Source: https://cappat.com/litigation/
Timestamp: 2019-04-18 20:18:22+00:00

Document:
The following is a partial list of patent and trademark infringement lawsuits and appeals CAPPAT® attorneys have been involved in.
Enhanced Systems & Products, Inc. et al v. US, case number 16-161C (Court of Federal Claims 2016), and the associated ex parte re-examinations referred to as Control Nos. 90/013,835 and 90/013,836 (2017) (biological filters). Co-counsel in Court of Federal Claims infringement lawsuit and lead counsel in both re-ex-examinations.
Arcadia, SRL v. Tinder Leather, Co, Inc. case No. 1:16-cv-00075-GBL-TCD (E.D. Va. 2015). Co-counsel in a trademark dispute involving leather handbags.
Seacret Spa International, Ltd..v Michelle K. Lee, Director of the United States Patent and Trademark Office, case No. 1:15-cv-405-JCC-IDD (E.D. Va. 2015). Co-counsel in an appeal from the United States Patent & Trademark Office, Trademark Trial & Appeal Board.
Fullyear Brother Enterprise Co., Ltd. v. Stanton Concepts, LLC, Civil Action No.1:13-cv-01364-ABJ (D.D.C. 2013). As lead counsel, filed Declaratory Judgment action in conjunction with the filing of an ex parte Re-examination proceeding in the United States Patent & Trademark Office. Successfully opposed Defendant’s attempts to transfer the case to another jurisdiction.
McNaughton, Inc. v. Hurricane Shooters, LLC et al 2:07-cv-273 (E.D. Texas 2007). Lead patent counsel representing Hurricane Shooters, LLC a manufacturer of multi-chamber plastic cups for the liquor and bar industry. Case settled favorably for Hurricane Shooters.
Tequila Centinela, S.A. v. Bacardi & Company, Ltd. 1:04-cv- 02201 (D. D.C. 2004). This trademark case was filed in 2004. During November, 2007 Mr. Curtin took over as lead counsel and completed the depositions of the owner and CEO of Tequila Centinela, S.A. which lead to the case settling on favorable terms for Bacardi.
Intex Recreation Corp v. Metalast, S.A. Civil Action No. 1:01-cv-01213(D.D.C. 2001). Co-counsel with New York City law firm on patent infringement case involving ladders. Case settled after appeal was filed in the CAFC in 2005.
Atlantic Construction Fabrics et al. v. Dandy Products, Inc (appeal only) (CAFC 2002). After Dandy Products had lost at trial in the EDVA. Mr. Curtin was asked to handle the appeal. Though the CAFC upheld the trial court’s decision, Mr. Curtin’s arguments pointed out weaknesses in the plaintiff’s arguments and patent.
Alumax v. Hot Metal Moldings, Inc. et al. (D-Ark. 1995) Mr. Curtin was co-counsel in large patent infringement lawsuit involving aluminum brakes and patents held by Alumax. Mr. Curtin was responsible for invalidating Alumax’ patents. Over a three year period, as a part of his duties, Mr. Curtin took depositions of Alumax expert and fact witnesses and 3rd party witnesses in the United States and abroad in support of the defendant’s invalidity positions.
Societe L’Oreal, S.A. v. Schwan-Stabilo Schwanhausser, GmbH, 1:96-cv-04994 (S.D.N.Y. 1996). From 1996 through the end of 1997 Mr. Curtin enforced cosmetic applicator & packaging patents (e.g., eyeliner, lipstick) owned by L’ Oreal. Mr. Curtin’s duties included taking, and defending, the depositions of all fact and expert witnesses involved in the issue of infringement. In 1997, this case settled favorably for L’Oreal.
General Instrument v. Scientific-Atlanta (1990 through 1994). Between 1990 and 1994 there were four patent infringement lawsuits between General Instrument (GI) (now a part of Motorola) and Scientific-Atlanta (SA) (now a part of Cisco Systems). The technology involved was CATV set tops, video and audio encryption). Mr. Curtin was responsible for rebutting the invalidity defenses raised by SA. In doing so, he successfully helped GI obtain a favorable settlement. Over the four year time period, Mr. Curtin took over 30 depositions of various SA fact and expert witnesses, 3rd party witnesses and represented GI during the depositions of GI’s expert witnesses as well. Some of these depositions occurred in Japan and Canada.
Ortho Diagnostic Systems, Inc. v. Miles Inc., 1:90-cv-05043 (S.D.N.Y. 1990). Mr. Curtin was co-counsel in this case that was decided by a jury trial in 1994. Earlier on in the case, Mr. Curtin successfully took the deposition of Miles’ chief expert in order to defeat a motion for summary judgment of non-infringement. The subject matter involved was laser-based blood analyzers.
Analog Devices, Inc. v. Texas Instruments, Inc. , 1:92-cv-11518 (D.Mass 1992). This was one of a number of patent infringement lawsuits between Analog Devices and Texas Instruments (TI) covering fundamental integrated circuit patents and processes that Mr. Curtin was involved in. His main responsibility was to respond to an enormous number of motions filed by TI.

References: v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v.