Site People

Manufacturing

Manufacturing companies operate in highly competitive marketplaces and require constant innovation. Fish is at the top of the list of law firms representing the nation's leading innovators and is in a position to leverage the educational and experiential expertise of the firm's attorneys in all manufacturing industries.

Our breadth of knowledge allows us to act as key advisors and counselors to our clients, helping them to develop new products, enhance processing and supply chain systems, acquire new resources, and outsource strategically.

The list below includes some of the industries in which our clients produce either their own or other companies' products:

Aerospace, automotive, and other transportation components
Biotechnology
Chemicals
Computer and telecommunications hardware
Consumer Products
Construction equipment
Energy
Medical devices
Pharmaceuticals

Clients in these industries receive the full range of the firm's services: regulatory, trademark, and patent prosecution, as well as litigation, corporate, and more. Our manufacturing clients are located in both the United States and a number of foreign countries and are served by the attorneys in all our domestic offices and our attorneys in Munich, Germany.

Particular challenges for companies with cross-border operations are the growing regulatory challenges related to homeland security measures and the increasing enforcement of the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act (FCPA). Clients leverage our expertise as they develop policies and procedures that will enable them to operate as efficiently as possible within these and other regulatory and legal constraints, as well as to defend themselves against claims of alleged violations by regulatory, judicial, and administrative agencies.

We are also one of the leading firms representing clients before the International Trade Commission, a critical venue for clients with cross-border operations.

Doden v. Harris Steel, Inc
Fish represents Harris Steel, Inc., a subsidiary of Nucor Corporation, in the Delaware Court of Chancery in a lawsuit arising out of a stock purchase agreement pursuant to which Harris Steel acquired plaintiff’s steel fabrication and distribution business for approximately $185 million, subject to post-closing adjustments in accordance with an accountant resolution procedure set forth in the stock purchase agreement.

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.

Veeco Instruments Inc. v. Asylum Research Corp.
Fish defended Asylum in a patent litigation and trade secret matter relating to atomic force microscopes. The case settled favorably on eve of trial.

Bright Ideas Co. Inc. v. Target Corp.
Fish successfully obtained affirmance of district court’s summary judgment of invalidity as to all claims asserted against client Target. The patent at issue involved child car seats.

KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc. (127 S.Ct. 1727)
Fish submitted an amicus brief on behalf of 3M, General Electric, Proctor & Gamble, DuPont, and Johnson & Johnson.

E.I. DuPont de Nemours & Co., Inc. v. Mechanical Integrity, LLC
Fish represented third-party defendant NDT Equipment Services, Ltd. and one of its directors in the District of Delaware in a third party complaint brought against them relating to an alleged pipeline spill of chloroform. Fish obtained a dismissal on jurisdictional grounds.

Andersen Corp. v. Fiber Composites LLC (474 F.3d 1361)
Fish successfully obtained reversal of district court’s summary judgment of infringement against client Fiber Composites with respect to two patents and affirmance of summary judgment of non-infringement in favor of Fiber Composites on four other patents. The patents at issue related to composite materials and structures made from them.

Steel Inv. Co. v. Smith, et al., Del. Ch., No. 2511-N.
Fish was counsel to certain directors of Troy Corporation in a derivative action alleging that those directors breach of fiduciary duties. The case was dismissed and upheld on appeal.

MBO Laboratories, Inc. v. Becton, Dickinson & Co. (474 F.3d 1323)
Fish successfully obtained reversal of much of district court’s claim construction, and obtained a judgment vacating the resulting stipulated summary judgment of non-infringement against client MBO Laboratories. The patent at issue involved hypodermic safety syringes.

MedImmune, Inc. v. Genentech, Inc. (127 S.Ct. 764)
Fish submitted an amicus brief on behalf of 3M, General Electric, Proctor & Gamble, and DuPont.

Cartier, et al v. Allied Marketing Group
Fish represented Allied Marketing Group in the Southern District of New York in a trade dress infringement action by Cartier claiming that a watch sold by mail order too closely resembled its famous (and enormously more expensive) Pasha de Cartier. Defeated a motion for preliminary injunction in a case that later settled.

Honeywell Inc. v. Universal Avionics, et al.
Fish successfully represented Sandel in securing a jury verdict of non-infringement on all remaining claims asserted by Honeywell stemming from its original complaint filed against Sandel in 2002 asserting infringement of five Honeywell patents. Other of the asserted patent claims were previously held invalid on summary judgment and the invalidity findings were affirmed on appeal. The patents-in-suit related to FAA mandated Terrain Awareness and Warning Systems ("TAWS").

Certain Foam Footwear (337-TA-567)
Represented respondent footwear manufacturer Cheng’s Enterprises in patent-based unfair importation action brought by Crocs. Case dismissed.

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.

Schoon, et al. v. Troy Corp.
Fish represented Troy Corporation in an action in the Delaware Court of Chancery brought under Section 145 of the DGCL involving the advancement and indemnification of litigation costs incurred by current and former corporate directors of Troy Corporation. Fish obtained partial summary judgment for Troy Corporation, and obtained dismissal of an appeal, notwithstanding amicus briefing by the National Association of Corporate Directors challenging the decision in favor of Troy Corporation.

Troy Corp. v. Peter J. Solomon Co. Ltd., et al.
Fish represents Troy Corporation in a lawsuit in the Delaware Court of Chancery asserting breach of contract and breach of fiduciary duty claims surrounding the improper disclosure of Troy Corporation’s confidential and proprietary information and trade secrets.

Certain Baseband Processor Chips & Chipsets (337-TA-543)
Represented LG Electronics as intervenor in a patent case brought by Broadcom against Qualcomm accusing Qualcomm's baseband processor chips, which are components used in LG's cellular telephone handsets.

Schoon v. Troy Corp
Fish represented Troy Corporation in a lawsuit in the Delaware Court of Chancery brought under Section 220 of the DGCL by a director and stockholder to inspect corporate books and records. Fish obtained the first published post-trial opinion denying statutory inspection rights to a conflicted corporate director who sought corporate books and records for undisclosed and improper purposes.

Certain Disc Drivers, Components Thereof, and Products Containing Same (337-TA-516)
Represented complainant Seagate Technology against Cornice alleging infringement of seven patents relating to disc drive apparatuses and magnetic recording media. Cornice agreed to cease import of named products after first day of trial.

Certain Light-Emitting Diodes and Products Containing the Same (337-TA-512)
Prosecuted patent infringement action on behalf of German companies Osram and Osram Opto Semiconductors against Malaysian company Dominant Semiconductors relating to light emitting diodes (LEDs). Nine patents found valid and infringed. Successfully obtained infringement finding against all accused products in the complaint. Obtained exclusion order against relevant LEDs.

Certain Display Controllers and Products Containing Same (337-TA-491)
Prosecuted patent infringement action on behalf of Genesis Microchip against Media Reality Technologies and Trumpion Microelectronics relating to display controller technology. Obtained exclusion order against accused products.

Manufacturing

News

Events