Patterson Belknap has litigated “bet-the-company” patent disputes for decades. We have handled some of the most notable patent cases and our clients have received some of the largest awards and settlements of patent cases ever. We are consistently ranked among the top firms for patent litigation by Chambers USA and were named “Intellectual Property Practice Group of the Year” by Law360.

Our practice includes highly experienced trial attorneys with extensive technical knowledge. Many of our attorneys have scientific and technical backgrounds as well as industry experience in fields such as chemistry, biochemistry, molecular and cell biology, biotechnology, statistics, mathematics, electro-mechanical computer technology, metallurgical engineering, electrical engineering, semiconductor manufacturing, electro-optical circuits and associated software. Our attorneys’ deep industry knowledge enables us to represent clients not only in patent infringement litigation but also in PTAB trial proceedings before the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office. In addition, we negotiate patent licenses, counsel on new product launches and provide opinions concerning validity and infringement of biotech and life sciences patents.

Market Leading Experience

We have tried numerous cases in district courts across the country, including before the International Trade Commission, and have handled many arguments before the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit.
We are actively involved in inter partes review (IPR) and post-grant review (PGR) proceedings before the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office’s Patent Trial and Appeals Board (PTAB).
We have conducted U.S. and international arbitrations in the U.S. and abroad, and have supervised and worked with foreign counsel on patent litigation matters.
Our willingness to go to trial, and our ability to assess realistically the strengths of a case, not only serve our clients in court but also can increase the chances for a favorable outcome out of court.

Our attorneys author NYPatentDecisionsBlog.com, a source for the latest patent decisions from the U.S. District Courts for the Southern and Eastern Districts of New York.

Life Sciences / Pharmaceutical

Patterson Belknap’s attorneys are deeply involved in the complex issues facing the life sciences, biotechnology and pharmaceutical industries. Our patent practice includes highly experienced trial attorneys with extensive technical knowledge in the field, including attorneys with doctorates in organic chemistry and molecular and cellular biology.

We represent biotechnology companies in a broad range of litigation matters, including patent infringement cases, patent licensing and other contractual disputes. We represent both patent holders and accused infringers in matters involving a wide variety of subject matters, including small molecules, monoclonal antibodies and antibody fragments, expression of recombinant proteins, DNA and RNA probes, and cell therapies.

Chambers USA recognized Patterson Belknap’s Patent Litigation practice, with one commentator noting that our team “Possesses strength and depth in a number of areas including pharmaceuticals and biosimilars, boasting an impressive client roster of market-leading clients.”

Life Sciences

Cases for Patent Owners:

We successfully represented a major pharmaceutical company in Hatch-Waxman patent infringement litigations relating to our client’s blockbuster antipsychotic drug. The suits were filed against generic drug makers that had filed ANDA applications with the FDA seeking to launch generic versions of our client’s drug before the expiration of the patent covering the drug. After a multi-week bench trial by Zoom, the District Court issued an order rejecting all allegations of invalidity. At stake was nearly 10 years of patent protection for a blockbuster medicine with over $1.5 billion in annual sales in the United States.
We successfully represented a global chemical company in its assertion of two patents directed to broad-spectrum fungicides against several entities involved in the importation of infringing product. After we defeated defendants’ petition for inter partes review (IPR), the defendants ceased importation of the infringing product.
We successfully represented a major pharmaceutical company in a Hatch-Waxman case in the District of New Jersey against three manufacturers of generic drugs. The case involved our client’s blockbuster treatment for HIV/AIDS. After discovery, the defendants withdrew their challenge to validity and infringement for patents on the drug molecule and methods of its use. In addition, the district court granted our motion for summary judgment that the defendants infringe patents on methods of manufacture and a crystal form of the drug. Following trial, the district court rejected the defendants’ validity defenses and entered judgment in our client’s favor on all issues on all of the asserted patents.
We successfully represented a pharmaceutical company in a Hatch-Waxman case in the District of Delaware against a generic manufacturer seeking FDA approval for a generic version of our client’s migraine medication. We obtained a favorable claim construction, leading the defendant to stipulate to infringement. After trial, the district court rejected defendant’s invalidity defense and entered judgment for our client.
We represented the manufacturer of blood glucose monitoring systems in two cases asserting infringement of our client’s patents on systems used by diabetics to monitor their blood glucose levels. Both cases settled on favorable terms.
We successfully represented a major pharmaceutical company in a Hatch-Waxman action in the District of Delaware against a generic manufacturer, which sought approval to sell a generic version of our client’s drug for the treatment of heartburn. The court ruled in our client’s favor, rejecting its competitor’s invalidity and inequitable conduct defenses.
We represented a leading pharmaceutical company in a Hatch-Waxman action against manufacturers who sought to market generic versions of a multi-billion dollar antipsychotic drug. Following a bench trial in the District Court of New Jersey, the court enjoined the generic manufacturers from selling any product until the patent expired. The Federal Circuit affirmed this injunction without opinion one day after hearing oral argument.
We won a jury verdict in the Northern District of Illinois in favor of a major pharmaceutical company in a case involving its patents on biodegradable polymers in an injection for drug delivery. After a bench trial on inequitable conduct, the court rejected defendant’s inequitable conduct defense. The case then settled on favorable terms.
In a case in the District of Vermont, the court ruled in favor of our client, a pharmaceutical and medical device manufacturer: the case involved polymers used in administering drugs over time for delivery by skin absorption. The Federal Circuit affirmed.
We obtained summary judgment of infringement in favor of our client, a leading pharmaceutical company, in a case in the Northern District of Ohio involving its patents on time-release polymers in an injection; we then won a jury verdict upholding the validity of our client’s patents. The Federal Circuit affirmed.
After a series of related trials involving a ground-breaking patent related to coronary stents, we obtained judgments and settlements for a cardiac device manufacturer totaling $3.6 billion, including a settlement of $1.725 billion, one of the largest settlements of a patent infringement case in the United States.
We represented a pharmaceutical and healthcare company in a series of cases against companies that sought to introduce generic versions of its drug for lowering cholesterol. The cases settled after decisions in our client's favor denying defendants' motions for summary judgment.

Cases for Accused Infringers:

After a non-practicing entity enforced its patent on contact lenses against our client’s competitors, we won two jury verdicts in the Middle District of Florida that our client did not infringe the patent. The first jury verdict came in 2012 and the second, after a remand for a retrial, in 2017.
We represented a medical device manufacturer in a case in the Western District of Texas alleging infringement of a patent on drug eluting sutures.
We successfully represented a medical device manufacturer in the District of Delaware in a patent case concerning a drug’s mechanism of action. The court granted our motion for summary judgment of noninfringement based on a series of antibody tests.
We successfully defended a major U.S. manufacturer of household products in a case in the District of New Jersey involving patents on toothpaste. Following a bench trial, the district court ruled that the patents-in-suit were unenforceable due to inequitable conduct, declared the case exceptional, and awarded attorney fees of $1.2 million in our client's favor. The Federal Circuit affirmed.
We successfully represented a Fortune 50 pharmaceutical company in a multi-district litigation in the District of Massachusetts concerning the validity of a University patent relating to early biotechnology techniques.
We defended a pharmaceutical company in a case in the Northern District of Illinois where our client was accused of infringing a patent on polymeric drug delivery systems. The case settled on terms favorable to our client after cross-examination of plaintiff's expert witness.
We defended a leading global provider of soda ash and its foreign affiliates against accusations of patent infringement in an action brought in the District of Delaware concerning the importation of allegedly infringing soda ash into the United States.

Biotechnology

We represented a major pharmaceutical company in one of the first biosimilars cases brought under the Biologics Price Competition and Innovation Act (BPCIA), the first such case involving an antibody product.
We represented the patentee in one of the first AIA trial proceedings involving a biotech patent.
In a patent license dispute involving a blockbuster biotechnology product, we obtained an arbitration award rejecting the entirety of plaintiff’s contract claim for $130 million and an award of attorney’s fees.
We successfully represented a leading biotechnology company in a number of multi-billion dollar arbitrations over patent and other IP rights to best-selling monoclonal antibody and recombinant protein therapies.
We successfully defended a major pharmaceutical company in a lawsuit arising from a licensing dispute challenging the validity of biotech patents concerning the cotransformation of eukaryotic cells.
We resolved a patent infringement action involving analysis of PCR amplified sequences on very beneficial terms for a biotech company.
In a case concerning a drug’s mechanism of action, we obtained summary judgment of noninfringement based on a series of antibody tests.
In a patent license dispute concerning the use of a recombinant protein as an enzyme replacement therapy, we obtained one of the largest settlement awards over the life of a contract.

Electrical and Software

Patterson Belknap attorneys have a strong track record representing clients in cases involving electrical, telecommunications, and computer technologies as well as a vast array of software products and features. Team attorneys have represented:

A Fortune 500 financial institution against two patents relating to remote check deposit technology filed in the Western District of Texas. We successfully transferred the case to the Southern District of New York.
A leading consumer electronics company in the Eastern District of Texas, defending claims that certain of our client’s products infringe four patents directed to computer motherboard architecture and various features directed to hands-free operation of a computer.
A networked-exercise equipment provider accused of infringing several patents related to methods for providing on-line stationary cycling classes in the Eastern District of Texas. The case settled favorably after the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) granted our client’s petitions for IPR of all claims of the challenged patents.
A leading consumer electronics company in the District of Delaware, defending allegations of infringement of three patents. We filed petitions for IPR review of the three asserted patents. The dispute was successfully resolved and the plaintiff’s claims against our client were dismissed with prejudice.
A leading electronics company in the District of Delaware, defending claims that our client infringed their patent. Following an all-day oral argument, the presiding judge granted our client’s motion to dismiss and invalidated the asserted patent claims from the bench.
A Fortune 50 technology company accused of infringing multiple patents relating to audio/video conferencing and encryption in the Eastern District of New York. We secured final judgment of non-infringement in favor of our client. The Federal Circuit affirmed.
A home shopping network in defense of allegations of infringement of a patent directed to a computerized system for performing a reverse auction. A Tennessee district court dismissed the case without prejudice after our Petition for Covered Business Method (CBM) Review was granted by the PTAB. The PTAB subsequently found all 39 claims of patent invalid as directed to ineligible subject matter and denied Patent Owner’s motion to amend the claims. Decision affirmed on appeal to the Federal Circuit.
A leading electronics company in the Southern District of California and the PTAB, defending claims of infringement of two patents directed to the use of LED based television backlighting schemes. One patent was dismissed without any payment shortly after a petition for inter partes review was filed. The remainder of the case settled on favorable terms to client.
A leading electronics company in the Eastern District of Texas, defending claims of patent infringement directed at video format conversion software. The case wound its way through the Federal Circuit, the United States Supreme Court and ultimately landed in the Northern District of California where a settlement tantamount to total victory was achieved hours after oral argument on a motion for summary judgement of invalidity. Subsequently, the court granted defendants’ summary judgement motion of invalidity, thereby successfully ending six years of litigation for all defendants.
A leading electronics and software manufacturer in defense of claims of patent infringement directed to the use of voice recognition technology by cell phones. After many years being idle, the court granted our clients’ motions to dismiss and invalidated the asserted patent claims as being indefinite.
A leading electronics company in defense of claims of infringement of two patents directed to three dimensional computer graphics. A dismissal of all claims was obtained in the Northern District of California prior to any discovery being exchanged.
A leading technology company in defense of two lawsuits asserting patents directed to enterprise simulation and monitoring software in the District of Delaware. The first lawsuit was dismissed without any payment. The second lawsuit was won after a summary judgement decision finding that the asserted claims were invalid as being directed to subject matter that is ineligible for patent protection.
A communications company in the Eastern District of Texas in the successful assertion of a patent directed to DOCSIS compliant cable communication systems having load balancing capabilities. Obtained a favorable settlement on eve of trial after prevailing on all claim construction issues and key pre-trial motions.
A leading electronics company in the District of Utah, defending allegations of infringement of four patents directed to semiconductor wire grid polarizer optical technology. Negotiated a dismissal of the suit and facilitated settlement discussions in a collegial atmosphere that resulted in a favorable outcome for both parties.
A leading multinational engineering and electronics company in the Eastern District of Virginia and the ITC, defending against allegations of infringement of patents concerning video analytic software for security camera systems, such as virtual tripwire technology, in both district court and ITC proceedings. The case settled on favorable terms to client shortly after ITC hearing.
A data visualization software developer in a declaratory judgment action in the Southern District of New York brought in response to claims of infringement of a patent covering a system for automating the collection, management and analysis of data. Case settled favorably for client with minimal expense.
The subsidiary of a Fortune 50 software company, which was accused of infringing two patents on speech recognition technology in the District of Delaware. The plaintiff voluntarily dismissed the first patent after we made a strong showing of non-infringement. Defeated the second patent on summary judgment by proving that each claim of the patent was anticipated by or obvious over prior art that we uncovered.
A multinational mass media group in a case in the District of Delaware involving a patent on links used in internet searches. Case settled on terms highly favorable to our client.
A leading provider of technologies used for determining the location of wireless devices, in a declaratory judgment action in the District of Delaware against a competitor. Developed strong non-infringement positions showing that our client’s new location platform did not infringe a patent owned by its competitor. Prior to trial, our client decided to make additional improvements to its platform and withdrew the lawsuit.
A leading electronics and software company, defending allegations of infringement relating to two patents owned by a subsidiary of a well-known patent assertion company. Case was originally filed in the Western District of Arkansas and then transferred to the Northern District of California. Using the Northern District of California’s Local Patent Rules, we precluded plaintiff from obtaining any discovery prior to establishing a prima facie case of infringement, which plaintiff was not able to do. In two seminal opinions on the disclosure requirements of the local rules, the court twice struck plaintiff’s infringement contentions, the second time without leave to amend effectively disposing of the case before our clients had to provide any discovery.
A national provider of anatomic pathology services, which was accused in the Eastern District of Texas of infringing two patents on computer software for formulating a therapeutic regimen for patients for the treatment of disease. Case settled on favorable terms for our client.
A leading electronics company in defending claims of patent infringement in the Eastern District of Texas directed to highly complex encryption methods using elliptical curve cryptography. Case was dismissed without any payment to plaintiffs.
A leading electronics corporation in defending claims in the Eastern District of Texas of infringement of four patents directed to the manufacture, structure and operation of the blu-ray laser diodes used in a top video gaming line of products. In this ultra-high stakes litigation, three of the patents were dismissed for zero payment and the court granted a rare motion for summary judgement that the fourth patent was invalid just days before trial was set to begin.
An international manufacturing company in defending in the Eastern District of Texas an accusation of patent infringement on technology for graphically displaying the scheduling of resources. Our early investigation uncovered prior art from inside and outside the company which we used to obtain an early settlement of a potentially troubling case for a minimal sum.
An international manufacturing company, which was accused in the Eastern District of Texas of infringing a patent on circuit breakers. Case settled on favorable terms for our client.
A Fortune 50 software manufacturer in two cases in the Eastern District of New York where it was accused of infringing patents relating to video computers and cellular phones. In both of these cases, the district court granted our motions for summary judgment in our client’s favor. One of these cases was appealed to the Federal Circuit and the grant of summary judgment in favor of our client was affirmed.
A leading electronics manufacturer in the Eastern District of Texas, defending claims of patent infringement of several patents directed to computer generated spherical panning features associated with computer and console games. Case settled on favorable terms for client.
A technology company in asserting a patent in the District of Delaware directed to mass spectrometers having improved sensitivity against a major competitor’s high end triple-quadrupole mass spectrometer product line. A jury awarded the client the fourth largest jury award of its year, and the Court entered an injunction prohibiting sales of the infringing products. The Federal Circuit affirmed the damages award and entry of the injunction in a per curium decision shortly after oral argument.

Mechanical Arts

Patterson Belknap attorneys have substantial experience in representing clients in the mechanical arts and manufacturing processes. Team attorneys have represented:

One of the world's leading centrifuge manufacturers, and an ethanol energy company. We served as lead counsel for a joint defense group in a multi-district litigation brought by our client against 30 defendants. After successfully challenging the validity of the four patents asserted against the defendants and obtaining a finding of inequitable conduct following a bench trial, we led the effort that resulted in a ruling from the court that the case was “exceptional” under 35 U.S.C. § 285 and that defendants were entitled to attorney’s fees and costs. In addition, we served as lead counsel on plaintiff’s appeal of the court’s prior decisions on validity and inequitable conduct to the Federal Circuit. The Federal Circuit ruled in favor of the joint defense group, affirming the district court’s determination that the patents-in-suit are unenforceable due to inequitable conduct.
A leading multinational engineering company in connection with the assertion of patents covering automotive parts in various district courts against numerous defendants. Obtained jury verdict in District of Delaware finding patents valid and infringed. The Federal Circuit affirmed the validity and infringement findings and, in ordering the district court to enter an injunction sought by our client, issued a landmark ruling concerning the continued availability of injunctions after the Supreme Court’s eBay decision. Successfully handled more than a dozen subsequent cases over the next several years obtaining favorable settlements for our client.
A leading multinational engineering company in a proceeding before the ITC in the assertion of numerous patents concerning wiper blades against numerous foreign companies. Successfully handled claim construction hearing in which 37 claim terms were construed, which resulted in a favorable settlement shortly after the final hearing began.
A leading engineered-materials company against allegations of infringement of a patent on a measurement system for a type of plywood. Obtained summary judgment of non-infringement.

Medical Device

For over a decade Patterson Belknap represented a medical device manufacturer in a series of “bet-the-company” patent cases relating to coronary stents. We conducted 14 trials, preliminary injunction hearings and arbitration trials involving infringement, validity and/or enforceability issues. In January 2010, one of these disputes settled with our client receiving $1.725 billion – one of the largest settlements of any patent infringement case. In total, our client collected more than $3.6 billion in this series of cases. The cases leading up to the $1.725 billion settlement include the following:

As plaintiffs, we won jury verdicts of $271 million and $324 million (both cited by The National Law Journal as among the major plaintiff's verdicts of the year 2000) and an arbitration award of $425 million (in 2003).
In September 2008, both jury verdicts were affirmed and the district court entered a judgment of over $1.2 billion, including post-verdict damages and prejudgment interest.
In June 2005, we won jury verdicts of infringement on second and third generation infringing products, which were later affirmed on appeal, and that directly led to the $1.725 billion settlement.
As defendant, we won a jury verdict (in 2001), later upheld on appeal, that a patent asserted against our client was invalid as obvious.
In January 2009, the Federal Circuit found that a patent asserted against our client was invalid as obvious as a matter of law and reversed a judgment against our client in a case where the plaintiff was seeking over a billion dollars in damages.

Additional experience on behalf of medical device manufacturers includes:

Representation of a leading manufacturer of blood glucose test strips, defending accusations of infringement of a patent on a glucose monitoring system. After experts’ reports were exchanged, the plaintiff stipulated to dismiss its claims of literal infringement. The district court then granted our client’s motion for summary judgment dismissing the plaintiff’s claim of infringement under the doctrine of equivalents. The Federal Circuit affirmed.
Representation of a leading medical device manufacturer, defending allegations of patent infringement. Our client launched an advanced bipolar surgical device used to seal and cut tissue in 2017, but faced allegations that the device infringed a competitor’s patents. Following a bench trial in the District of Massachusetts, the judge found that our client’s device did not infringe any claim of either of the two asserted patents.
An endodontic-equipment manufacturer in a patent infringement action alleging that our client infringed four patents. The asserted patents relate to the shape and design of our client’s files, which are used in root canal procedures. A trial is scheduled in 2020.
Representing a leading medical device manufacturer in assertion of a patent directed to an ultrasonic surgical device in the Northern District of Ohio. Following a favorable claim construction ruling, the Court granted client’s motion for summary judgment of infringement and lack of available non-infringing alternatives. Case is proceeding toward trial with issues limited to validity and damages.
Representation of a medical device manufacturer accused of infringing a competitor’s patents on ultrasonic surgical instruments. The Federal Circuit reversed the $176.5 million in damages a district court had awarded the plaintiff for our client’s alleged infringement of three surgical device patents and affirmed the district court’s ruling that 26 of the claims asserted against our client were invalid as anticipated by the prior art, and held as a matter of law that the remaining claims were invalid as obvious. The Supreme Court denied the plaintiff’s petition for a writ of certiorari.
The Federal Circuit reversed a $593 million jury verdict from the Eastern District of Texas and found that our client, a Fortune 50 medical device manufacturer, did not infringe a doctor’s patent on heart devices. The Federal Circuit found that the district court erred in construing two claim terms and that under the correct construction our client was entitled to judgment of noninfringement as a matter of law. The U.S. Supreme Court then denied the doctor’s petition for a writ of certiorari.
Representation of a medical device manufacturer in the Eastern District of Texas in a case alleging infringement of a patent on a method for treating and monitoring a patient at a remote location. After the PTAB instituted an IPR proceeding on our client’s petition, the case settled on terms favorable to our client.
Representation of a medical device manufacturer accused of infringing several patents on coronary stents. At our request, the district court bifurcated our client’s laches defense from other issues for an early trial. Following a bench trial in the Southern District of New York, the district court rejected plaintiff’s claims as barred by laches and dismissed the complaint.
Representation of clients in a case in the Southern District of Illinois where the court granted summary judgment that our clients’ coronary stents do not infringe the asserted patents. The Federal Circuit affirmed. After granting summary judgment of noninfringement, the district court declared the case exceptional under 35 U.S.C. § 285 and awarded our clients all of their attorney’s fees and expert fees. The Federal Circuit affirmed.
Representation of a medical device manufacturer in a case in the District of Massachusetts involving seven patents asserted by a competitor relating to surgical techniques, suture anchors, and artificial joints. The case settled on favorable terms for our client.
Representation of an international medical device manufacturer accused in the Eastern District of Texas of infringing three patents relating to the visualization and display of organs during medical procedures, including stent tracking in-situ. Case settled on favorable terms for our client.
Representation of an endodontic-equipment manufacturer against allegations of infringement of patents related to root canal files in the Western District of Pennsylvania and the ITC. Case settled after favorable manufacturing/supply agreement was entered. In a subsequent breach of contract action, jury awarded our client $44 million in damages.
Representation of a worldwide leader in the diagnosis and treatment of cardiac arrhythmias in a case in the Central District of California involving seven patents related to mapping electrical activity/pathways in the heart. Client had accused the defendant of infringing six of its patents, and the defendant had counterclaimed for infringement of one of its patents. Case settled on favorable terms for our client.
Representation of a medical device manufacturer in the District of Delaware accused of infringing eight unrelated patents in a variety of technologies ranging from JPEG data compression to digital subtraction angiography. After obtaining favorable pre-trial rulings, settled case for a tiny fraction of our client’s potential exposure.
Representation of a major medical device manufacturer in a case in the Southern District of Florida in which the court granted summary judgment dismissing the plaintiff's claims of breach of a patent license agreement, on the grounds that stents sold by our client are not covered by the claims of the licensed patent. The Federal Circuit affirmed.
Representation of a medical device manufacturer in a bet-the-company case in the District of Delaware in which the plaintiff refused to settle and was trying to shut our client out of the billion-dollar market for coronary stents. The jury returned a verdict in our client's favor that the patents-in-suit were invalid as obvious and were not infringed. The Federal Circuit affirmed.
Representation of a medical device manufacturer before an arbitration panel that found our client’s patent not to be invalid and to be infringed by a competing medical device manufacturer’s stent, resulting in an award of $425 million.
Representation of a medical device manufacturer in a bet-the-company case in which a competitor was asserting its patents to shut our client out of the billion-dollar market for endoscopic instruments. Plaintiff delayed announcing its 4Q results in anticipation of a favorable verdict. After a four-week trial, the jury returned a verdict in our client's favor, finding that both of the patents-in-suit were invalid as obvious. Plaintiff’s stock price dropped 33% the day the verdict was announced. The Federal Circuit affirmed the judgment in our client's favor, and did so again following a remand for reconsideration in light of the Supreme Court's decision in Markman. The National Law Journal listed the case as one of the top ten defense verdicts of the year.

PTAB Proceedings

Patterson Belknap’s patent attorneys help our clients navigate complex proceedings before the US Patent & Trademark Office (USPTO), including before the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB). Firm attorneys have handled numerous inter partes review (IPR) proceedings on behalf of clients in the healthcare, electronic, computer software and technology industries. We also have experience with Post Grant Review (PGR) and Covered Business Method (CBM) proceedings.

Our experience includes:

Representation of petitioner in IPR proceedings concerning four patents related to methods for providing on-line stationary cycling classes. Proceeding terminated on the eve of the PTAB hearing after favorable settlement.
Obtained the denial of a petition for IPR of a client’s patent on a broad-spectrum fungicide.
Represented accused infringer in filing of three IPR proceedings challenging three patents directed to physical layer architecture for transmitting and displaying data stored in cell phone memory.
Representation of patent owner in an IPR proceeding of a patent concerning the therapeutic use of a recombinant protein.
Obtained the denial of a generic manufacturer’s petition for IPR of a patent covering a crystal polymorph of a blockbuster drug.
Representation of patent owner in several IPR proceedings of a patent concerning methods of allocating signalling data channels in a multiple access communication system.
Representation of co-petitioner in an IPR proceeding challenging a patent on remote monitoring of a patient’s medical condition. Successfully obtained institution of IPR of all claims; case settled before final decision.
Representation of petitioner in a CBM proceeding challenging a patent concerning a method for conducting a telephone- or Internet-based reverse auction. PTAB issued final determination after full hearing on the merits finding all 39 challenged claims to be unpatentable.
Representation of petitioner in an IPR proceeding challenging a patent concerning LED driver circuits. Cased settled before institution decision.
Representation of petitioner in IPR proceedings challenging a patent concerning LCD driver circuits.
Representation of petitioner in an IPR proceeding and a PGR proceeding challenging patents concerning methods for manufacturing nickel titanium endodontic instruments. The PTAB found all challenged claims of two related patents in the IPR and PGR proceedings invalid on multiple grounds. The Federal Circuit affirmed the IPR final determination of unpatentability. The Patent Owner withdrew its initial appeal of the PGR decision, resulting in a final judgment that all challenged claims of the other patent were also unpatentable.
Representation of patent owner in IPR proceeding concerning claims directed vibratory screening machines and associated screens used in the mining, and oil and gas drilling industries. Proceeding terminated on the eve of the PTAB hearing after favorable settlement that included admission of validity.

Go to full blog

Eastern District of New York (E.D.N.Y.)

It’s All Relative: Judge Komitee Holds That an Infringing Sale Can Take Place at Multiple Times Both Before and After a Patent Issues

Judge Eric Komitee recently denied a motion to dismiss patent infringement claims accusing flood prevention products sold pursuant to a contract that was entered into before the patent issued but delivered and installed after issuance. In 2013, plaintiff FloodBreak, LLC...

April 21, 2026Southern District of New York (S.D.N.Y.)

All Activity Rings [Patents] Closed—Judge Rochon Grants Motion for Summary Judgment of Non-infringement on Seven Design Patents

Judge Jennifer L. Rochon (S.D.N.Y.) recently granted Defendant Apple, Inc.’s (“Apple”) motions for summary judgment of non-infringement of seven design patents. Plaintiff Michael Shunock (“Shunock”) asserted U.S. Patent Nos.: D956,802; D956,803; D956,804; D956,805; D956,806; D956,807; and D956,808 (together, the “Asserted...

April 21, 2026Southern District of New York (S.D.N.Y.)

“Not an Arm of New Jersey”: Judge Gardephe Denies Motion for Summary Judgment Based on Eleventh Amendment Immunity

On March 30, 2026, United States District Judge Paul G. Gardephe (S.D.N.Y) denied Defendant New Jersey Transit Corporation’s (“NJ Transit”) motion for summary judgment on all of Plaintiff Bytemark, Inc.’s (“Bytemark”) claims. Bytemark, Inc. v. Xerox Corp., et al, No. 17-cv-1803...

April 2, 2026

Eastern District of New York (E.D.N.Y.)

It’s All Relative: Judge Komitee Holds That an Infringing Sale Can Take Place at Multiple Times Both Before and After a Patent Issues

April 21, 2026Southern District of New York (S.D.N.Y.)

All Activity Rings [Patents] Closed—Judge Rochon Grants Motion for Summary Judgment of Non-infringement on Seven Design Patents

April 21, 2026Southern District of New York (S.D.N.Y.)

“Not an Arm of New Jersey”: Judge Gardephe Denies Motion for Summary Judgment Based on Eleventh Amendment Immunity

April 2, 2026Southern District of New York (S.D.N.Y.)

Please Leave a Message: Judge Hellerstein Finds Claims Directed to Missed-Call Categorization to Be Abstract

Recently, District Judge Alvin K. Hellerstein (S.D.N.Y.) granted Defendant CloudTalk.io, Inc.’s (“CloudTalk”) motion to dismiss Missed Call, LLC’s (“Missed Call”) complaint, finding that the asserted patent was directed to an abstract idea and lacked an inventive concept. Missed Call, LLC...

March 25, 2026Southern District of New York (S.D.N.Y.)

Just Because it Wasn’t Timely Raised, Doesn’t Mean the Prosecution History Wasn’t Available: Judge Liman Denies Motion for Reconsideration of Claim Construction Order

On February 11, 2026, District Judge Lewis J. Liman (S.D.N.Y.) denied a motion for reconsideration of portions of the Court’s claim construction order defining terms in accordance with their plain and ordinary meaning, filed by Defendants Qingdao Network Technology Co., Ltd., d/b/a...

February 19, 2026Southern District of New York (S.D.N.Y.)

Not So Fast: Judge Hellerstein Seeks More Evidence Before Finding Inequitable Conduct

Recently, United States District Judge Alvin K. Hellerstein accepted in part the report and recommendation of Magistrate Judge Valerie Figueredo. A detailed summary of Judge Figueredo’s decision was the subject of a prior post, available here. As a threshold matter,...

February 11, 2026Eastern District of New York (E.D.N.Y.)

When One Door Closes, Another Doesn’t Always Open: Judge Bulsara Grants Motion to Dismiss DigitalDoors’s Complaint with Prejudice

On January 16, 2026, District Judge Sanket J. Bulsara (E.D.N.Y.) granted Defendant Flushing Bank’s motion to dismiss under Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6), finding that Plaintiff DigitalDoors, Inc. (“DigitalDoors”) failed to identify an infringing product or service. DigitalDoors, Inc. v....

February 3, 2026Eastern District of New York (E.D.N.Y.)

The Case Must Go On: Judge Choudhury Denies Stay Pending PTO Ex Parte Reexaminations

Last week, Judge Nusrat J. Choudhury (E.D.N.Y.) denied a motion to stay a patent case pending completion of ex parte reexamination (“EPR”) proceedings challenging the validity of some but not all of the patents-in-suit. See Fleet Connect Sols. LLC v....

February 2, 2026Eastern District of New York (E.D.N.Y.)

Order of Destruction: Judge Chen Reiterates that Defendant Must Destroy Goods Existing Before the Patents Expired

Judge Pamela K. Chen (E.D.N.Y.) recently ordered Defendants Digital Pavilion Electronics LLC, East Brooklyn Labs LLC, and Firemall LLC to destroy infringing products after the expiration of the asserted patents. The Court had previously issued a “Permanent Injunction Order against...

December 23, 2025

All Posts

Southern District of New York (S.D.N.Y.)

Please Leave a Message: Judge Hellerstein Finds Claims Directed to Missed-Call Categorization to Be Abstract

March 25, 2026Southern District of New York (S.D.N.Y.)

Just Because it Wasn’t Timely Raised, Doesn’t Mean the Prosecution History Wasn’t Available: Judge Liman Denies Motion for Reconsideration of Claim Construction Order

February 19, 2026Southern District of New York (S.D.N.Y.)

Not So Fast: Judge Hellerstein Seeks More Evidence Before Finding Inequitable Conduct

February 11, 2026Eastern District of New York (E.D.N.Y.)

When One Door Closes, Another Doesn’t Always Open: Judge Bulsara Grants Motion to Dismiss DigitalDoors’s Complaint with Prejudice

February 3, 2026Eastern District of New York (E.D.N.Y.)

The Case Must Go On: Judge Choudhury Denies Stay Pending PTO Ex Parte Reexaminations

February 2, 2026Eastern District of New York (E.D.N.Y.)

Order of Destruction: Judge Chen Reiterates that Defendant Must Destroy Goods Existing Before the Patents Expired

December 23, 2025

Show All

Publications

October 31, 2025

Federal Circuit Holds That Patentee’s Disavowal of Claim Construction Warrants Reversal of Summary Judgment

In Focus Products Group International, LLC v. Kartri Sales Co., --- F.4th ---, 2025 WL 2774853 (Fed. Cir. Sept. 30, 2025), the Federal Circuit reversed the district court’s grant of summary judgment of patent infringement to the plaintiffs because the district...

The Intellectual Property Strategist

August 31, 2025

Federal Circuit: Board Erred in Finding No Likelihood of Confusion Between KIST and SUNKIST Marks

On July 23, 2025, a Federal Circuit panel consisting of Judges Prost, Taranto, and Stark found in an opinion authored by Judge Prost that the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board (Board) erred in dismissing Sunkist Growers, Inc’s (Sunkist) opposition to...

The Intellectual Property Strategist

May 1, 2025

Federal Circuit Examines Written Description Requirements for U.S. Patent Application Publications Used as Prior Art Under Pre-AIA

On March 24, 2025, a Federal Circuit panel consisting of Judges Moore, Stoll, and Cunningham issued a precedential opinion, authored by Judge Stoll, in In re Riggs, No. 2022-1945 (Fed. Cir. Mar. 24, 2025). Appellants in Riggs are the named...

Intellectual Property Strategist

October 31, 2025

Federal Circuit Holds That Patentee’s Disavowal of Claim Construction Warrants Reversal of Summary Judgment

The Intellectual Property Strategist

August 31, 2025

Federal Circuit: Board Erred in Finding No Likelihood of Confusion Between KIST and SUNKIST Marks

The Intellectual Property Strategist

May 1, 2025

Federal Circuit Examines Written Description Requirements for U.S. Patent Application Publications Used as Prior Art Under Pre-AIA

Intellectual Property Strategist

April 18, 2025

Fed. Circ.'s PTAB Ruling Highlights Obsolete Rationale

Under pre-America Invents Act law — which governs a considerable number of litigated patents — patents and published patent applications are prior art as of their filing date. But patents and patent applications often claim priority to an earlier-filed provisional application....

Law360

March 1, 2025

Federal Circuit: PTAB Jurisdiction Exists Over Expired Patents

On Jan. 27, 2025, a Federal Circuit panel of Judges Lourie, Dyk, and Hughes issued a unanimous decision in Apple Inc. v. Gesture Tech. Partners, LLC, Case Nos. 2023-1501, 2023-1554 (Fed. Cir. 2025). The Federal Circuit determined that the United...

The Intellectual Property Strategist

January 1, 2025

Federal Circuit: District Courts May Impose Deterrence Sanctions Even After They Had Already Awarded Attorney Fees and Costs Under 35 U.S.C. § 285

In PS Prods. Inc. v. Panther Trading Co. Inc., the Federal Circuit considered whether a district court may impose deterrence sanctions under its inherent power when it had already awarded attorney fees and costs under 35 U.S.C. § 285. No....

The Intellectual Property Strategist

November 22, 2024

This Lawyer’s Life: Gregory Diskant, Big Law Leadership and Litigation

In this special episode, Greg Diskant is interviewed by City Bar President Muhammad Faridi. They discuss key moments from Mr. Diskant’s illustrious career, including his clerkship with Justice Thurgood Marshall and Judge Skelly Wright, his experiences as an assistant U.S. attorney,...

New York City Bar Association Podcast

August 1, 2022

Coronavirus (COVID-19) Resource Center

At Patterson Belknap we continue to diligently monitor the outbreak of the COVID-19 coronavirus and assess the potential legal and business issues that may arise relating to the virus. The situation is fluid, and best practices and guidelines are evolving...

May 3, 2022

Federal Circuit Affirms Precedential Opinion Panel Decision Limiting the Circumstances In Which the Board Should Raise Sua Sponte Patentability Issues Against Proposed Substitute Claims

On March 24, 2022, a Federal Circuit panel consisting of Judges Prost, Reyna, and Hughes issued a unanimous opinion, authored by Judge Hughes, in Hunting Titan, Inc. v. DynaEnergetics Europe GmbH, Case Nos. 2020-2163 and 2020-2191. Petitioner Hunting Titan appealed...

The Intellectual Property Strategist

All Publications

April 18, 2025

Fed. Circ.'s PTAB Ruling Highlights Obsolete Rationale

Law360

March 1, 2025

Federal Circuit: PTAB Jurisdiction Exists Over Expired Patents

The Intellectual Property Strategist

January 1, 2025

Federal Circuit: District Courts May Impose Deterrence Sanctions Even After They Had Already Awarded Attorney Fees and Costs Under 35 U.S.C. § 285

The Intellectual Property Strategist

November 22, 2024

This Lawyer’s Life: Gregory Diskant, Big Law Leadership and Litigation

New York City Bar Association Podcast

August 1, 2022

Coronavirus (COVID-19) Resource Center

May 3, 2022

Federal Circuit Affirms Precedential Opinion Panel Decision Limiting the Circumstances In Which the Board Should Raise Sua Sponte Patentability Issues Against Proposed Substitute Claims

The Intellectual Property Strategist

Show All

News

December 15, 2025

Patterson Belknap Announces Three New Partners and Four Counsel

Patterson Belknap Webb & Tyler LLP is pleased to announce that, effective January 1, 2026, Anne-Laure Alléhaut, J. Jay Cho, and Tara J. Norris will become partners of the firm, and Emma Ellman-Golan, Andrew I. Haddad, Irene J. Kim, and Tiffany...

August 14, 2025

Barbara Mullin Named Among Benchmark Litigation's 2025 Top 250 Women in Litigation

July 9, 2025

Firm Secures Federal Circuit Affirmance on Behalf of Janssen Pharmaceuticals

December 15, 2025

Patterson Belknap Announces Three New Partners and Four Counsel

August 14, 2025

Barbara Mullin Named Among Benchmark Litigation's 2025 Top 250 Women in Litigation

July 9, 2025

Firm Secures Federal Circuit Affirmance on Behalf of Janssen Pharmaceuticals

June 5, 2025

19 Patterson Belknap Attorneys and Seven Practices Ranked in Chambers USA 2025

April 14, 2025

Firm Secures Significant Victory for Johnson & Johnson Subsidiaries in Medical Device Patent Litigation

April 2, 2025

Firm Wins Appeal on Behalf of Janssen Pharmaceuticals in Patent Litigation

January 8, 2025

IP Litigator Kathryn Bi Joins Patterson Belknap as Partner

December 18, 2024

Firm Wins Patent Remand Decision on Behalf of Janssen Pharmaceuticals

December 16, 2024

Patterson Belknap Announces Three New Partners and Three Counsel

All News

June 5, 2025

19 Patterson Belknap Attorneys and Seven Practices Ranked in Chambers USA 2025

April 14, 2025

Firm Secures Significant Victory for Johnson & Johnson Subsidiaries in Medical Device Patent Litigation

April 2, 2025

Firm Wins Appeal on Behalf of Janssen Pharmaceuticals in Patent Litigation

January 8, 2025

IP Litigator Kathryn Bi Joins Patterson Belknap as Partner

December 18, 2024

Firm Wins Patent Remand Decision on Behalf of Janssen Pharmaceuticals

December 16, 2024

Patterson Belknap Announces Three New Partners and Three Counsel

Show All

Find a Person

Find a Practice

Patent Litigation

Life Sciences / Pharmaceutical

Electrical and Software

Mechanical Arts

Medical Device

PTAB Proceedings

NY Patent Decisions Blog

It’s All Relative: Judge Komitee Holds That an Infringing Sale Can Take Place at Multiple Times Both Before and After a Patent Issues

All Activity Rings [Patents] Closed—Judge Rochon Grants Motion for Summary Judgment of Non-infringement on Seven Design Patents

“Not an Arm of New Jersey”: Judge Gardephe Denies Motion for Summary Judgment Based on Eleventh Amendment Immunity

It’s All Relative: Judge Komitee Holds That an Infringing Sale Can Take Place at Multiple Times Both Before and After a Patent Issues

All Activity Rings [Patents] Closed—Judge Rochon Grants Motion for Summary Judgment of Non-infringement on Seven Design Patents

“Not an Arm of New Jersey”: Judge Gardephe Denies Motion for Summary Judgment Based on Eleventh Amendment Immunity

Please Leave a Message: Judge Hellerstein Finds Claims Directed to Missed-Call Categorization to Be Abstract

Just Because it Wasn’t Timely Raised, Doesn’t Mean the Prosecution History Wasn’t Available: Judge Liman Denies Motion for Reconsideration of Claim Construction Order

Not So Fast: Judge Hellerstein Seeks More Evidence Before Finding Inequitable Conduct

When One Door Closes, Another Doesn’t Always Open: Judge Bulsara Grants Motion to Dismiss DigitalDoors’s Complaint with Prejudice

The Case Must Go On: Judge Choudhury Denies Stay Pending PTO Ex Parte Reexaminations

Order of Destruction: Judge Chen Reiterates that Defendant Must Destroy Goods Existing Before the Patents Expired

Please Leave a Message: Judge Hellerstein Finds Claims Directed to Missed-Call Categorization to Be Abstract

Just Because it Wasn’t Timely Raised, Doesn’t Mean the Prosecution History Wasn’t Available: Judge Liman Denies Motion for Reconsideration of Claim Construction Order

Not So Fast: Judge Hellerstein Seeks More Evidence Before Finding Inequitable Conduct

When One Door Closes, Another Doesn’t Always Open: Judge Bulsara Grants Motion to Dismiss DigitalDoors’s Complaint with Prejudice

The Case Must Go On: Judge Choudhury Denies Stay Pending PTO Ex Parte Reexaminations

Order of Destruction: Judge Chen Reiterates that Defendant Must Destroy Goods Existing Before the Patents Expired

Publications

Federal Circuit Holds That Patentee’s Disavowal of Claim Construction Warrants Reversal of Summary Judgment

Federal Circuit: Board Erred in Finding No Likelihood of Confusion Between KIST and SUNKIST Marks

Federal Circuit Examines Written Description Requirements for U.S. Patent Application Publications Used as Prior Art Under Pre-AIA

Federal Circuit Holds That Patentee’s Disavowal of Claim Construction Warrants Reversal of Summary Judgment

Federal Circuit: Board Erred in Finding No Likelihood of Confusion Between KIST and SUNKIST Marks

Federal Circuit Examines Written Description Requirements for U.S. Patent Application Publications Used as Prior Art Under Pre-AIA

Fed. Circ.'s PTAB Ruling Highlights Obsolete Rationale

Federal Circuit: PTAB Jurisdiction Exists Over Expired Patents

Federal Circuit: District Courts May Impose Deterrence Sanctions Even After They Had Already Awarded Attorney Fees and Costs Under 35 U.S.C. § 285

This Lawyer’s Life: Gregory Diskant, Big Law Leadership and Litigation

Coronavirus (COVID-19) Resource Center

Federal Circuit Affirms Precedential Opinion Panel Decision Limiting the Circumstances In Which the Board Should Raise Sua Sponte Patentability Issues Against Proposed Substitute Claims

Fed. Circ.'s PTAB Ruling Highlights Obsolete Rationale

Federal Circuit: PTAB Jurisdiction Exists Over Expired Patents

Federal Circuit: District Courts May Impose Deterrence Sanctions Even After They Had Already Awarded Attorney Fees and Costs Under 35 U.S.C. § 285

This Lawyer’s Life: Gregory Diskant, Big Law Leadership and Litigation

Coronavirus (COVID-19) Resource Center

Federal Circuit Affirms Precedential Opinion Panel Decision Limiting the Circumstances In Which the Board Should Raise Sua Sponte Patentability Issues Against Proposed Substitute Claims

News

Firm Highlights