Source: https://www.lernerdavid.com/professionals/attorneys/william-l-mentlik
Timestamp: 2019-04-19 05:06:42+00:00

Document:
Bill Mentlik is a quick study. He routinely absorbs the scientific, legal, and business implications and nuances of virtually any technology, no matter how esoteric. More importantly, he can make them understandable to nontechnical audiences, especially in the courtroom. His analytical skills form the foundation of a career that has taken him into every area of intellectual property law.
Bill has a long track record of successfully handling appeals in patent cases. Typically given just 15 minutes to argue in front of three appellate judges — all of whom are “hammering you with questions” — he is in his element, combining a thorough knowledge of the case record with a proven penchant for thinking on his feet. Early in his career, Bill successfully argued an appeal on behalf of laser pioneer Gordon Gould, which cleared the way for the issuance and vindication of four broad patents arising out of a 1959 patent application, certain of which dominated significant areas of basic laser technology into the 21st century. Since that time, he has argued and/or briefed more than 30 appeals in numerous U.S. Courts of Appeal, most notably, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit.
Bill’s appellate skills come into play in prosecuting and defending the new inter partes reviews (IPRs). These proceedings place a premium on the synergistic talents of a knowledgeable litigator and a seasoned Patent Office practitioner, requiring both skill in the procedural forum and the technical depth to respond to the judges’ questions. His experience as a former PTO Examiner and trial lawyer at the U.S. Department of Justice, Antitrust Division, add to the mix.
Although a battle-tested litigator, Bill will never litigate for its own sake. But when he believes that litigation is the best way to achieve a successful business objective for his clients, his skills as an experienced trial lawyer serve him well. Known as a deal maker, he always looks for the most sensible outcome to any dispute. His deal-making skills have made him a sought‑after mediator and arbitrator across the gamut of IP matters.
Bill’s ability to deal reasonably — to “get beyond everyone’s ego” — made him a valued long-time member of the federal bar, which prides itself on collegiality. He was the first lawyer from a dedicated IP boutique appointed to the Lawyers Advisory Committee to the Federal District Court in New Jersey, and he served on the subcommittee that drafted New Jersey’s local patent rules, which govern patent litigation in the district.
The high degree of respect and credibility afforded Bill by the New Jersey legal community has made him a natural for doing local counsel work in national patent litigations. As most lawyers who do such work are not, in fact, patent lawyers, Bill provides more than just procedural guidance, adding an extra dimension to substantive issues as well.
Lerner David filed one of the initial Inter Partes Review ("IPR") back in November 2012. On May 1, 2014 the Patent Office Patent Trial And Appeal Board ruled in favor of our client, St. Jude Medical, Cardiology Div., Inc. in IPR 2013-00041. The IPR had been filed by St. Jude against the patent owner, The Board of Trustees of the University of Michigan, regarding U.S. Patent No. 5,746,775. St. Jude was a licensee of the ‘775 Patent. The Board’s decision found that St. Jude had met their burden of proof in establishing that all of the claims of the ‘775 Patent which were the subject of the IPR were invalid on the basis of obviousness over the prior art. That decision was then appealed, but resulted in an advantageous settlement on the part of St. Jude. The entire process resulted in a net savings of substantial amounts by St. Jude.
WADDINGTON NORTH AMERICA, INC. v. SABERT CORPORATION. After assisting our client Waddington in obtaining a successful reexamination of its patent on metallized cutlery, we filed an infringement action in the District of New Jersey against its competitor, Sabert. In various pretrial rulings, we obtained dismissal of Sabert's inequitable conduct defenses (2010 WL 3907036); several favorable claim construction rulings (2010 WL 4363137); summary judgment of literal infringement as to one of Sabert's products (2011 WL 1098998); and summary judgment on one of Sabert's defenses alleging lack of written description support (2011 WL 1098996). After a trial in which a jury rendered a verdict adverse to our client, we obtained judgment as a matter of law on Sabert's remaining written description defense, and a new trial on all other issues based upon opposing counsel's trial misconduct (2011 WL 3444150). Prior to the scheduled retrial, the case was settled with the entry of a consent judgment acknowledging that our client's patent was valid and enforceable, and with Sabert taking a license under our client's patent.
Restaurant Technologies, Inc. v. Jersey Shore Chicken, United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, 2009-1176, January 6, 2010. The patent owner RTI had filed two patent infringement actions against customers of our client, Oilmatic Systems, LLC, alleging that the customers were infringing a patent relating to systems for supplying and draining cooking oil. We then filed a declaratory judgment action against RTI on behalf of Oilmatic. We initially sought and obtained a favorable claim construction. Thereafter, in a 50-page opinion, the District Court granted summary judgment, ruling that the Oilmatic system did not infringe any of the seven asserted claims of RTI's patent. On January 6, 2010, a three-judge panel of the Federal Circuit affirmed this decision. In a press release issued shortly after the decision, Michael Allora, President of Oilmatic, noted "I am extremely pleased with the successful outcome of this patent infringement suit. The Federal Circuit's decision vindicates the position that we have held all along, that Oilmatic's bulk oil distribution system did not infringe the RTI patent." The Federal Circuit's full decision can be viewed at www.cafc.uscourts.gov/opinions/09-1176.pdf.
SYNTHES (U.S.A.) v. STRYKER CORP., Civil Action No. 06-5681-AB (E.D. Pa. Mar. 19, 2009). In this two-year-old patent infringement suit brought by Synthes (U.S.A.) against our client Stryker Corp. and its subsidiary, Howmedica Osteonics Corp., the district court granted our motion to stay further proceedings pending reexamination of Synthes' patent-in-suit, directed to a threaded insert for a bone plate screw hole. Reexamination of Synthes' patent by the United States Patent and Trademark Office was commenced in response to a request for reexamination filed on behalf of Howmedica Osteonics by our firm. In March 2008, the district court had issued a claim construction order broadly construing the patent's claims, which resulted in the request for reexamination. The stay was granted by the district court in the face of arguments by Synthes that the stay motion was a "transparent" attempt to unnecessarily delay the case.
In a trial in late 2006, we successfully tried the issues of validity and infringement before a jury in Newark, New Jersey in Stryker v. Synthes. The Stryker patent found infringed by the jury relates to the setting fractures with an external fixation system somewhat reminiscent of an erector set. After fighting off Synthes' post trial motions before the judge on, among other things, the validity of the asserted patent, we were faced with yet another validity challenge, this time the result of Synthes' petition for reexamination before the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office. With the depth of our litigation and prosecution experience, we presented evidence supporting our longstanding and judge and jury-tested position that the asserted patent was valid. In June 2008, the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office rendered a decision that Synthes' attack was not persuasive and that the patent claims held infringed would stand as previously issued and litigated.
Restaurant Technologies, Inc. v. Jersey Shore Chicken 2007 WL 446910 and 2007 WL 4081737 (D.N.J. Feb. 6, 2007 and Nov. 15, 2007). The patent owner RTI had filed two patent infringement actions against customers of our client, Oilmatic Systems, LLC, alleging that the customers were infringing a patent relating to systems for supplying and draining cooking oil. We then filed a declaratory judgment action against RTI on behalf of Oilmatic. We initially sought and obtained a favorable claim construction. Thereafter, in a 50-page opinion, the Court granted summary judgment that the Oilmatic system did not infringe any of the seven asserted claims of RTI's patent.
In a move that could mark the resolution of a patent infringement suit over hip implant technology that has lasted almost five years, a court has granted summary judgment to a subsidiary of orthopedics company Stryker Corp. U.S. District Judge Allen Sharp on Wednesday signed off on an order granting summary judgment of noninfringement to plaintiff Howmedica Osteonics Corp., rejecting a summary judgment motion by Tranquil Prospects Ltd. Judge Sharp’s ruling could be appealed, but at the district court level, the case is essentially over, said William L. Mentlik, managing partner of the firm Lerner, David, Littenberg, Krumholz & Mentlik, LLP and lead counsel for Howmedica. We feel pretty good about it, Mentlik said of the decision, adding that he was confident that the ruling would hold up if appealed. Judge Sharp held that Tranquil’s assertions of infringement, which were backed by an unsworn expert declaration and virtual surgery geared toward demonstrating that implanting Howmedica’s stem implants would infringe on Tranquil’s patented methods, weren’t up to snuff. This curt declines the apparent invitation to engage in a fishing expedition and issue a catchall opinion, Judge Sharp wrote, after noting that Tranquil's expert failed to identify specifically which Howmedica prostheses infringed the patents-in-suit. Judge Sharp goes on to quote from a Seventh Circuit decision from 1991, in a case captioned United States v. Dunkel: A skeletal argument, really nothing more than an assertion, does not preserve a claim…Judges are not like pigs, hunting for truffles buried in briefs. Howmedica asked the court for summary judgment of noninfringement of four claims of the 985 patent and one claim of the 214 patent, while Tranquil sought summary judgment of direct literal infringement of four claims of the 985 patent. Tranquil also argued that it was entitled to summary judgment that the asserted claims of the 985 patent were not anticipated by putative prior art. In May 2002, Howmedica filed suit seeking a declaratory judgment of noninfringement and invalidity with respect to two patents owned by British Virgin Island-based Tranquil Prospects. Tranquil prospects countersued for infringement. At issue in the suit are U.S. Patent No 636,214 and 5,222,985—both of which are entitled Implantation of Articulating Joint Prosthesis Tranquil contended that a variety of Howmedica’s hip stems, which connect the femur to the hip socket, encroached on its intellectual property. More than 20 Howmedica’s hip stems, including the Omnifi and Strata, infringed, Tranquil alleged. The case stretched on as long as it did in part because of an appeal by Tranquil, which followed the district court's January 2004 finding that the asserted claims of the 985 and 214 patents were invalid. The U.S. Court of Appealsfor the Federal Circuit breathed new life into the case in 2005, reversing the lower court's ruling that the Tranquil’s patent claims were indefinite and invalid, vacating the lower court’s ruling that the 985 patent was not infringed because that ruling was based on an “erroneous claim construction, and remanding the case back to the northern Indiana district court. Attorneys for Tranquil Prospects Ltd. could not be immediately reached for comment. Tranquil is represented in this matter by Stadheim & Grear Ltd. and Hunt Suedhoff Kalamaros LLP. Howmedica is represented by Lerner, David, Littenberg, Krumholz & Mentlik, LLP. The case is Howmedica Osteonics Corp. v. Tranquil Prospects Ltd., case number 02-321,in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Indiana. By Ben James, ben.james@portfoliomedia.com.
New Jersey-based intellectual property law firm Lerner, David, Littenberg, Krumholz & Mentlik, LLP recently concluded simultaneous litigation involving a total of 58 patents against the Eastman Kodak Company. Representing Sony Corporation, various Sony subsidiaries and Sony Ericsson Mobile Communications, Lerner David secured a successful settlement after several years of extensive negotiation and litigation, including a Markman hearing involving 27 patents. The patents covered digital cameras and other technology used in scanners, printers, software and film cameras. All told, these simultaneous litigations may collectively constitute the largest patent litigation ever brought in the United States or elsewhere.

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