Source: https://www.lw.com/practices/IntellectualPropertyAppeals
Timestamp: 2019-04-22 02:23:58+00:00

Document:
Latham & Watkins’ Intellectual Property Litigation capabilities are supported by one of the most admired Supreme Court and Appellate Practices in the country.
The practice is led by a former US Solicitor General, a former Assistant to the Solicitor General, and numerous former clerks from the US Supreme Court, Federal Circuit and other US courts of appeals. Latham lawyers argue regularly before the US Supreme Court and the US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, providing a formidable combination of IP and appellate expertise.
Since Latham’s appellate lawyers argued their first US Supreme Court patent appeal in 2006, the firm has been involved in numerous patent cases that have been granted certiorari or decided by the US Supreme Court. The IP Appeals team has also argued dozens of Federal Circuit appeals.
Click below to listen to our lawyers argue representative IP appeals cases in the US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit and the United States Supreme Court.
Dynamic 3D Geosolutions LLC v. Schlumberger Limited (Federal Circuit) (Timestamp 0h:17m:50s) Max Grant argues on behalf of Schlumberger Limited in an appeal filed by Acacia Research Group subsidiary, Dynamic 3D Geosolutions.
Suprema, Inc. v. ITC (Federal Circuit) (Timestamp 0h:49m:35s) Max Grant argues on behalf of Cross Match Technologies in an en banc rehearing. The court subsequently vacated the panel’s decision.
Apeldyn Corp v. AU Optronics (Federal Circuit) (Timestamp 0h:17m:17s) Lawrence Gotts argues on behalf of client AU Optronics.
Thomson Licensing v. International Trade Commission (Federal Circuit) (Timestamp 0h:26m:35s) Lawrence Gotts argues on behalf of client AU Optronics.
InterDigital Communications v. ITC (Federal Circuit) (Timestamp 0h:0m:30s and 0h:38m:30s) Richard Bress argues on behalf of client InterDigital Communications.
Cross Match Technologies v. ITC Argument 1 (Federal Circuit) (Timestamp 0h:0m:15s) Max Grant argues on behalf of client Cross Match Technologies.
Cross Match Technologies v. ITC Argument 2 (Federal Circuit) (Timestamp 0h:0m:45s) Max Grant argues on behalf of client Cross Match Technologies.
Illumina v. Affymetrix (Federal Circuit) (Timestamp 0h:13m:15s) Richard Bress argues on behalf of client Affymetrix, Inc.
Honeywell International, Inc. v. United States (Federal Circuit) (Timestamp 0h:0m:10s) Lawrence Gotts argues on behalf of client Honeywell International.
Mayo Collaborative Services v. Prometheus Laboratories, Inc Argument 1 (Federal Circuit) (Timestamp 0h:1m:45s) Richard Bress argues on behalf of client Prometheus Laboratories.
Mayo Collaborative Services v. Prometheus Laboratories, Inc. Argument 2 (Federal Circuit) (Timestamp 0h:0m:0s) Richard Bress argues on behalf of client Prometheus Laboratories.
Baden Sports, Inc. v. Molten USA, Inc. (Federal Circuit) (Timestamp 0h:0m:20s) Richard Bress argues on behalf of client Molten USA.
Mayo Collaborative Services v. Prometheus Laboratories, Inc. (Supreme Court) (Timestamp 0h:31m:45s) Richard Bress argues on behalf of client Prometheus Laboratories.
Intellectual Ventures I LLC v. Symantec Corp. (Federal Circuit) (Timestamp: 0h:23m:26sec) Gabriel Bell argues on behalf of client Symantec Corporation in an appeal filed by Intellectual Ventures I LLC.
Braemar Manufacturing, LLC v. InfoBionic, Inc. (Federal Circuit) (Timestamp: 0h:13m:36sec) Gabriel Bell argues on behalf of client InfoBionic, Inc. in an appeal filed by Braemar Manufacturing, LLC.
Paice LLC v. Ford Motor Company (Federal Circuit) (Timestamp: 0h:32m:18sec) Matthew Moore argues on behalf of client Ford Motor Company in an appeal filed by Paice, LLC.
Paice LLC v. Ford Motor Company (Federal Circuit) (Timestamp: 0h:25m:15sec) Gabriel Bell argues on behalf of client Ford Motor Company in an appeal filed by Paice, LLC.
Vanda Pharmaceuticals Inc. v. West-Ward Pharmaceuticals (Federal Circuit) (Timestamp: 0h:00m:35sec) Kenneth Schuler argues on behalf of client West-Ward Pharmaceuticals Corporation.
Praxair Distribution, Inc. v. Mallinckrodt Hospital Products (Federal Circuit) (Timestamp: 0h:18m:38sec) Kenneth Schuler argues on behalf of client Mallinckrodt Hospital Products.
Enplas Display Device Corpora v. Seoul Semiconductor Company (Federal Circuit) (Timestamp: 0h:12m:37sec) Lawrence Gotts argues on behalf of client Seoul Semiconductor Company, Limited.
InterDigital Communications v. ZTE Corporation (Federal Circuit) (Timestamp: 0h:16m:56sec) Max Grant argues on behalf of client InterDigital Communications, Inc.
Visual Memory LLC v. NVIDIA Corporation (Federal Circuit) (Timestamp: 0h:14m:02sec) Max Grant argues on behalf of client NVIDIA Corporation.
Paice LLC v. Ford Motor Company (Federal Circuit) (Timestamp: 0h:13m:15sec) Matthew Moore argues on behalf of client Ford Motor Company in an appeal filed by Paice, LLC.
Paice LLC v. Ford Motor Company (Federal Circuit) (Timestamp: 0h:16m:17sec) Matthew Moore argues on behalf of client Ford Motor Company in an appeal filed by Paice, LLC.
Paice LLC v. Ford Motor Company (Federal Circuit) (Timestamp: 0h:27m:53sec) Matthew Moore argues on behalf of client Ford Motor Company in an appeal filed by Paice, LLC.
IPR Licensing, Inc. v. ZTE Corporation (Federal Circuit) (Timestamp: 0h:00m:15sec) Gabriel Bell argues on behalf of client IPR Licensing, Inc.
In Re Transperfect Global, Inc. (Federal Circuit) (Timestamp: 0h:00m:41sec) Douglas Lumish argues on behalf of client TransPerfect Global, Inc.
Quanta Computer, Inc. v. LG Electronics, Inc.
Latham won a landmark victory on behalf of Quanta Computer, Inc. (Quanta) in the US Supreme Court regarding the patent exhaustion doctrine. Latham's appellate group took on the case after Quanta had lost in the US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit. LG Electronics (LGE) gave Intel a license to sell microprocessors and chips to third-party manufacturers like Quanta, but required Intel to inform the manufacturers that they could not combine the Intel processors and chips with any other non-Intel components. LGE sued Quanta, and many other manufacturers, alleging that their use of Intel processors with other third-party computer components was not authorized by LGE’s license to Intel. The Federal Circuit agreed with LGE, holding that LGE’s patent rights were not exhausted by Intel’s authorized sales, but were preserved by the conditional license language and could still be asserted against Intel’s customers. Latham convinced the Supreme Court to grant review and reverse by arguing that the Federal Circuit’s long-settled “conditional sales” doctrine was inconsistent with “patent exhaustion” principles embodied in largely forgotten late-19th and early-20th century cases.
Latham represented Symantec Corporation, a software and programming company, in patent infringement claims against Computer Associates. Latham joined the case after the US District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan granted summary judgment of non-infringement with respect to certain accused products. Latham handled and argued the appeal before the US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit. After the Federal Circuit issued its ruling in favor of Symantec and remanded the case for trial, the matter settled.
Latham represented Genentech, Inc. in a dispute with MedImmune, Inc. over a patent for co-expression of antibody heavy and light chains in a single host cellon, a key technology employed in the production of genetically engineered antibodies. MedImmune brought a variety of antitrust claims against Genentech relating to the manner in which Genentech secured the patent, and sought a declaratory judgment that the patent was invalid. Latham convinced the district court and Federal Circuit that MedImmune’s antitrust claims must be dismissed on the merits, and that its declaratory judgment challenge to the validity of the patent must be dismissed for lack of any Article III “case or controversy,” as MedImmune is a licensee in good standing under the patent and continues to pay royalties.
The Supreme Court granted certiorari on the Article III issue. Latham constructed a new Article III defense, arguing that a person who voluntarily avoids any confrontation (i.e. by paying royalties on a patent) can sue to resolve that dormant “controversy” only if the law is prepared to regard his avoidance behavior as coerced or involuntary – and that MedImmune’s decision to pay royalties was entirely voluntary. Latham also argued that, even if Article III jurisdiction is present, suits by licensees in good standing are inconsistent with long-standing, basic equitable principles and should be dismissed on discretionary equitable grounds. The Court unanimously adopted Latham’s proposed novel global theory of anticipatory relief under Article III, but nonetheless ruled 8-1 that MedImmune’s royalty payments were sufficiently “coerced” by the uncertainties of patent litigation and that Article III jurisdiction was present. The Court’s remand order specifically directed the lower courts to consider Latham’s alternative equitable arguments for dismissal. Those issues are currently pending before the district court.
Award recognizes remarkable achievements and developments in IP law in the past year.
Latham Wins Intellectual Property Litigation Department of the Year Honor in Washington, D.C.
The IP Litigation Practice is recognized for shutting down high-risk actions against high-profile defendants in 2016.
Award recognizes outstanding achievements in the past year — successful cases, notable client wins and innovative approaches to the law.
With recent victories in significant patent infringement cases, the practice is recognized by Law360 for the second consecutive year.

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