiro represents Murata Manufacturing and Murata Electronics North America against charges of patent infringement. The patents in the suit involve technology for high-efficiency power converters.
    • Technology Patents LLC v. Deutsche Telekom AG
      Judge A. Williams of the District of Maryland granted a Motion to Dismiss in favor of Dickstein Shapiro client Bharti Airtel Limited, one of India’s largest telecommunications companies. In the case, Technology Patents asserted that more than 130 domestic and foreign telecommunications companies infringed several patents related to wireless text messaging services. The winning Motion to Dismiss was based on the Court not having personal jurisdiction over a foreign defendant such as Bharti.
    • U.S. Phillips v. Sears Roebuck, U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois
      Dickstein Shapiro successfully defended Sears Roebuck in a suit filed by U.S. Phillips for trade dress infringement. In addition, U.S. Phillips was ordered to pay Sears Roebuck’s attorneys fees.
    • U.S. Phillips v. Windmere, U.S. District Court for the District of Florida
      Dickstein Shapiro successfully defended Windmere in a patent infringement and trade dress infringement suit filed by U.S. Phillips. In addition to winning a dismissal of U.S. Phillips’ patent and trade dress claims, the Firm also obtained a $90 million verdict in favor of Windmere on its antitrust counterclaim.
    • VisionMedia v. GE Healthcare, Milwaukee (WI) Circuit Court
      Dickstein Shapiro represents the plaintiff in this misappropriation of trade secrets action involving a hospital-based patient information service.
    • Wang v. Clearpoint, U.S. Federal Circuit
      Dickstein Shapiro represented Clearpoint on appeal after Clearpoint, represented by other counsel, had lost a preliminary injunction motion in district court. The Firm secured a reversal for Clearpoint in the Federal Circuit.
    • Weinblatt v. Ajala, U.S. Patent and Trademark Office
      Dickstein Shapiro represents the senior party in this patent interference regarding a patent for an audience measurement system, which employs DSP encoders and decoders.
    • Wolfe v. Wyeth
      Dickstein Shapiro successfully obtained a dismissal on behalf of its client Dr. Bernard Wolfe, the inventor of the menopause drug licensed to and marketed by Wyeth as Prempro. Dr. Wolfe is seeking to enforce his rights against Wyeth in an action in Ontario, Canada, where he resides. The Firm represented Dr. Wolfe in defending against an action filed by Wyeth in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania. Wyeth sought to preempt the Canadian litigation. The Pennsylvania Court refused Wyeth’s request to reach any substantive issues on the merits of the case and dismissed the action, noting that “neither this Court, nor the parties, have any basis with which to determine how the Ontario Court will handle the case before it.”

ATTORNEY ADVERTISING. Prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome.