Site People

Litigation

Fish has a global litigation practice with a proven record of successfully handling high-tech, high-stakes matters. We have a long history of litigating for technology pioneers, from the Wright brothers to today's innovators in life sciences, electronics, medical devices, and more. Our trial skills are enriched by our broad and deep technical patent expertise - an expertise that sets us apart from general practice firms.

Fish recognizes that the only purpose of litigation is to achieve the client's specific business objectives. We prepare every case with those business objectives in mind. When we can best serve our clients by resolving disputes short of trial, we do so.

We enforce and defend an array of intellectual property claims for clients, ranging from some of the world's largest corporations to individual inventors and innovators. Surveys show that we handle more patent litigation than does any other firm in the world, in both federal district courts and at the International Trade Commission.

In re Brimonidine
Represented Allergan in multi-district litigation regarding multiple ANDAs for Allergan's glaucoma drugs ALPHAGAN® P 0.15% and ALPHAGAN® P 0.1%. Verdict of infringement, validity and enforceability on all five patents-in-suit.

BBU Inc., et al. v. Sara Lee Corp., et al.
Successfully represented BBU in a trademark infringement and unfair competition action relating to its SANDWICH THINS trademark. Obtained a preliminary injunction enjoining Sara Lee's sale of a competing bread product under the THINS mark. Decision affirmed on appeal by the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals.

Gaylord v. United States
Representation of Mr. Gaylord in a copyright infringement suit related to a 2002 first-class stamp issued by the United States Postal Service that commemorated the 50th anniversary of the armistice of the Korean War. The stamp featured a photo of the 19-soldier sculpture of the Korean War Memorial, created by Mr. Gaylord, from the National Mall in Washington D.C. (Fed. Cir. docket no: 2009-5044)

Smith & Nephew Inc. et al v. Arthrex Inc.
Fish represented plaintiffs Smith & Nephew and Dr. John Hayhurst on a patent related to suture anchors used in orthopedic surgery and obtained a $14 million jury verdict for the patentee.

Lucent Technologies Inc., et al. v. Gateway Inc., et al.
Fish successfully obtained affirmance of the district court’s ruling of noninfringement and lack of standing that set aside a $1.52 billion damage award (the largest patent infringement verdict in history) against client Microsoft. The patents at issue related to encoding and decoding of audio into the digital MP3 format. (Fed. Cir. docket nos: 2007-1546, -1580, 2008-1022. Cite: 2008 WL4349236.)

In re Bose
Fish successfully represented Bose in its appeal of the TTAB decision finding fraud and ordering the cancellation of the famous Bose WAVE® trademark registration. The Federal Circuit reversed, finding Bose did not commit fraud, and in doing so clarified the standard for proving fraud on the PTO in trademark cases.

Mars Inc. v. Coin Acceptors Inc.
Successfully obtained affirmance of district court’s award of a 7% reasonable royalty, when the defendant had argued that the royalty was capped at a much lower amount. The patents at issue involved the authentication of coins inserted into vending machines. Fish originally filed this case in January of 1990 on behalf of Mars. The court awarded Mars over $14 million in damages, and then added an additional $12.4 million in prejudgment interest due to the fact that the case was then 17 years old. (Fed Cir. docket nos: 2007-1409, -1436)

Certain Computer Products, Computer Components and Products Containing Same (337-TA-628)
Represented respondent ASUS against IBM in investigation concerning products implementing power supplies, variable speed fans, and Network Address Port Translation. ASUS prevailed on all claims after full hearing on merits. The ALJ’s decision was affirmed by the Commission.

Certain Flash Memory Controllers, Drives, Memory Cards, and Media Players and Products Containing Same (337-TA-619)
Represented respondents Kingston Technology Company and Phison Electronics Corp. in a patent case involving flash memory devices. Final determination of no infringement.

Certain Sucralose, Sweeteners Containing Sucralose, and Related Intermediate Compounds Thereof (337-TA-604)
Represented respondent JK Sucralose in case involving artificial sweeteners. After a full hearing, no violation was found.

Accolade Systems LLC v. Citrix Systems Inc.
Obtained summary judgment in favor of client Citrix releasing Citrix from all asserted claims in software patent infringement suit.

Apple Inc. v. Podfitness Inc.
Fish successfully obtained a consent judgment and permanent injunction on behalf of client Apple in a trademark infringement and dilution action relating to its iPod trademark and ear bud trade dress.

DeepNines Inc. v. McAfee Inc.
Fish represented plaintiff DeepNines in patent litigation related to internet security and obtained a jury verdict of $18 million on direct infringement, induced infringement, and contributory infringement, as well as false marking for the client.

3M Co. v. Rollit LLC, et al.
Fish obtained a preliminary injunction for 3M against Rollit, preliminarily enjoining the defendant from using the trademark ROLLIT and 3M’s Canary Yellow color trademark in connection with sticky notes.

Witness Systems Inc. v. NICE Systems Inc., et al.
Fish successfully represented Witness in a patent infringement case involving speech analytics. The case was tried verdict and the jury found infringement and awarded precise damages demand advanced at trial.

Repligen Corp., et al. v. Bristol-Myers Squibb Co.
Fish represented plaintiffs Repligen and the Regents of the University of Michigan in a patent case relating to the treatment of rheumatoid arthritis and obtained a highly favorable settlement for the client.

MasterCard International Inc. v. Nader 2000
Fish defeated an effort by MasterCard International to prevent Ralph Nader’s presidential campaign from continuing to run a television advertisement that parodied MasterCard’s “Priceless” ad campaign. MasterCard sued, alleging infringement and dilution of its trademarks under the Lanham Act and infringement under the Copyright Act. MasterCard had been using its $250 million “Priceless” ad campaign since 1997. Judge George B. Daniels of the US District Court for the Southern District of New York denied MasterCard’s motion for a Temporary Restraining Order, finding that there was insufficient evidence that MasterCard would suffer irreparable injury if Nader used the parody as part of his presidential campaign

Litigation Areas

Animation and Graphics

Fish Global

Litigation

News

Events

Litigation Areas