Source: https://www.brookskushman.com/services/legal-defense-enforcement/patent-litigation/
Timestamp: 2019-04-22 22:28:38+00:00

Document:
Patents often distinguish a company from its competitors in the marketplace, thus creating a strategic advantage and positioning for a winning scenario. This mentality has helped shape our patent litigation team. The technical and trial experience of our patent litigation attorneys has allowed us to earn a national reputation for high-stakes matters and developing winning litigation strategies. Our patent litigation attorneys are well-positioned to help companies protect and enforce their patent rights. We remain focused on achieving the results our clients expect. Many of our litigation attorneys have advanced technical degrees and have extensive experience in a variety of technical areas, including automotive, electronics, computer science, telecommunications, medical devices, chemical engineering, pharma and biotech, food and beverage, and materials science. Our litigation practice pursues strategies that consistently deliver successful outcomes. To do this, we keep our focus squarely on the key elements that will achieve positive results, and build the case around those key elements. We efficiently represent each client with an assembled litigation team with the right complement of talent and skills to give our clients a strategic advantage at trial. Further, when a client prefers to resolve litigation prior to trial, we develop creative solutions to resolve disputes, recognizing that a favorable business resolution may be in the client’s best interest.
We also have extensive experience in administrative bodies such as the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office, International Trade Commission (ITC), Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB), and in a myriad of foreign tribunals. We have successfully handled appeals before the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, and other Federal Court of Appeals. Additionally, we have extensive experience in handling Post-Grant Reviews (PGRs) and Inter Partes Reviews (IPRs) before the PTAB.
Because we are sensitive to the pressures our clients face while managing legal costs, we have built additional efficiencies into the entire process-from preparing an opinion about infringement, examining the merits of the case, and assessing the likelihood of success, to guiding the case through the complaint, discovery, settlement negotiation, summary judgment, and trial stages. We also believe it critical to work very closely with expert witnesses and guide their efforts, keeping a sharp focus on our client's overall objectives at all phases of the litigation.
I.E.E. International Electronics & Engineering, S.A. v. TK Holdings Inc., Case No. 10-cv-13487 (E.D. Michigan 2015) – Successfully represented plaintiff/counter-defendant in patent infringement action relating to capacitive occupant sensors. Matter was originally filed in the District of Delaware and was transferred to the Eastern District of Michigan. Case concluded in a favorable settlement for our client in the amount of $1.1 Million.
Eagle Harbor Holdings/Medius v. Ford Motor Company, Case No. 3:11-cv-05503-BHS (W.D. Washington 2015) – Successfully defended Ford in patent infringement trial in which plaintiff asserted several patents against Ford’s SYNC infotainment system and ’ automatic parking system. Plaintiffs sought damages of $250 million. Jury found patents not infringed and awarded no damages to plaintiff. Jury also found that plaintiffs had misappropriated Ford trade secrets.
Aquatic AV, Inc. v. Magnadyne Corp. et al., Case No. 3-14-cv-01931 (N.D. California 2014) – Successfully defended Magnadyne in a patent infringement action involving two patents relating to protective enclosures for electronic devices. Successfully argued that the asserted claims of one of the two patents-in-suit were invalid as indefinite under 35 U.S.C. §112, ¶2 in accordance with the Supreme Court’s recent decision in Nautilus, Inc. v. Biosig Instruments, Inc., 134 S. Ct. 2120 (2014). Case concluded in a favorable settlement for our client in regards to the remaining claims at issue.
GeoTag, Inc. v. Domino’s Pizza Inc., Case No. 10-cv-o572 (E.D. Texas 2014) – Successfully defended Domino’s Pizza in a patent infringement action in Eastern District of Texas. Plaintiff brought suit against over 600 defendants for patent infringement. After the other defendants settled, Domino’s was sole defendant left in case. Court granted summary judgment of non-infringement in favor of Domino’s on five different grounds.
RawCar Group, LLC v. Grace Medical, Case No. 13-cv-01105 (S.D. California. 2014) – Successfully represented plaintiff in patent infringement action asserting two patents covering collapsible sterile drapes. Court found both patents valid and infringed on summary judgment. In a damages trial, jury awarded damages, found defendants guilty of willful infringement, and awarded fees to plaintiff.
Ancora Technologies, Inc v. Apple, Inc,. 744 F.3d 732 (Fed. Cir. 2014) – Successfully represented plaintiff in patent infringement action concerning computer software in filed in Southern District of California. Obtained a positive claim construction ruling for the patent holder on appeal to the Federal Circuit.
Infection Prevention Technologies LLC v. Lumalier Corp., Case No: 14-0138 (Fed. Cir. 2014) – Counsel for plaintiff IPT in declaratory judgment action concerning infringement of patents for ultraviolet sterilization. The district court granted IPT’s summary judgment motion and ruled that it did not infringe Lumalier’s patents. The decision was affirmed on appeal to the Federal Circuit.
Kar Enterprises v. Ford Motor Company, Case No. 4:11-cv-11200 (D. Massachusetts 2013) – Counsel for defendant Ford Motor Company in patent infringement lawsuit involving speed limiting system for a vehicle. Settled on favorable terms.
Robert Bosch LLC v. Corea Autoparts Producing Corporation et al., Civil Action No. 2:11-cv-14019 (E.D. Michigan 2013) and In re Certain Wiper Blades, Case No. 337-TA-816 (International Trade Commission) – Counsel for Corea Autoparts in multiple patent infringement actions concerning “bracket-less” or “beam” style wiper blades. Matters were concluded in a favorable settlement prior to trial.
TMC Fuel Injection System, LLC v. Ford Motor Company, Case No. 2-12-cv-04971 (E.D. Pennsylvania 2012) – Successfully defended Ford in a patent infringement action involving a patent asserted against the fuel system used in Ford’s F-150 pickup truck and other vehicles. Obtained a positive claim construction ruling for Ford during an inter partes review proceeding before the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (“PTAB”) that found an express disclaimer in the prosecution history of the patent-in-suit. District Court amended its original claim construction order based on the PTAB’s ruling and granted summary judgment of non-infringement in favor of Ford on the ground that the express disclaimer prevented the patent-in-suit from covering Ford’s vehicles.
Omega Patents, LLC v. General Motors LLC, et al. Case No. 12-cv-01192 (N.D. Georgia 2012) – Counsel for defendants General Motors and Onstar in patent infringement lawsuit involving vehicle remote systems. Case concluded in a favorable settlement.
Digitech Information Systems, Inc. v. Ally Financial, et al., Case No. 11-cv-13999 (E.D. Michigan 2012) – Counsel for defendant in this patent infringement action. The patent-in-suit was held invalid as lacking eligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. § 101. Decision was upheld in an appeal to the Federal Circuit.
Omega Patents, LLC v. General Motors LLC and OnStar, LLC, Case No. 12-cv-01192, (N.D. Georgia 2012) – Lead counsel for GM and OnStar in successful resolution of case.
Omega Patents, LLC v. Lear Corp., Case No. 6:07-cv-1422-Orl (M.D. Florida 2011) – Counsel for defendant Lear Corporation in patent infringement lawsuit involving vehicle remote start technology. Case concluded in a favorable settlement.
Lear Corp. v. TS Tech USA Corp., et al., Case No. 11-00245 (S.D. Ohio 2011) – Lead counsel for Lear in action for enforcement of Lear patents.
Magnadyne Corp. v. Best Buy, et. al., Case No. 09-1763 (C.D. California 2010): Counsel for plaintiff Magnadyne in a patent infringement action involving the design of cellular phone chargers. Obtained a positive claim construction ruling and positive summary judgment result, leading to a favorable settlement prior to trial.
Latentier, LLC v. International Paper Co., 725 F.Supp.2d 795 (E.D. Wisconsin 2010) – Counsel for International Paper in successful defense of patent infringement action relating to paper mill production process. Matter was settled on favorable terms prior to trial.
Elmotec Statomat, Inc. v. Visteon Corp., No. 07-13884 (E.D. Michigan 2009): Counsel for defendant Visteon defending claims of breach of contract, correction of inventorship of several patents, and related claims concerning alternator technologies. Obtained a favorable summary judgment dismissing plaintiff’s claims.
ST Sales Tech Holdings, LLC v. Ford Motor Company, Case No. CIV.A. 6:07-CV-346, (E.D. Texas 2008) – Counsel for Ford in successful defense of patent infringement action.
In re Certain Automotive Parts, 337-TA-557, U.S. International Trade Commission (2008) – Successfully enforced seven design patents, covering automotive parts for the 2004 Ford F-150, against six foreign and domestic manufacturers and distributors of aftermarket parts.
P&M Services, Inc. v. Martin Gubb, Case No. 04-72432 (E.D. Michigan 2007; Fed. Cir. 2008) – L Counsel for defendant in patent infringement action concerning paper converting technology. Plaintiff was seeking $7.2 million in damages for infringement of multiple patents. After a three week trial, a favorable jury verdict of $14,167 was obtained for our client. Obtained affirmance of the judgment on appeal at the Federal Circuit.
SPX Corp. v. Bartec USA, LLC, et. al., Case No. 06-14888 (E.D. Michigan 2008): Successfully represented plaintiff in a patent infringement action. Obtained a positive claim construction ruling for the patent holder as well as an order excluding evidence of certain prior art from the defendants. These successes led to the favorable settlement of the matter.
Elite Logistics Services, Inc., et al. v. ATX Technologies, Inc., et al., Case No. 02-866, (S.D. Texas 2007) – Counsel for defendant Ford Motor Company in a patent infringement lawsuit concerning vehicle telematics in which patentee sought tens of millions in damages. Successfully defended plaintiff’s motion seeking a preliminary injunction and obtained summary judgment ruling of non-infringement.
Excellent Inventions, Inc. v. FKA Distributing, et al., Case No. H-04-4543, (S.D. Texas 2006) – Counsel for defendant HoMedics (FKA Distributing) in a patent infringement action with multiple patents concerning control schemes for personal wellness products. Successfully opposed plaintiff’s claim for a preliminary injunction. Successfully argued at the Markman hearing for a claim scope that rendered the patents invalid. Our success at the Markman hearing led to a favorable settlement.
Ultra-Precision Manufacturing v. Ford Motor Company, Case No. 01-70302 (E.D. Michigan 2004) – Successfully defended Ford Motor Company in claims of breach of contract, unjust enrichment, commercial misappropriation and inventor fraud related to compressor technologies. Plaintiff was seeking tens of millions in damages. Through trial and multiple appeals, obtained and upheld a finding of no liability for our client.
Juicy Whip Inc. v. Orange Bang, Inc., 382 F.3d 1367 (Fed. Cir. 2004); 292 F.3d 728 (Fed. Cir. 2002); 185 F.3d 1364 (Fed. Cir. 1999) – Enforced Juicy Whip’s patent on beverage dispenser technology, including three successful precedent-setting appeals to the Federal Circuit on issues of patent utility, invalidity standards, and damages.
Robotic Vision Systems, Inc. v. View Engineering, Inc., 249 F.3d 1307 (Fed. Cir. 2001); 208 F.3d 981 (Fed. Cir. 2000) – Successfully defended View Engineering against nine asserted patents relating to laser scanning technology. Obtained precedent-setting Rule 11 sanctions and award of attorneys‘ fees on behalf of client based of failure of plaintiff to conduct adequate pre-filing investigation.
Federal Circuit Rules in Favor of Brooks Kushman Client Ancora Technologies, Inc.
Supreme Court Orders Federal Circuit To Defer To District Court Factual Findings During Patent Claim Construction: Will Markman Strategies Change?

References: v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 §112
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 Case No: 14
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 § 101
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v.