Source: https://www.robinskaplan.com/services/3d-printing
Timestamp: 2019-04-22 19:13:23+00:00

Document:
3D printing unleashes both extraordinary innovations and complex intellectual property questions and disputes. The attorneys at Robins Kaplan LLP combine extensive intellectual property counseling and litigation experience with the specific technical depth that 3D printing law demands. We serve clients in industries as diverse as industrial manufacturing and food and beverage. Our representation of businesses and technology owners in matters related to 3D printing maximizes insights gained protecting and defending cutting-edge technologies before judges, juries, and oft-exacting regulatory agencies. Our attorneys and Ph.D. science advisors have dug deep into the science and technology behind 3D printing, and we know the business, legal, and technical issues sure to dominate the landscape for years to come. We help clients plan for, bring, avoid, and defend 3D printing litigation including actions in patent, trade secret, copyright, trademark, and intellectual property as well as related business disputes.
Fargo Electronics, Inc. v. Magnacolor, et al. (D. Minn.): Represented Fargo in a patent case involving printer technology. Case settled prior to trial for a confidential amount.
Fargo Electronics, Inc. v. Sony Chemicals (D. Minn.): Represented Fargo in a patent infringement case involving printer technology. Case settled prior to trial for a confidential amount.
Fargo Electronics v. Iris Ltd., Inc. (D. Minn.): Represented Fargo in a patent infringement case involving printer technology. Case settled prior to trial.
LaserMaster v. Sentinel Business Systems: Represented a manufacturer of large format inkjet printers in a trade secret case. The firm was retained just five weeks before trial, and won a jury verdict of $2.2 million, which is one of the largest trade secret verdicts in the jurisdiction.
Ricoh Corp. v. Pitney Bowes Inc.: Defended Pitney Bowes in a patent infringement case involving communications and control within Pitney Bowes' mailing machines, with specific case involvement including development of key anticipation defense. The case was tried in the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey, Trenton Division, with Judge Brown presiding. The jury returned a verdict of invalidity in favor of Pitney Bowes finding anticipation of all 18 asserted claims. In addition, during trial, the Court entered summary judgment of anticipation of four additional claims. Jury decision was affirmed in a post-trial memorandum by the district court and summarily affirmed by the Federal Circuit.
Pitney Bowes Inc. v. Hewlett-Packard Co.: Trial counsel for Pitney Bowes in which Pitney Bowes obtained $400 million and certain intellectual property from Hewlett-Packard in settlement of a patent dispute over laser jet printers.

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