Patent Litigation

Accolades

Alston & Bird ranked 8th in the Federal District Court representation with 60 cases in Corporate Counsel’s annual Patent Litigation Survey. We have appeared on this prestigious list since the early 2000s. (October 2015, October 2014, November 2013) 

The International Legal Alliance Summit & Awards awarded Alston & Bird the honor of “Best USA IP Firm: Patent Litigation” (June 2015). Previously, Alston & Bird has been honored with a Gold Award in the category of U.S. Patent Litigation Firm of the Year and two Silver Awards in the categories of U.S. IP Patent Prosecution Firm and U.S. Global Strategy (June 2013). Recognized firms were nominated based on suggestions by members of a panel jury and international rankings.

• Two veterinary pharmaceutical companies were found in violation of a court order barring them from infringing our client Merial Ltd.’s patent covering Frontline Plus, a successful flea and tick repellent for pets. The ruling judge found Cipla Ltd., based in India, in contempt of a default judgment; he also held that Velcera Inc. acted in concert with the offending company. An injunction was issued against Cipla, and any parties in concert with it, keeping it from making, selling, or importing in the U.S. any veterinary products containing the active ingredients cited in the patent. BASF Agro BV, et al. v. Cipla Ltd., et al., No. 3:07-cv-00125 (N.D. Ga.).
• Defended Georgia-Pacific Consumer Products LLC against a number of defendant/respondents to prevent infringing knockoff paper towel dispensers that are potentially made in numerous countries. After conducting discovery on the named defendants and respondents, and researching other information concerning the industry as a whole and other paper towel dispensers that were not included in the litigation, we moved for summary determination that a domestic industry exists and that there had been violations of Section 337 by certain respondents. We also requested that the administrative law judge recommend entry of a general exclusion order. The judge granted that motion and requested that the ITC enter a general exclusion order banning all infringing products from importation into the U.S. Certain Electronic Paper Towel Dispensing Devices and Components Thereof, Inv. No. 337-TA-718.
• We were brought in following trial to assist our client Eastman Kodak Co. through the administrative appeals process within the ITC to obtain reversal of an initial determination of no violation in Kodak’s offensive case against Apple and RIM, and to preserve an initial determination of no violation in Apple’s retaliatory case against Kodak. Certain Mobile Telephones and Wireless Communication Devices Featuring Digital Cameras, and Components Thereof, Inv. No. 337-TA-703; and Certain Digital Imaging Devices and Related Software, Inv. No. 337-TA-717. The latter case was affirmed in Kodak’s favor.
• We represented appellant Merial in its appeal to the Federal Circuit from summary judgment of noninfringement concerning a porcine vaccine for postweaning multisystemic wasting syndrome. Our efforts resulted in the reversal of the claim construction and the summary judgment of noninfringement being vacated, and the case was remanded to determine infringement under the new, correct claim construction. Intervet Inc. v. Merial Ltd. No. 2009-1568 (Fed. Cir.).
• We represented ESAB before the ITC in this investigation brought by Lincoln Electric Company. The case involved bulk weld wire packaged by ESAB in Mexico and China. The administrative law judge ruled favorably towards the respondents, including our client ESAB. Certain Bulk Welding Wire Containers and Components Thereof and Welding Wire, Inv. No. 337-TA-686.
• We represented AGA Medical Corporation against Medtronic Inc., which accused AGA’s innovative and life-saving products of infringing three patents that Medtronic alleged to cover expandable medical devices made of Nitinol and methods for using Nitinol devices. Medtronic had previously asserted its patents against many other medical device makers, all of whom had taken licenses. In this case, the court granted AGA Medical’s motion for summary judgment of noninfringement, ending Medtronic’s infringement claim under one patent and ending a portion of its infringement claim under a second patent. The court also granted AGA’s motion to preclude Medtronic from recovering pre-suit damages on its product claims. For the remaining patents, the case proceeded to a six-week jury trial on issues of alleged infringement and validity over prior art, and later to a 10-day bench trial concerning the issue of whether the product patent claims are invalid for double patenting. (No defendant previously sued by Medtronic had asserted invalidity based on double patenting.) Shortly after the conclusion of the bench trial on double patenting, but before any ruling by the court, Medtronic entered into a settlement agreement with AGA that gives AGA complete freedom to continue its activities without concern over infringement liability. Medtronic Inc. v. AGA Medical Corporation, No. 3:07-cv-00567 (N.D. Cal.).