|
|
Patent Litigation
Katten’s Patent Litigation Practice includes seasoned trial counsel with the experience necessary to skillfully and efficiently handle a wide variety of patent litigation.
We have represented small and mid-sized clients and universities, as well as large domestic and multinational corporations. We have litigated virtually every type of patent infringement case, from simple mechanical and electronic cases to complex cases involving biotechnology, life sciences, sophisticated computer systems, e-commerce and business methods, and telecommunications. Our patent litigators have tried a wide range of cases in U.S. courts and in the U.S. International Trade Commission, and their courtroom skills have led to a proven track record of success. When called for, the Katten team has successfully represented our clients in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit.
We have substantial experience in defending our clients in multi-defendant cases, especially those filed by non-practicing entities, and have developed successful strategies for defending those cases at minimal cost with excellent results. We have filed numerous patent infringement actions to protect our clients’ businesses. In addition, we have assisted our clients in minimizing the effect of patent litigation and in avoiding it altogether by "designing around" the claims of the patent. We have also initiated inter partes and ex parte reexaminations in the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office of patents asserted against our clients.
Professionals
|
Chicago
|
|
|
Chicago
|
|
|
Chicago
|
|
|
Chicago
|
|
|
Chicago
|
|
|
Chicago
|
|
|
Chicago
|
|
|
Chicago
|
|
|
Washington, D.C.
|
|
|
Washington, D.C.
|
|
|
New York
|
|
|
Washington, D.C.
|
|
|
Chicago
|
|
|
Chicago
|
|
|
Washington, D.C.
|
|
|
Chicago
|
|
|
Chicago
|
|
|
Chicago
|
|
|
Chicago
|
|
|
New York
|
|
|
Chicago
|
|
|
Chicago
|
|
|
Los Angeles
|
|
|
Chicago
|
|
|
Chicago
|
|
|
December 2009
|
|
|
April 6, 2009
|
|
|
June 13, 2007
|
|
|
January 2006
|
|
|
May 5, 2003
|
|
 |
-
e.Digital Corp. v. Pentax of America Inc. et al. Representing Kyocera Corporation, Teac America, Inc.
and Samson Technologies Corp. in ongoing patent litigation relating to digital audio recorders.
-
Paul N. Ware v. Abercrombie & Fitch Stores, Inc. et al. Representing Aeropostale in patent
infringement case filed against over 100 retailers relating to credit card processing systems.
-
Card Activation Technologies, Inc. v. Barnes & Noble, Inc. et al. Representing Aeropostale
in patent infringement case involving credit card reading system.
-
Minerva Industries, Inc. v. Motorola, Inc., et al. Representing SANYO
North America Corporation in ongoing litigation relating to various features used in cell phones.
-
Intellect Wireless, Inc. v. Motorola, Inc., et al. Represented SANYO
North America Corporation in lawsuit relating to picture mail.
-
Linex Technologies, Inc. v. BelAir Networks, Inc. et al. Represented BelAir
in patent infringement action relating to wireless spread spectrum communications systems.
-
Styczynski v. Warnaco Swimwear, Inc. et al. Represented Warnaco
in patent infringement action involving method for molding and curing silicone.
-
Kyocera Wireless Corp. v. Digital Technology Licensing LLC. Representing SANYO
as a third party defendant in lawsuit relating to wireless telephony.
-
Thomas v. Nokia, Inc., et al. Represented SANYO
North America Corporation in lawsuit relating to smartcards in cell phones.
-
Boesen, et al. v. LG Electronics, Inc., et al. Represented SANYO Electric Co.,
Ltd. and SANYO North America Corporation in lawsuit relating to flip phones with dual displays.
-
The Board of Regents of the University of Texas System v. BENQ America Corp., et al. Assisted
in representing SANYO North America Corporation in lawsuit relating to predictive text software.
-
Fractus, S.A. v. Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd., et al. Representing SANYO
Electric Co., Ltd. and SANYO North America Corporation in ongoing litigation relating to antenna features.
-
MSTG, Inc. v. Motorola, Inc. et al. Representing SANYO
Electric Co., Ltd. and SANYO North America Corporation in ongoing litigation relating to 3G phone technology.
-
Chemtura Corp. v. Albemarle Corp. Represented Chemtura
in patent infringement action against competitor chemical company.
-
Flexsys America LP v. Sinorgchem Corporation et al. Represented Flexsys
in patent infringement action and ITC action involving chemical process.
-
Daiichi v. Apotex. Represented Apotex in both the District Court
for the District of New Jersey and the Federal Circuit in successful patent challenge against the patent covering the use of ofloxacin for ear infections.
-
Pfizer v. Apotex. Represented Apotex in both the District Court
for the Northern District of Illinois and the Federal Circuit in successful patent challenge against the patent covering Pfizer’s blockbuster drug Norvasc.
-
Altana Pharma AG and Wyeth v. Sun Pharmaceutical Industries, LTD et al. Represented Sun
in action concerning a proton pump inhibitor in the U.S. District Court of New Jersey.
-
In re Rosuvastatin litigation. Represented Apotex
in a patent challenge against a patent covering Crestor in the U.S. District Court in Delaware.
-
Allergan v. Apotex. Represented Apotex
in this patent challenge against a patent covering a glaucoma medication, in the U.S. District Court in Delaware.
-
Alcon v. Apotex. Represented Apotex in patent challenge
against a patent covering an allergy medication for the eye, in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Indiana.
-
MedPointe v. Apotex. Represented Apotex
in patent challenge against a patent covering an allergy medication in the U.S. District Court in Delaware.
-
Wisconsin Alumni Research Foundation v. General Electric Company. Represented GE
in a patent challenge against a patent covering digital X-ray technology in the U.S. District Court of the Eastern District of Wisconsin.
-
Wanless v. General Electric Company. Represented GE in both the U.S. District Court
for the District of Utah and in the Federal Circuit in successful defense to claim patent infringement under a patent covering a capacitor motor.
-
Bayer AG, Bayer Corp. and Pfizer, Inc. v. Biovail Corp. Represented Biovail
in patent infringement action involving the drug nifedipine in the U.S. District Court for Puerto Rico.
-
Biovail Corp. v. Andrx Corp. Represented Biovail in patent
infringement action against competitor involving a pharmaceutical in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida.
|
|