Patent Litigation
Our patent litigation team at Larkin Hoffman understands that protecting a client’s valuable patent rights, a company’s technology, and products from third party patents, is a valuable and complex part of a client’s overall business strategy.
We strive to achieve the best results for that strategy – whether it be through favorable licensing, settlement, or litigating a case through trial. Our team of seasoned and successful litigators and trial attorneys have experience at every stage of a patent infringement lawsuit or declaratory judgment action. We also have extensive experience in negotiating licensing agreements with favorable terms for our clients. We are battle tested at discovery, Markman, summary judgment, and trial. We also have team members who have successfully appealed to the Federal Circuit.
Midwest Industries, Inc. v. Karavan Trailers (S.D. Iowa)
The case Midwest Industries, Inc. v. Karavan Trailers (S.D. Iowa) which involved the interplay between patents and trade dress rights. Midwest asserted trade dress protection in a unique curved winch post configuration for personal watercraft trailers. Midwest appealed the district court’s order granting summary judgment to Karavan, holding that Midwest’s trade dress claims were barred by federal patent law because Midwest had design patents for the curved winch post and a utility patent in which the curved winch post was claimed. Larkin Hoffman attorney Tom Oppold took over this case on appeal and successfully argued on behalf of Midwest to the Federal Circuit.
Field v. Grabber Mfg. Co. (M.D. Fla.)
Larkin Hoffman attorney, Tom Oppold, served as counsel for Field in Field v. Grabber Mfg. Co. (M.D. Fla.) a patent infringement case involving automotive collision repair machines. A significant damages award for the inventor was awarded by the jury.
Engineered Products v. Donaldson Company (N.D. Iowa)
Craig Lervick served as counsel for Engineered Products through trial in a patent infringement lawsuit related to devices that detect the level of contamination of an air filter of an internal combustion engine, Engineered Products v. Donaldson Company (N.D. Iowa). At trial, a jury verdict of willful infringement was obtained. The jury awarded Engineered Products over $5 million in damages, which was trebled to over $15M by the district court. On appeal, the Federal Circuit upheld over $11 million of the damages originally awarded to the client.
Patent Harbor v. Twentieth Century Fox, et al. (E.D. Tex.)
Tom Oppold, John Cotter and Jerry Podkopacz served as counsel for Venturer Electronics in a patent infringement action brought by Patent Harbor against numerous defendants involving a patent alleged to cover DVD players with scene selection features. After a favorable Markman ruling, Patent Harbor agreed to stipulate to non-infringement and an order was entered dismissing Venturer Electronics and other defendants.
Tristrata Technology, Inc. v. Pierre Fabre S.A. et al. (D.N.J.)
Glenna Gilbert defended Pierre Fabre in Tristrata Technology, Inc. v. Pierre Fabre S.A. et al. (D.N.J.), a patent infringement lawsuit involving patents related to methods for alleviating wrinkles and compositions for treating cosmetic or dermatologic skin disorders. The case settled before the Court issued a Markman order.
Western Union Co. v. MoneyGram Payment Systems Inc. (W.D. Tex.)
Glenna Gilbert defended MoneyGram through trial in Western Union Co. v. MoneyGram Payment Systems Inc. (W.D. Tex.). This patent infringement lawsuit involved patents related to systems and methods for performing money transfers. Western Union obtained a verdict awarding the plaintiff damages. On appeal, however, the Federal Circuit reversed the jury verdict, holding that Western Union’s patent claims were invalid as obvious.
Kathleen Adams v. Newell Rubbermaid Inc. (W.D. Wis.)
Glenna Gilbert defended Newell Rubbermaid, and its sales of the Rubbermaid Premier line. Kathleen Adams v. Newell Rubbermaid Inc. (W.D. Wis.) involved a patent infringement action related to a system of stackable storage containers. Near the eve of trial, the case settled.
Cimline, Inc. v. Crafco, Inc. (D. Minn.)
Paul Smith, Lauris Heyerdahl and Melissa Hagstrum served as counsel for Cimline in Cimline, Inc. v. Crafco, Inc. (D. Minn.). The group affirmatively sought a declaration of non-infringement as to Cimline’s product while attempting to invalidate a competitor’s patent, which was also contended to have been misused in the marketplace. In a widely cited 2011 case, the Federal Circuit adopted Cimline’s position and declared the patent of Crafco invalid as obvious, clearing the way for entry into the marketplace and an assessment of damages.
Auxilium Pharmaceuticals et. al. v. Upsher-Smith Laboratories, Inc. (D. Del.)
Glenna Gilbert defended Upsher-Smith Laboratories Inc. in Auxilium Pharmaceuticals et. al. v. Upsher-Smith Laboratories, Inc. (D. Del.), a Hatch-Waxman litigation involving patents related to transdermal pharmaceutical products.
Edge Capture LLC et al. v. Barclays Bank PLC, UBS AG et al. (N.D. Ill.)
In Edge Capture LLC et al. v. Barclays Bank PLC, UBS AG et al. (N.D. Ill.), Glenna Gilbert served as counsel for Edge Specialists and Edge Capture in the early stages of discovery of a patent infringement lawsuit involving automated options trading systems and methods.
Cedarapids, Inc. v. CMI Corp. (N.D. Iowa)
Tom Oppold served as counsel for CMI in Cedarapids, Inc. v. CMI Corp. (N.D. Iowa), a patent infringement action in which CMI was accused of infringing a Cedarapids patent for drum mixers used for heating and preparing asphalt for roads. After the Markman hearing and filing of summary judgment motions, a stipulation of dismissal was filed by the parties.
Farmer Fabrications, Inc. v. Precision Planting, Inc. (C.D. Ill.)
Farmer Fabrications, Inc. v. Precision Planting, Inc. (C.D. Ill.) involved a patent infringement lawsuit related to liquid fertilizer applicator tubes mounted to a seed firmer on a planter. Tom Oppold obtained a summary judgment of invalidity of the patent asserted against the client.
Augustine Medical v. Cincinnati Sub-Zero et al. (D. Minn.)
Craig Lervick represented Augustine Medical in multiple related patent infringement actions regarding convective heating blankets used in medical settings. All of the related actions settled before trial. Craig participated in discovery and pretrial depositions and motions.
Datascope Corp. v. Vascular Solutions (D. Minn.)
Craig Lervick served as counsel for Datascope in Datascope Corp. v. Vascular Solutions (D. Minn.), a patent infringement lawsuit related to technology involving healing technologies following catheter procedures. The case settled following the filing of summary judgment motions.
Quipp Systems, Inc. v. Cannon Equipment Company (D. Minn.)
Craig Lervick defended Cannon Equipment in Quipp Systems, Inc. v. Cannon Equipment Company (D. Minn.), a patent infringement action related to newspaper bundle handling equipment. The case settled following pretrial motions. Craig lead the initial stages of discovery in this case and participated in pretrial hearings.
Universal Electronics Inc. v. Remote Technologies et al. (C.D. Cal.)
Craig Lervick represented Remote Technologies in Universal Electronics Inc. v. Remote Technologies et al. (C.D. Cal.), a patent infringement lawsuit relating to remote control technologies. The case was settled before discovery.
Satellite Industries, Inc. v. L.T. Hampel Corp. (D. Minn.)
Craig Lervick represented Satellite Industries in Satellite Industries, Inc. v. L.T. Hampel Corp. (D. Minn.), a patent infringement lawsuit relating to door designs for portable bathrooms. Craig negotiated a settlement for the client before the commencement of discovery.
Menasha Corp. v. Smyth Companies Inc. (E.D. Wis.)
Craig Lervick defended Smyth Companies in Menasha Corp. v. Smyth Companies Inc. (E.D. Wis.), a patent infringement lawsuit involving a patent related to label printing technology. Craig negotiated a favorable settlement for the client before the commencement of discovery.
Moose Mountain Toymakers Ltd. v. Majik Ltd. (D.N.J.)
In Moose Mountain Toymakers Ltd. v. Majik Ltd. (D.N.J.), a design patent infringement case related to a toy design, Tom Oppold assisted in preparing a successful motion to dismiss on behalf of Majik on the grounds that the accused product, after discounting the functional features, was sufficiently different from the patented design to avoid infringement under the ordinary observer test.
Home Products International, LLC v. Hampton Direct Inc. (S.D. Fla.).
Tom Oppold and Glenna Gilbert represented Home Products in Home Products International, LLC v. Hampton Direct Inc. (S.D. Fla.). This design patent infringement case was related to a design for hangers. Tom and Glenna obtained a favorable settlement for the client before discovery.
We strive to achieve the best results for that strategy – whether it be through favorable licensing, settlement, or litigating a case through trial. Our team of seasoned and successful litigators and trial attorneys have experience at every stage of a patent infringement lawsuit or declaratory judgment action. We also have extensive experience in negotiating licensing agreements with favorable terms for our clients. We are battle tested at discovery, Markman, summary judgment, and trial. We also have team members who have successfully appealed to the Federal Circuit.
We collectively have handled patent litigation in at least seventeen federal district courts, including key venues such as:
-
Texas
-
California
-
Delaware
-
Illinois
-
Massachusetts
-
New Jersey
-
Wisconsin
-
Minnesota
-
Florida
-
Arizona
-
Federal Circuit Court of Appeals
-
International Trade Commission
We are comprised of highly-skilled individuals well-versed not only in patent law, but also in technology and the sciences, and the intricacies of how the law, technology and business strategies work together in patent litigation. Many of our team members are registered to practice before the United States Patent and Trademark Office. Several members are engineers, some have advanced degrees in the sciences, and others have in-house counseling experience at industry leaders. Consequently, the members of our patent litigation team have represented clients in a vast array of technologies and sciences, including:
- Computers, e-commerce, and related hardware and software
- Medical devices and equipment and related technology
- Semiconductors
- Pharmaceuticals
- Business methods
- Electrical and electronic devices (including consumer electronic devices)
- Digital imaging processors
- Wireless technologies
- Automated options trading
- Contact lenses
- Dermatology
- Ophthalmology
- Money transfer systems
- Chemistry
- Food science
- Agricultural equipment and sensors
- Automotive equipment
- Consumer goods
Midwest Industries, Inc. v. Karavan Trailers (S.D. Iowa)
The case Midwest Industries, Inc. v. Karavan Trailers (S.D. Iowa) which involved the interplay between patents and trade dress rights. Midwest asserted trade dress protection in a unique curved winch post configuration for personal watercraft trailers. Midwest appealed the district court’s order granting summary judgment to Karavan, holding that Midwest’s trade dress claims were barred by federal patent law because Midwest had design patents for the curved winch post and a utility patent in which the curved winch post was claimed. Larkin Hoffman attorney Tom Oppold took over this case on appeal and successfully argued on behalf of Midwest to the Federal Circuit.
Field v. Grabber Mfg. Co. (M.D. Fla.)
Larkin Hoffman attorney, Tom Oppold, served as counsel for Field in Field v. Grabber Mfg. Co. (M.D. Fla.) a patent infringement case involving automotive collision repair machines. A significant damages award for the inventor was awarded by the jury.
Engineered Products v. Donaldson Company (N.D. Iowa)
Craig Lervick served as counsel for Engineered Products through trial in a patent infringement lawsuit related to devices that detect the level of contamination of an air filter of an internal combustion engine, Engineered Products v. Donaldson Company (N.D. Iowa). At trial, a jury verdict of willful infringement was obtained. The jury awarded Engineered Products over $5 million in damages, which was trebled to over $15M by the district court. On appeal, the Federal Circuit upheld over $11 million of the damages originally awarded to the client.
Patent Harbor v. Twentieth Century Fox, et al. (E.D. Tex.)
Tom Oppold, John Cotter and Jerry Podkopacz served as counsel for Venturer Electronics in a patent infringement action brought by Patent Harbor against numerous defendants involving a patent alleged to cover DVD players with scene selection features. After a favorable Markman ruling, Patent Harbor agreed to stipulate to non-infringement and an order was entered dismissing Venturer Electronics and other defendants.
Tristrata Technology, Inc. v. Pierre Fabre S.A. et al. (D.N.J.)
Glenna Gilbert defended Pierre Fabre in Tristrata Technology, Inc. v. Pierre Fabre S.A. et al. (D.N.J.), a patent infringement lawsuit involving patents related to methods for alleviating wrinkles and compositions for treating cosmetic or dermatologic skin disorders. The case settled before the Court issued a Markman order.
Western Union Co. v. MoneyGram Payment Systems Inc. (W.D. Tex.)
Glenna Gilbert defended MoneyGram through trial in Western Union Co. v. MoneyGram Payment Systems Inc. (W.D. Tex.). This patent infringement lawsuit involved patents related to systems and methods for performing money transfers. Western Union obtained a verdict awarding the plaintiff damages. On appeal, however, the Federal Circuit reversed the jury verdict, holding that Western Union’s patent claims were invalid as obvious.
Kathleen Adams v. Newell Rubbermaid Inc. (W.D. Wis.)
Glenna Gilbert defended Newell Rubbermaid, and its sales of the Rubbermaid Premier line. Kathleen Adams v. Newell Rubbermaid Inc. (W.D. Wis.) involved a patent infringement action related to a system of stackable storage containers. Near the eve of trial, the case settled.
Cimline, Inc. v. Crafco, Inc. (D. Minn.)
Paul Smith, Lauris Heyerdahl and Melissa Hagstrum served as counsel for Cimline in Cimline, Inc. v. Crafco, Inc. (D. Minn.). The group affirmatively sought a declaration of non-infringement as to Cimline’s product while attempting to invalidate a competitor’s patent, which was also contended to have been misused in the marketplace. In a widely cited 2011 case, the Federal Circuit adopted Cimline’s position and declared the patent of Crafco invalid as obvious, clearing the way for entry into the marketplace and an assessment of damages.
Auxilium Pharmaceuticals et. al. v. Upsher-Smith Laboratories, Inc. (D. Del.)
Glenna Gilbert defended Upsher-Smith Laboratories Inc. in Auxilium Pharmaceuticals et. al. v. Upsher-Smith Laboratories, Inc. (D. Del.), a Hatch-Waxman litigation involving patents related to transdermal pharmaceutical products.
Edge Capture LLC et al. v. Barclays Bank PLC, UBS AG et al. (N.D. Ill.)
In Edge Capture LLC et al. v. Barclays Bank PLC, UBS AG et al. (N.D. Ill.), Glenna Gilbert served as counsel for Edge Specialists and Edge Capture in the early stages of discovery of a patent infringement lawsuit involving automated options trading systems and methods.
Cedarapids, Inc. v. CMI Corp. (N.D. Iowa)
Tom Oppold served as counsel for CMI in Cedarapids, Inc. v. CMI Corp. (N.D. Iowa), a patent infringement action in which CMI was accused of infringing a Cedarapids patent for drum mixers used for heating and preparing asphalt for roads. After the Markman hearing and filing of summary judgment motions, a stipulation of dismissal was filed by the parties.
Farmer Fabrications, Inc. v. Precision Planting, Inc. (C.D. Ill.)
Farmer Fabrications, Inc. v. Precision Planting, Inc. (C.D. Ill.) involved a patent infringement lawsuit related to liquid fertilizer applicator tubes mounted to a seed firmer on a planter. Tom Oppold obtained a summary judgment of invalidity of the patent asserted against the client.
Augustine Medical v. Cincinnati Sub-Zero et al. (D. Minn.)
Craig Lervick represented Augustine Medical in multiple related patent infringement actions regarding convective heating blankets used in medical settings. All of the related actions settled before trial. Craig participated in discovery and pretrial depositions and motions.
Datascope Corp. v. Vascular Solutions (D. Minn.)
Craig Lervick served as counsel for Datascope in Datascope Corp. v. Vascular Solutions (D. Minn.), a patent infringement lawsuit related to technology involving healing technologies following catheter procedures. The case settled following the filing of summary judgment motions.
Quipp Systems, Inc. v. Cannon Equipment Company (D. Minn.)
Craig Lervick defended Cannon Equipment in Quipp Systems, Inc. v. Cannon Equipment Company (D. Minn.), a patent infringement action related to newspaper bundle handling equipment. The case settled following pretrial motions. Craig lead the initial stages of discovery in this case and participated in pretrial hearings.
Universal Electronics Inc. v. Remote Technologies et al. (C.D. Cal.)
Craig Lervick represented Remote Technologies in Universal Electronics Inc. v. Remote Technologies et al. (C.D. Cal.), a patent infringement lawsuit relating to remote control technologies. The case was settled before discovery.
Satellite Industries, Inc. v. L.T. Hampel Corp. (D. Minn.)
Craig Lervick represented Satellite Industries in Satellite Industries, Inc. v. L.T. Hampel Corp. (D. Minn.), a patent infringement lawsuit relating to door designs for portable bathrooms. Craig negotiated a settlement for the client before the commencement of discovery.
Menasha Corp. v. Smyth Companies Inc. (E.D. Wis.)
Craig Lervick defended Smyth Companies in Menasha Corp. v. Smyth Companies Inc. (E.D. Wis.), a patent infringement lawsuit involving a patent related to label printing technology. Craig negotiated a favorable settlement for the client before the commencement of discovery.
Moose Mountain Toymakers Ltd. v. Majik Ltd. (D.N.J.)
In Moose Mountain Toymakers Ltd. v. Majik Ltd. (D.N.J.), a design patent infringement case related to a toy design, Tom Oppold assisted in preparing a successful motion to dismiss on behalf of Majik on the grounds that the accused product, after discounting the functional features, was sufficiently different from the patented design to avoid infringement under the ordinary observer test.
Home Products International, LLC v. Hampton Direct Inc. (S.D. Fla.).
Tom Oppold and Glenna Gilbert represented Home Products in Home Products International, LLC v. Hampton Direct Inc. (S.D. Fla.). This design patent infringement case was related to a design for hangers. Tom and Glenna obtained a favorable settlement for the client before discovery.
