WilmerHale's IP Litigation Practice features a premier litigation team backed by the academic and industry experience of more than 120 lawyers and technology specialists with scientific or technical degrees.

Named IP Litigation Department of the Year by The American Lawyer in 2014, our lawyers have tried major cases in federal district courts throughout the United States, the US International Trade Commission, and in Germany and the UK. We also regularly represent clients in patent appeals before the United States Supreme Court and the Federal Circuit.

Contacts

Sort By
Steinberg, Donald R.

Donald R. Steinberg

Chair, Intellectual Property Department

+1 617 526 6453 (t)

don.steinberg@wilmerhale.com

Pirozzolo, Lisa J.

Lisa J. Pirozzolo

Co-Chair, Intellectual Property Litigation Practice Group

+1 617 526 6388 (t)

lisa.pirozzolo@wilmerhale.com

Selwyn, Mark D.

Mark D. Selwyn

Partner-in-Charge, Palo Alto Office

Co-Chair, Intellectual Property Litigation Practice Group

+1 650 858 6031 (t)

mark.selwyn@wilmerhale.com

Bassett, David B.

David B. Bassett

Partner

+1 212 230 8858 (t)

david.bassett@wilmerhale.com

Cook, Trevor

Trevor Cook

Partner

+1 212 230 8826 (t)

trevor.cook@wilmerhale.com

Dichiara, Peter M.

Peter M. Dichiara

Partner

+1 617 526 6466 (t)

peter.dichiara@wilmerhale.com

Diener, Michael A.

Michael A. Diener

Partner

+1 617 526 6454 (t)

michael.diener@wilmerhale.com

Dowd, James M.

James M. Dowd

Partner

+1 213 443 5309 (t)

james.dowd@wilmerhale.com

Ferrera, Vinita

Vinita Ferrera

Partner

+1 617 526 6208 (t)

vinita.ferrera@wilmerhale.com

Flanagan, Mark D.

Mark D. Flanagan

Partner

+1 650 858 6047 (t)

mark.flanagan@wilmerhale.com

Grewal, Monica

Monica Grewal

Partner

+1 617 526 6223 (t)

monica.grewal@wilmerhale.com

Experience

Recent achievements include:

CEPHALON, INC. V. WATSON PHARM., INC.
In February 2013, the Federal Circuit issued a favorable decision on behalf of our client Cephalon, reversing a district court decision invalidating two patents covering the company's cancer pain medication Fentora. In particular, the Federal Circuit found that the defendant, generic drug manufacturer Watson Pharmaceuticals (now Actavis), "failed as a matter of law to show with clear and convincing evidence that... Read More

VAILLANCOURT V. BECTON DICKINSON & CO.
In February 2013, WilmerHale obtained a significant victory for Becton, Dickinson and Company (BD) in a patent reexamination when the US Patent and Trademark Office (PTO) denied a request for rehearing of an appeal decision in an Inter Partes Reexamination, which had been decided in a manner favorable to BD. This case is the first time BD had used Inter Partes Reexamination as a strategic IP procedure to assure freedom to operate in their desired syringe market.... Read More

CLASSEN IMMUNOTHERAPIES, INC. V. SOMAXON PHARMACEUTICALS
2:12-cv-06643-GAF-PLA, US District Court, Central District of California
In April 2013, the firm achieved victory when Judge Gary Allen Feess of the Central District of California dismissed Classen Immunotherapies, Inc.'s ("Classen") patent infringement claims against our client Somaxon Pharmaceuticals with prejudice. The two asserted Classen patents purport to claim methods of gathering, analyzing, and commercializing adverse event data.... Read More

CELLECTIS SA V. PRECISION BIOSCIENCES
In May 2013, WilmerHale secured a victory for client Precision BioSciences, Inc., a leader in the field of genome engineering, in a patent infringement lawsuit against Cellectis SA. A jury found that all of the claims of Cellectis' US Pat. No. 7,897,372 (the "'372 patent") that were asserted against Precision are invalid both as obvious and for failure to meet the written description requirement and... Read More

BRAINTREE LABORATORIES, INC. V. NOVEL LABORATORIES, INC.
3:11-cv-01341, US District Court, District of New Jersey
In June 2013, WilmerHale obtained a favorable final judgment in the US District Court for the District of New Jersey for Braintree Laboratories, Inc. (Braintree) in its patent infringement case against Novel Laboratories (Novel). The matter involved SUPREP ®—Braintree's small volume sulfate-based colonoscopy preparation product—and Novel's proposed plan to make a generic version of the drug.... Read More

ALTANA PHARMA AG AND WYETH V. TEVA PHARMACEUTICALS
In June 2013, our client Pfizer (formerly Wyeth) announced a $2.15 billion settlement with Teva Pharmaceuticals Industries and Sun Pharmaceutical Industries, which occurred during the trial of Pfizer's and Nycomed's (formerly Altana Pharma AG, and now part of Takeda) claims for patent-infringement damages... Read More

MICROLINC V. INTEL
In July 2013, WilmerHale obtained a zero-dollar walk away settlement on behalf of our client Intel in a patent infringement suit brought by Microlinc, a patent troll, in the Eastern District of Texas. After eight years of litigation, four patent reexaminations, four judges, two lawsuits, and one decisive Markman order, we obtained a statement in the stipulation of dismissal that Microlinc was unable to assert any infringement based on the Court’s claim construction.

ST. CLAIR INTELLECTUAL PROP. CONSULTANTS, INC. V. MATSUSHITA ELECTRIC INDUS. CO.
In July 2013, we obtained a significant victory for Research In Motion (now known as BlackBerry) against non-practicing entity St. Clair Intellectual Property Consultants, Inc. when the Federal Circuit summarily affirmed the district court's summary judgment of non-infringement in RIM's favor. The decision from the Court of Appeals brought to an end a decade-long litigation campaign by St. Clair in which it had won over $100 million in jury verdicts and settlements.

PERMOBIL, INC. V. PRIDE MOBILITY PRODUCTS CORP.
WilmerHale recently achieved a significant victory for client Permobil, Inc. in defense of claims of patent infringement asserted by Pride Mobility Products Corp. in the US District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania. In April 2013, Pride filed suit against Permobil alleging infringement of certain claims of Pride's US Patent No. 8,408,343 (the "'343 patent") and... Read More

@HOME BONDHOLDERS' LIQUIDATING TRUST V. VERIZON COMMUNICATIONS
We achieved a complete victory for our client, Verizon, as the direct result of an extremely favorable claim construction in a large, multi-defendant patent litigation in the Southern District of New York. The plaintiff in the litigation was Richard Williamson, in his capacity as Trustee for the @Home Bondholders' Liquidating Trust. One of the key assets of the bankrupt company was a series of patents directed to the high-speed delivery of media content over existing cable TV systems... Read More

W.L. GORE & ASSOCIATES, INC. V. ATRIUM MEDICAL
On April 2012, W.L. Gore & Associates, Inc. filed suit against our client Atrium Medical Corporation in the US District Court for the District of Arizona, asserting three patents related to stents covered with expanded polytetrafluoroethylene (ePTFE). During its previous litigation against Medtronic, Gore's counsel successfully persuaded the district court to adopt several claim constructions that were favorable for Atrium.... Read More

KODAK V. ALTEK CORPORATION
In October 2013, a jury in SDNY returned a verdict in favor of our client Kodak, resulting in a damages award of $75.8 million. Prior to trial, the Kodak team obtained summary judgment that Ricoh owed royalties on point and shoot cameras. On the eve of trial, Ricoh stipulated to $53 million in damages on point and shoot cameras.... Read More

BROADCOM CORP. V. EMULEX
In October 2013, we achieved a victory for client Broadcom when the Federal Circuit affirmed the district court's issuance of a permanent injunction against Emulex and underlying findings of infringement and validity of Broadcom's '150 patent, which relates to high-speed network communication circuitry.... Read More

 

Read about our 2012 experience.

Publications & News

View

November 19, 2014

Tips for Dealing with Competing IPR and ITC Deadlines

An article by Partner James Dowd and former Counsel Jacob Oyloe, published by Law360 on November 19, 2014.

November 13, 2014

Standard-Essential Patents and US Antitrust Law: Light at the End of the Tunnel?

A chapter co-authored by Leon Greenfield, Hartmut Schneider and Perry Lange, published in the International Bar Association's Communications and Competition Law: Key Issues in the Telecoms, Media and Technology Sectors.

November 7, 2014

WilmerHale Reaches Milestone 100th Inter Partes Review Filing

WilmerHale has filed its 100th Inter Partes Review (IPR), marking a significant milestone in the post-America Invents Act (AIA) era.

November 4, 2014

U.S. News – Best Lawyers® Release 2015 “Best Law Firms” List, Names WilmerHale International Arbitration “Law Firm of the Year”

The 2015 U.S. News - Best Lawyers® "Best Law Firms" list includes WilmerHale being named a first-tier law firm in 24 national and 62 metro-area rankings. In addition, the firm boasts more than 20 second- and third-tier rankings in several national and metro-area rankings.

November 1, 2014

Technical and Scientific Experience

Our ability to provide superior legal representation to technology companies is greatly enhanced by the academic and industry experience of our lawyers in a wide variety of technical and scientific fields.    

October 31, 2014

Stays to Litigation Pending Third-Party IPR and CBM Review

An article by Gregory Lantier and Robert Arcamona published in Intellectual Property Today's October 2014 issue.

October 24, 2014

Patent Law and the Supreme Court: Certiorari Petitions Denied

WilmerHale compiles lists of certiorari petitions that raise patent-law issues. This page contains a consolidated list of all recently denied petitions, organized in reverse chronological order by date of certiorari petition.

October 24, 2014

Patent Law and the Supreme Court: Certiorari Petitions Pending

WilmerHale compiles lists of certiorari petitions that raise patent-law issues. This page contains a consolidated list of all pending petitions, organized in reverse chronological order by date of certiorari petition.

October 24, 2014

Patent Law and the Supreme Court: Certiorari Petitions Granted

WilmerHale compiles lists of certiorari petitions that raise patent-law issues. This page contains a consolidated list of all recently granted petitions, organized in reverse chronological order by date of certiorari petition.

October 13, 2014

WilmerHale Named Best Patent Litigation Firm by The Legal 500 US

WilmerHale has been named the nation's best law firm in the category of IP: Patent Litigation by The Legal 500 United States as part of its inaugural awards program.

Patent Cert. Petitions

WilmerHale compiles lists of certiorari petitions that raise patent-law issues. This page contains a consolidated list of all recently pending, granted and denied petitions, organized in each listing in reverse chronological order by date of certiorari petition.

Patent Law and the Supreme Court: Certiorari Petitions Pending

Patent Law and the Supreme Court: Certiorari Petitions Granted

Patent Law and the Supreme Court: Certiorari Petitions Denied

For more information on these petitions or other patent appeal matters, contact:

Joseph J. Mueller (+1 617 526 6396, joseph.mueller@wilmerhale.com)
Thomas G. Saunders (+1 202 663 6536, thomas.saunders@wilmerhale.com)
Leslie Pearlson (+1 617 526 6809, leslie.pearlson@wilmerhale.com)