Source: https://www.dorsey.com/services/intellectual_property_litigation
Timestamp: 2019-04-26 03:49:47+00:00

Document:
DEFENDING YOUR PROPERTY AND ENFORCING YOUR RIGHTS.
Dorsey’s 50 years of success and experience in intellectual property litigation has consistently earned our team national recognition. Whether through litigation in the courts or challenges at the patent office, we partner with our clients to find creative solutions for their intellectual property issues at a reasonable cost.
Dorsey litigators try cases before judges, juries and regulatory bodies. We represent clients before state and federal courts, the United States International Trade Commission, the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit and the United States Patent and Trademark Office. We also help our clients with both offensive and defensive post-grant review proceedings.
Please read about our patent blog Decisions in AIA Proceedings.
Who are these technically experienced attorneys? Read their bios.
Our litigators work closely with our patent attorneys from the very beginning of each case, ensuring that we have a comprehensive understanding of our client’s patents, products and the industries in which they compete.
Which procedure to use depends on a number of factors, and our patent attorneys are experts in helping our clients determine their optimal course of action. Whether challenging or defending the validity of a patent, our Post-Grant Proceedings Group has the legal experience and scientific acumen needed to help our clients achieve their business objectives.
We work to protect employers in virtually every type of judicial and administrative forum. We frequently prosecute and defend misappropriation of trade secret claims, breach of fiduciary duty claims, corporate raiding claims, breach of contract claims, usurpation of opportunity claims and similar business torts in state and federal court. We are experienced in prosecuting and defending claims for temporary, preliminary or permanent injunctive relief, including obtaining injunctions under the Federal Computer Fraud and Abuse Act and injunctions enforcing covenants not to compete and other post-employment restrictions.
Cargill, Incorporated v. Zeigler Bros., Inc. (S.D. Fla.) Won jury verdict and finding of willful infringement of patent on liquid shrimp feed.
Cargill, Incorporated v. Salt Creek, Inc. (S.D. Fla.) Won jury verdict of willful infringement and award of treble damages for owner of patent relating to animal feed.
Osteotech, Inc. v. GenSci OrthoBiologics, Inc. (C.D. Cal.) Won $17.5 million jury verdict for patent infringement involving osteoinductive bone repair gels and putties.
Emergis v. Otter Tail (D. Minn. and Fed. Cir.) Won summary judgment, affirmed by Federal Circuit, finding no infringement of plaintiff’s patent concerning Internet payment system. This case was one of dozens that the plaintiff filed or threatened in a nationwide campaign targeting utility companies and our strategy led to the successful resolution of many other cases.
George Martin Co. v. Alliance Machine Systems International (N.D. Cal. and Fed. Cir.) Won judgment, affirmed by Federal Circuit, finding plaintiff’s patent on machine used in cardboard manufacturing invalid after jury trial.
Knopik v. Mobil Oil (D.Minn. and Fed. Cir.) Represented Mobil and won summary judgment, affirmed on appeal, that Mobil did not infringe two patents relating to soil vapor extraction technology.
Pure Fishing, Inc. v. Normark Corporation (D.S.C. and Fed. Cir.) Represented defendant Normark in matter relating to manufacture of polymeric fishing lines and biodegradable fishing lures. Won summary judgment, affirmed on appeal, invalidating fishing line patent on three separate grounds (on-sale bar, derivation, and obviousness). Won dismissal of lure patent claim after Markman hearing and obtained substantial attorneys’ fee recovery.
University of Minnesota v. AGA Medical (now owned by St. Jude Medical) Represented AGA in patent infringement action accusing AGA’s AMPLATZER™ septal occluders of infringement, and won partial summary judgment that the one patent was expired and unenforceable. AGA successfully intervened and opposed the University's case to reinstate that patent, with the Federal Circuit affirming the patent's expiration. AGA then won consecutive summary judgments that one patent was not infringed and that the other was invalid. The Federal Circuit affirmed AGA's victories on both fronts.
In re: Certain Point to Point Represented Toshiba in an International Trade Commission Enforcement action by patent holder alleging that imported network devices infringed its patents. Plaintiff withdrew complaint prior to hearing.
In re USB Portable Storage Devices Represented respondents Imation and IronKey in International Trade Commission proceeding relating to USB flash drives. Claimants dismissed proceedings, without any payment or other concession, on the eve of trial hearing.
Jaguar Land Rover Limited v. A-Z Wheels LLC et al. Obtained permanent injunction, damages award of $150,000 and other relief on behalf of Jaguar Land Rover in action for trademark counterfeiting and copyright infringement involving defendants' advertising and sale of knock-off wheels.
Delta Air Lines. We helped Delta Air Lines obtain the domain name registration “Northwest Airlines.net” from a cybersquatter by filing a complaint with the World Intellectual Property Organization.
Cartier et. al v. Aviannes, Inc. Obtained permanent injunctions in action for trademark infringement and counterfeiting enjoining multiple defendants from selling Cartier watches that had been modified by persons not authorized by Cartier.
Water Pik Technologies, Inc. v. Med-Systems, Inc. Obtained summary judgment in favor of Water Pik in litigation to determine whether its “SinuSense” mark infringed the mark “SinuCleanse” held by Med-Systems. Result affirmed on appeal to the Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals.
MasterCard International Inc. v. MasterCars Company Inc. Obtained consent judgment after discovery enjoining defendant from, inter alia, making use of MASTERCARS as a unitary term, and from using any circles design and certain color combinations with new company name/logo.
Southeast Clinical Nutrition Centers, Inc v. Mayo Clinic. Complaint alleging trademark infringement by our client Mayo Clinic dismissed, motion to file amended complaint denied.
Toliver v. Sony Music Entertainment, Inc. Won summary judgment award and affirmance dismissing copyright infringement claims asserted against the record label for Destiny’s Child and awarding attorneys’ fees to the prevailing defendant. The judgment was upheld on appeal to the Ninth Circuit.
Shen Manufacturing Co. v. The Ritz Hotel, Ltd. Won in a series of trademark oppositions commenced against our client, the world famous Ritz Paris Hotel, concerning client's right to register various RITZ trademarks in the United States.
NeoNetworks, Inc. v. Cisco Systems, Inc., et al. Successfully defended Cisco against suit by NeoNetworks which sought more than $1.3 billion in damages on 19 claims, including breach of fiduciary duty, breach of non-compete agreement, misappropriation of trade secrets and usurpation of corporate opportunity. We obtained a complete defense verdict of no liability after eight weeks of trial. The court awarded our clients $650,000 in costs and we successfully defended this result on appeal.
Storage Technology Corp. v. Cisco Systems, Inc. Successfully obtained summary judgment for Cisco Systems in action for misappropriation of trade secrets, corporate raiding, and breach of fiduciary duty. Affirmed by the Eighth Circuit. Plaintiff recovered nothing on $450 million claim.
C.H. Robinson Worldwide, Inc. v. FLS Transportation, Inc. et al. We handled the landmark case in Minnesota that established the right of a Minnesota company to bring suit in Minnesota courts against ex-employees and their subsequent employer residing outside Minnesota (and even outside the United States) for violation of agreements which limit their post-employment competitive activities and for misappropriation of trade secrets.
Piper Jaffray & Co. v. Vermilion Capital Management, LLC, et al. Represented Piper against four former employees who resigned to start a new company managing a hedge fund. Three of them worked in Piper’s technical research area. Eighteen months later, their new company produced technical research products indistinguishable from Piper‘s and began marketing them to Piper’s customers. Piper sued, alleging misappropriation of trade secrets and breach of fiduciary duty. After we advised the defendants that our client would not accept a monetary settlement and would seek a permanent injunction, defendants shut down. The court entered a permanent injunction.
Xantrex Technology, Inc. v. Advanced Energy Industries, Inc. Obtained preliminary injunction to prevent former vice president of engineering to move to a competitor and start up competing division with use of trade secrets.
CADIS, Inc. v. D’Angelis. Obtained Temporary Restraining Order preventing former employee from working for competitor based on former employee’s threatened misappropriation of trade secrets.

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