Practice Areas
Litigation
Patent Litigation
Weil, Gotshal & Manges LLP

Patent Litigation Experience



  • General Electric Company
    General Electric Co. v. Mitsubishi Heavy Industries Ltd., et al.
    Won a highly publicized $170 million jury verdict for General Electric (“GE”) against Mitsubishi Heavy Industries, Ltd. (“MHI”). After a seven-day trial, a Texas federal jury ruled that MHI infringed GE's patent covering technology vital to the operation of wind turbines. The jury’s verdict, which also held that the patent-in-suit is valid, is an important victory for GE in its long-running multi-forum dispute with MHI over several patents related to wind turbine technology—the foundation of a U.S. energy market that The Wall Street Journal values at approximately $12 billion. The American Lawyer highlighted partner David Lender as one of its “Litigators of the Week” for his role as co-lead trial counsel for GE.
  • Micron Technology Inc.
    Micron Technology, Inc. et al v. Rambus Inc.
    Successfully represented Micron in a patent infringement suit against Rambus involving numerous DRAM patents. Micron filed a declaratory judgment suit against Rambus in federal court in Delaware in 2000, asserting that its production of SDRAM products did not infringe Rambus’s patents and that Rambus’s patents were invalid, unenforceable, and violated antitrust laws. After trifurcating the case, the district court ruled in January 2009 that Rambus had intentionally and in bad faith destroyed relevant, discoverable documents, and, as a sanction for that spoliation, held that the patents were unenforceable. Ruling on Rambus’s appeal of the Delaware court’s decision, the Federal Circuit affirmed the finding of spoliation, holding that ample evidence had been presented to support it, and noted that Rambus’s document-retention policy (carried out on "shred days") appeared to be part of the company’s litigation strategy. The case before the Federal Circuit was one of two appeals of conflicting decisions on whether Rambus was within its rights to destroy documents that were potentially relevant to foreseeable patent litigation.
  • C.R. Bard, Inc.
    Tyco Healthcare Group LP v. CR Bard Inc. et al.
    Representing C.R. Bard and its subsidiary, Davol Inc., in a patent litigation filed by Tyco Healthcare Group LP, a subsidiary of Covidien PLC, in the District of Delaware. Tyco accuses Bard of infringing a patent concerning surgical fastening systems.
  • CBS Corporation|CBS Radio, Last.FM Ltd., AOL
    Zamora Radio, LLC v. Last.fm, Ltd. et al.
    Weil prevailed on summary judgment of non-infringement for AOL, CBS Corporation, CBS Radio and Last.FM Ltd. in a patent litigation suit over internet radio with skip functionality. Prior to the summary judgment motion, the Court adopted the defendants’ construction of several key claim terms prompting the plaintiff to move for an entry of consent judgment of non-infringement which was denied. Co-defendants RealNetworks, Rhapsody America and Pandora Media also filed and prevailed on separate motions for summary judgment.
  • ArthroCare Corporation
    ArthroCare Corporation v. Gyrus Medical Inc. et al
    Represented ArthroCare Corporation in a patent infringement suit filed in Delaware against Gyrus Medical Inc., Gyrus ENT, LLC and Gyrus ACMI, Inc. (“Gyrus”). ArthroCare alleged that Gyrus had infringed on its “882 Patent” system and method for electrosurgical cutting and ablation. ArthroCare is a multi-business medical device company that develops, manufactures and markets products based on its internationally patented Coblation technology. Gyrus designs, develops, manufactures and sells electrosurgical products. The case settled on favorable terms with ArthroCare receiving royalties for sales of accused products.
  • Genentech Inc.
    Human Genome Science Inc. v. Genentech Inc.
    Obtained dismissal in the District of Delaware for Genentech in connection with patent rights to DNA sequences encoding key cancer therapeutics. Plaintiff Human Genome Sciences (HGS) brought suit claiming it had invented the relevant DNA sequences first. Initially, the dispute was to be resolved in US Patent & Trademark Office proceedings but when HGS lost preliminary motions they proceeded directly to District Court. WGM persuaded the Court to dismiss HGS’s complaint on the grounds that HGS failed to exhaust its administrative remedies. After briefing in the Federal Circuit HGS dismissed its appeal and judgment is now final for Genentech.
  • Yahoo!
    Function Media v. Yahoo!
    Defended Yahoo! against suit accusing Yahoo!’s internet advertising methods of infringing two patents.
  • Linear Technology Corporation
    Linear Technology Corp. v. Advanced Analogic Technologies, Inc.
    Weil successfully represented Linear Technology before the International Trade Commission (ITC) in its dispute with Advanced Analogic Technologies, Inc. (AATI) concerning Linear’s patent related to voltage regulator technology. Linear had previously sought – and won – before the ITC a limited exclusion order in connection with certain of AATI’s product offerings in the United States. During the pendency of the Federal Circuit appeal of that matter, Linear requested that the ITC initiate an enforcement proceeding against AATI for continuing to import infringing products in violation of the ITC’s prior limited exclusion order. The administrative law judge found that AATI had violated the ITC’s earlier limited exclusion order by importing its new infringing products into the United States. The ITC then declined to review the administrative law judge’s Initial Determination, thereby adopting the finding of infringement and violation of the prior limited exclusion order. In combination with earlier consent judgments between Linear and AATI, 102 AATI products are now barred from importation into the US.
  • Cree Inc.
    BridgeLux, Inc. v. Cree, Inc. and Boston University
    Successfully represented Cree Inc. in a multi-jurisdictional dispute with BridgeLux, Inc. involving the intellectual property rights to LED lighting technology.
  • Medicis Pharmaceutical Corporation
    Prasco, LLC v. Medicis Pharmaceutical Corporation et al
    Obtained dismissal of declaratory judgment counterclaims against Medicis Pharmaceutical Corporation due to lack of subject matter jurisdiction. Prasco, LLC sued Medicis for declaratory judgment, relying on among other things Medicis' refusal to sign a covenant not to sue after Prasco provided Medicis with product examples. After Weil was brought in to handle the appeal, a three-judge Federal Circuit panel unanimously affirmed the lower court's dismissal of the action. The Federal Circuit's decision marked the first appellate victory in this rapidly evolving area of the law.
  • Merck & Co. Inc.
    Apotex Corp. v. Merck & Co., Inc.
    Obtained a victory for Merck in a patent case involving the process used to make Vasotec, one of Merck's largest drugs. Plaintiffs alleged that a previous judgment in favor of Merck, invalidating two patents that plaintiffs claimed were used to make Vasotec, was obtained by fraud. The Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit affirmed the district court's decision dismissing the fraud allegations in their entirety.
  • Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Company
    UniRAM Technology Inc. v. Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Co. and Monolithic System Technology
    Represented TSMC in a patent infringement and trade secret dispute involving semiconductor technologies.
  • Applera Corporation|Applera Corporation - Applied Biosystems Group|Applera Corporation and other Applera entities (“Applera”)
    Enzo Biochem Inc., Enzo Life Sciences Inc. and Yale University v. Applera Corp. and Tropix Inc.
    Obtained summary judgment in a patent case filed by plaintiffs Enzo Biochem and Yale University, alleging that Applera's DNA sequencing products were covered by a series of Enzo and Yale patents. Court entered judgment in favor of Applera on all asserted claims.
  • American Intellectual Property Law Association
    In re Seagate Technology
    Representing American Intellectual Property Law Association as amicus before the Federal Circuit, Weil Gotshal argued foundational concepts surrounding attorney-client privilege and attorney work-product immunity which will have significant long-term implications for patent trial practice. The circuit’s en banc decision followed the attorney-client privilege arguments that Weil advanced.
  • Cisco Systems Inc.
    Telcordia Technologies, Inc. v. Cisco Systems, Inc.
    Obtained a pre-trial ruling of noninfringement on the lead patent at issue for Cisco Systems on six separate grounds. The Court also granted Cisco’s motion in limine on damages, which limited the amount of damages Telcordia could seek at trial to $75 million. The jury found infringement on the remaining two patents at issue and only awarded the plaintiff $6.5 million.
  • Cree Inc.
    Gertrude Neumark Rothschild v. Cree, Inc.
    Successfully represented Cree, Inc. in a patent litigation suit brought by Rothschild, a Columbia University professor, concerning LED technology. We prevailed on 14 of 18 claim terms in dispute.
  • Microsoft Corporation
    AT&T Corp v. Microsoft Corp.
    Acting as amicus before the US Supreme Court in support of Microsoft, Weil Gotshal argued for a reversal of the Federal Circuit’s interpretation of Section 271(f). The Court’s opinion reversed, following many of the arguments advanced by Weil.
  • Apple Computer
    Premier International Associates v. Apple Computer
    Obtained favorable claim construction ruling on behalf of Apple where Premier International Associates accused Smart Playlists and related playlist features of the iPod and iTunes of infringing two patents. There were 13 claim terms from Premier’s patent-in-suit at issue, most relating to playlists. The Court did not adopt any of the plaintiff’s proposed constructions of “playlist” elements that were crafted to avoid prior art and the re-examination petition.
  • Pilot Pen
    Benjamin Kwitek and Interform, Inc. v. Pilot Corporation, Pilot Corporation of America
    Markman hearing in Kwitek v. Pilot; Favorable ruling for Pilot on all claim terms
  • CallWave, Inc.
    j2 Global Communications, Inc. v. CallWave, Inc., (C.D. Cal.) Case No. 04-07068 DDP (AJWx), and Catch Curve, Inc. v. CallWave, Inc., (C.D. Cal.) Case No. 05-4819 DDP (AJWx)
    Represented CallWave, Inc., in two patent litigations that, in the aggregate, sought (1) to shut down CallWave and (2) recover lost profits or royalties from all of CallWave’s revenues. Reached settlement of both litigations on the eve of claim construction in one of the litigations, for less than projected defense costs through trial, even though CallWave obtained licenses to substantially more patents than were at issue in the lawsuit.
  • Applera Corporation
    Applera Corp. v. Stratagene Corp.
    Markman Hearing in Applera v. Stratagene; ruling in favor of Applera on all disputed terms.
  • Microsoft Corporation
    Spreadsheet Automation Corporation v. Microsoft
    Patent infringement action commenced by Spreadsheet Automation Corporation. After summary judgment for Microsoft on most claims, suit settled on favorable terms to client
  • Yeda Research and Development Company
    Israel Bio-Engineering Project v. Amgen, Inc.
    Weil obtained summary judgment in the trial court, eliminating a critical challenge to client Yeda’s ownership claims to the patent covering Amgen’s blockbuster biotech drug Enbrel®. On appeal, Weil’s appellate team secured the Federal Circuit’s affirmance. more
  • Yahoo!
    Netdate of Texas, L.L.C. v. Yahoo! Inc., et al.
    Represented Yahoo! in patent infringement action involving internet personals services.
  • Samsung Electronics Co. Ltd.
    Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. v. Rambus Inc.
    In this decisive victory for Samsung, Weil persuaded the US District Court to estop Rambus from asserting infringement against Samsung based on Rambus’ unclean hands, spoliation of evidence, and misconduct. more
  • Applera Corporation
    Beckman Coulter, Inc. v. Applera Corp.
    Patent infringement action brought by Beckman Coulter. Obtained settlement on eve of trial granting Applera license and $20 million. more
  • Thomson Licensing Inc.
    In the Matter of Certain Color TV Receivers and Color Display Monitors and Components
    Thomson, the successor-in-interest to a large patent portfolio from GE and RCA, retained Weil Gotshal after two major Taiwanese manufacturers failed to take licenses. At the close of the ITC trial against the major manufacturers, they agreed to take licenses. Weil Gotshal’s litigation success enabled Thomson to leverage its patent position against others, who subsequently agreed to take licenses. more
  • Applera Corporation
    Bio-Rad Laboratories, Inc. v. Applera Corp.
    Defended Applera against allegations that Applera’s principal DNA analysis machines infringed a patent that purported to claim DNA sequencing methods and that certain chromatography machines infringed a Bio-Rad trademark. more
  • Microsoft Corporation
    American Video Graphics, L.P. v. Microsoft Corporation
    Secured a favorable claim construction ruling for Microsoft in a litigation in which the plaintiff accused Microsoft Windows of infringing plaintiff’s patents. more
  • Cisco Systems Inc.
    Storage Technology Corp. v. Cisco Systems, Inc.
    Successfully defended Cisco Systems, Inc., against two patent infringement claims by Storage Technology Corporation, in a suit for damages of over $3 billion. Weil Gotshal’s team obtained a jury verdict of non-infringement – and invalidity.
  • Westvaco Corporation
    Westvaco v. Viva Magnetics
    Successfully obtained settlement on behalf of Westvaco Corp. in an international patent infringement action against Viva Magnetics Ltd. involving DVD containers.
  • E*TRADE Securities LLC
    Datamize Inc. v. Fidelity Brokerage Services LLC, et al. and E*TRADE Securities LLC, et al.
    Obtained favorable settlement in defense of E*TRADE Securities LLC against patent infringement allegations. more
  • Applera Corporation
    Applera Corporation and Roche Molecular Systems, Inc. v. MJ Research Inc., et al.
    To help protect Nobel Prize-winning polymerase chain reaction technologies, Weil was brought in as trial counsel shortly before trial. We secured a $35 million jury trial verdict, including enhancements, on behalf of Applera. more
  • Genus Inc.
    ASM America, Inc v. Genus, Inc.
    Successfully defended Genus, Inc. in an infringement action commenced by a high-tech competitor, ASM International N.V. Genus was awarded a judgment of non-infringement of two patents covering Atomic Layer Deposition technology. Summary judgment was affirmed by the Federal Circuit. more
  • Samsung Electronics Co. Ltd. Samsung Electronics America Samsung Semiconductor Inc.
    Samsung Electronics, Ltd., et al. v. Tessera Inc. et al.
    Represented Samsung Electronics, Ltd, one of the leading electronics manufacturers in the world, and several of its US affiliates, in a patent license agreement dispute with Tessera Inc. The case settled favorably for Samsung. more
  • Applera Corporation and other Applera entities
    United States of America, ex rel. Promega Corporation, et al. v. Hoffmann-La Roche, Inc., et al.
    Represented Applera in a qui tam action brought under the False Claims Act by Promega Corporation, claiming that all sales to the United States government by Applera and Hoffman La-Roche (“Roche”) of Taq, an enzyme used for performing DNA amplification, contained a fraudulently obtained embedded overcharge more
  • Broadcom Corporation
    Agere Systems, Inc. v. Broadcom Corporation
    Filed a declaratory judgment action seeking noninfringement and invalidity of nine patents and asserting infringement of four Broadcom patents. After extensive briefing and tutorials in multiple areas of technology, Weil Gotshal succeeded in securing a favorable claim construction ruling, which was the basis for multiple requests for summary judgment. more
  • Genentech Inc.
    Genentech, Inc. v. Columbia University
    Acted as lead counsel for declaratory judgment plaintiff, Genentech, in patent invalidity action against Columbia University involving co-transformed mammalian cells for gene expression.
  • Applera Corporation - Applied Biosystems Group
    Henry Huang v. California Institute of Technology, Applied Biosystems, et al.
    In a case that challenged the inventorship on the key patents behind the DNA sequencers that fueled the biotech revolution and enabled the decoding of the human genome, Weil’s team won a complete victory for Applera at trial. more
  • Cisco Systems Inc.
    Alcatel NV. v. Cisco Systems International B.V.
    Weil Gotshal drove an international patent battle to successful conclusion for Cisco, securing a verdict of no infringement in a major patent litigation brought by Alcatel in The Hague, Netherlands. The win defeated a request for an injunction which, if granted, would have stopped the sale of a range of Cisco products throughout Europe. more
  • Micron Technology Inc. and National Semiconductor Corp.
    Micron Technology, National Semiconductor Corp.
    Secured favorable settlements for Micron and National in a high-stakes patent infringement case. more
  • Matsushita Electric Industrial Co. Ltd. JVC
    Dynacore Holdings Corp. v. U.S. Phillips Corp., et al.
    Successfully defended Matsushita Electric Corp. of America and JVC Americas Corp. in a patent infringement suit in which potential damages were estimated to be in the hundreds of millions of dollars. The dismissal was subsequently affirmed by the US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit. more
  • Applera Corporation - Applied Biosystems Group
    Symyx Technologies, Inc. v. Applera Corporation - Applied Biosystems Group
    Represented Applera Corporation/Applied Biosystems Group in arbitration with its joint venture partner, Symyx Technologies, Inc. We successfully defended claims for tens of millions of dollars in damages and royalties based on, as well as co-marketing rights to, the polymer used in Applied Biosystems' leading capillary electrophoresis instruments.
  • Applera Corporation - Applied Biosystems Group
    Illumina, Inc. v. Applera Corporation - Applied Biosystems Group
    Successfully defended Applera Corporation against allegations of fraud and unethical conduct stemming from a Joint Development Agreement entered into between the parties. more
  • Reuters America Limited|Reuters Limited
    Reuters v. Moneyline
    Weil Gotshal successfully represented Reuters Limited and Reuters America Limited in complex arbitration of a dispute with Moneyline Telerate Holdings involving software and data licensing, and contracts for provision of network services. The arbitrator decided the great majority of the disputes, including virtually all of the most commercially significant issues, in favor of Reuters. more
  • ArthroCare Corporation
    ArthroCare Corporation. v. Smith & Nephew, Inc.
    Following a jury trial against industry leader Smith & Nephew, Weil Gotshal secured for client ArthroCare a resounding jury verdict that found that all 16 of the asserted claims of ArthroCare’s patents were infringed – and were valid. The verdict was upheld in significant part on appeal. more
  • Pilot Pen
    Pilot Pen v. Benny Indus.
    Lead counsel for Pilot Pen in successful trademark infringement action against Benny Industries.
  • Rita Medical Systems Inc.
    RITA Medical Systems, Inc. v. RTC
    Obtained favorable settlement on behalf of RITA Medical Systems, Inc. in dispute with Boston Scientific Corporation and other parties, concerning RITA's patents relating to radiofrequency ablation of liver and other soft tissue tumors. more
  • DirecTV/Thomson Inc./Hughes Electronics
    Broadcast Innovation, LLC v. Echostar, Hughes Electronics Corp., DirecTV, Inc.,Thomson Mulitmedia, Inc. and Pegasus Satellite Television, Inc.,
    Weil Gotshal defended DirecTV, Inc., Thomson, Inc., and Hughes Electronics Corp. against claims by Broadcast Innovation, L.L.C. of infringement of patents relating to satellite signal decoder boxes for descrambling pay television signals. After summary judgment of noninfringement, and oral argument on claim construction issues, Broadcast Innovation significantly reduced its settlement demand, resulting in a very favorable resolution of the action. more
  • Westvaco Corporation
    In re Certain Compact Disc & DVD Holders
    Represented Westvaco Corporation, petitioner in section 337 design patent infringement proceeding at International Trade Commission against eight accused infringers. Obtained favorable settlements with or exclusion orders against all respondents. more
  • Rixon Inc.
    Racal Milgo, Inc. v. Rixon, Inc.
    Counsel for Rixon, Inc. in defense of suit by Racal Milgo, Inc. for infringement of a patent relating to modems. The patent was found to be invalid, resulting in a substantial payment to Rixon in settlement of its counterclaim.
  • Bert-Co Inc.
    AGI, Inc. v. Bert-Co, Inc.
    Obtained favorable settlement for Bert-Co, Inc. against a claim of patent infringement.
  • Donnelly Corporation
    Donnelly v. Reitter & Schefenacker
    Weil Gotshal represented automobile part manufacturer Donnelly in a patent dispute with competitor Reitter & Schefenacker, which had prompted lawsuits in both the US and Germany. The dispute involved allegations by both parties of patent infringement, as well as RICO and breach of contract claims, with damage claims exceeding $900 million. Donnelly prevailed in early court decisions, which led to mediation, dismissal of litigation, and highly favorable settlement terms. more
  • Walt Disney Co. ABC & ESPN
    ACTV, Inc. v. Walt Disney Co., ABC & ESPN
    Represented Walt Disney Co., ABC, and ESPN in one of the first cases to test the applicability of patents to the evolving convergence of television and the Internet. In a hotly contested case, the plaintiffs sought both injunctive relief and treble damages relating to the airing of ABC's hit show "Who Wants to be a Millionaire," as well as the broadcasts of "Sunday Night Football" and "Monday Night Football" with related web pages. We obtained summary judgment of non-infringement of each of the three asserted patents for our clients, resulting in a complete dismissal of the case. more
  • Intel Corporation
    TechSearch, L.L.C. v. Intel Corp.
    Weil Gotshal won summary judgment of non-infringement for Intel (affirmed by the Federal Circuit) on a claim for $8.2 billion accusing virtually all of its microprocessors of patent infringement. This win was labeled the “Defense Victory of the Year” by the San Francisco Daily Journal. more
  • American Eagle Outfitters
    Abercrombie & Fitch v. American Eagle Outfitters
    We secured summary judgment, affirmed by the Sixth Circuit, for American Eagle in a case in which Abercrombie claimed that American Eagle was infringing its trade dress.
  • Geron Corporation
    Wisconsin Alumni Research Foundation v. Geron
    Advised Geron Corporation in its dispute with the Wisconsin Alumni Research Foundation regarding Geron’s exclusive rights under certain human embryonic stem cell patents held by WARF.
  • Merrill Lynch Pierce Fenner & Smith Inc.
    Mopex v. Chicago Stock Exchange
    Successful settlement of federal court case involving allegations of infringement of a financial instrument patent.
  • Austoft Industries Ltd
    Austoft v. Cameco, Inc.
    Lead Counsel for Austoft in a suit for infringement by Cameco, Inc. of patents covering sugarcane harvesting machines. Obtained consent judgment of patent validity and infringement.
  • Burroughs Corporation
    Hemstreet v. Burroughs Corp.
    Acted as co-lead counsel in the successful defense of Burroughs Corp. in an action by Hemstreet concerning a patent on optical character recognition. The patent was held unenforceable on summary judgment because of inequitable conduct, resulting in a very favorable settlement for client-defendant after reversal on appeal.
  • Chromalloy Gas Turbine Corp.
    Chromalloy Gas Turbine Corp. v. United Technologies Corp.
    Obtained a favorable settlement for Chromalloy Gas Turbine Corp. in a complex patent, trade secret and licensing dispute against United Technologies Corp. relating to manufacture and repair of aircraft engine components.
  • Computer Associates International Inc.
    AJV Corp. v. Computer Associates International, Inc.
    We successfully defended Computer Associates in a suit in which it was alleged that the company infringed the plaintiff’s mark.
  • Diebold Inc.
    Stambler v. Diebold, Inc.
    Obtained summary judgment on issue of unenforceability on behalf of Diebold, Inc. for a patent concerning the use of encryption on ATM bank cards. The decision was subsequently affirmed by the US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit.
  • Exxon Research & Eng' Co.
    Exxon Research & Eng' Co. v. United States
    Represented Plaintiff, Exxon in patent infringement suit involving gas-to-liquids technology. Obtained favorable reversal from Court of Appeals for Exxon Research & Eng'g Co., after which the Government settled on client-plaintiff's fundamental patents directed to petrochemical processes.
  • Giovanola Freres SA
    Giovanola Freres SA v. Bollinger & Mabillard Ingenieurs Conseils, S.A.
    Lead Counsel for Giovanola Freres SA in infringement action concerning the company's roller coaster patent. Obtained favorable settlement of patent and trade secret litigations in the US and Switzerland.
  • Lee Apparel Co.
    Golden Trade S.r.L. v. Lee Apparel Co., VF Corp.
    Lead counsel for defendant Lee Apparel Co. in partial summary judgment victory holding that plaintiff's patent on textile processing failed to meet written-description requirement of Patent Act. The partial summary judgment ultimately resulted in a very favorable settlement.
  • Pirelli Cable Corporation
    Pirelli Cable Corp. v. Ciena Corp.
    Represented Pirelli in five actions in District Courts in Delaware and Virginia, as well as in the International Trade Commission, involving approximately ten patents relating to fiber-optic cable communications systems and networks. Pirelli obtained a settlement of $30 million plus a running royalty.
  • Matsushita Electric Industrial Co. Ltd.
    Matsushita Electronics Corp. v. Loral Corp.
    Successfully obtained summary judgment on behalf of Matsushita Electronics Corp., establishing a license defense against patent infringement and tortious interference with business relations claims.
  • The NutraSweet Co.
    United Sweetener v. The NutraSweet Co.
    Acted as co-lead counsel in representation of The NutraSweet Co. against United Sweetener in attack on client's basic patent on NutraSweet sweetener, resulting in plaintiff abandoning declaratory-judgment action and staying out of the market until expiration of extended term of patent.
  • Refac International Ltd.
    Refac International Ltd. v. Lotus Development Corp. et al.
    Successfully obtained dismissal of patent-infringement action against Refac International Ltd. and other defendants because of plaintiff's champerty in acquiring patent on spreadsheet software.
  • Refac International Ltd.
    Refac International Ltd. v. IBM Corp. et al.
    Obtained summary judgment on behalf of Refac International Ltd. against patent infringement allegations by IBM Corp. The court held there was no valid patent on the digital encryption technology at issue due to the patentee's failure to provide an adequate written description.
  • Burroughs Corporation
    A. B. Dick Co. v. Burroughs Corporation
    Represented Burroughs Corporation as co-lead counsel in a landmark decision affirming unenforceability of basic patent on ink-jet printers because of inventor's inequitable conduct.
  • CBS Corporation|ABC Inc.|NBC Universal Inc.
    In re: Rembrandt Technologies Patent Litigation
    Representing television networks ABC, CBS and NBC and serving as co-lead counsel for defense group in multidistrict litigation in which plaintiff alleged that compliance with the FCC-mandated digital television standard constitutes infringement of plaintiff’s patent.
  • Cetus
    In re Doxorubicin
    Helped to represent respondent Cetus in ITC section 337 investigation involving a patent on the oncology drug doxorubicin (Adriamycin®), participating extensively in international discovery proceedings on numerous issues including patent applicant’s knowledge of material undisclosed prior art. The ITC ultimately held the patent unenforceable based on this evidence.
  • Dr. Eckhard Alt
    In the matter of the Arbitration of: Dr. Eckhard U. Alt (for the Stockholder Representative Committee of Inflow Dynamics, Inc.) v. Boston Scientific Corporation
    Arbitration against Boston Scientific Corporation regarding rightful use of patents under terms of contract. Arbitration is pending.
  • Fiserv Inc.
    Florida Software Services, Inc. v. Fiserv, Inc.
    Defended Fiserv, Inc. against claims for breach of software licenses, misappropriation of trade secrets, unfair trade practices, conversion and unjust enrichment, brought by Florida Software Services, Inc.
  • Garmin
    Western Atlas v. Garmin
    Retained as lead patent counsel for defendant Garmin in case involving patents on global positioning system receivers. Weil Gotshal promptly identified prior art, invalidating all of the asserted patents, resulting in a prompt successful mediated settlement.
  • InfoNXX Inc.
    Metro One Telecommunications, Inc. v. InfoNXX, Inc.
    Lead patent counsel, representing InfoNXX, Inc., in offensive and defensive patent infringement actions involving wireless telephony technology. After the initial infringement suit was filed against InfoNXX, Weil Gotshal developed an offensive strategy that resulted in a favorable settlement of both cases.
Weil, Gotshal & Manges LLP

This website is maintained by Weil, Gotshal & Manges LLP in New York, NY.
Copyright © 2013 Weil, Gotshal & Manges LLP, All Rights Reserved. The contents of this website may contain
attorney advertising under the laws of various states. Prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome.