Site People

Patent Litigation

Fish has the premier patent litigation practice in the world. Clients choose us because we have a record of obtaining excellent results in cases involving complex technology. We offer clients the benefits of global experience and familiarity with local courts and practice. Our substantial trial experience enables us to present complex technology issues in a form that a lay judge or jury can understand. We have successfully litigated patents owned by large and small corporations in virtually every industry and technology area.

Our success has been widely recognized. Corporate Counsel ranked us as the most active patent litigation firm in the US for the past nine years. Our litigation victories have consistently been named to the National Law Journal's biggest winners list for more than a decade. And Managing Intellectual Property magazine named us the top patent litigation firm in the country.

We represent clients in federal and state trial courts throughout the United States, the Supreme Court of the United States, the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, the United States International Trade Commission, the Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences, the European Court of Justice, the European Federal Supreme Court, the German Federal Patent Court, the German district courts, and numerous arbitration and mediation boards and panels.

Chicago Board Options Exchange, Incorporated v. International Securities Exchange

Represented CBOE in a patent case related to a fully computerized exchange for trading securities. In March 2013, argued and obtained successful pretrial rulings on motions in limine that forced ISE to consent to judgment in favor of CBOE moments before opening statements were to begin.

Toshiba Corp. v. Imation Corp., et al.

Represented multiple defendants in a patent infringement case involving DVD technology. The defendants won summary judgment of non-infringement on all three patents. On appeal, the decision was affirmed-in-part, vacated-in-part, and remanded. During trial, two defendants were dismissed, two were found not liable on all counts, and the Court determined that Toshiba did not prove any damages against the remaining defendants.

Allergan, Inc., et al v. Apotex Corp., et al.
Represented plaintiffs in Hatch-Waxman action over ANDAs for eyelash drug LATISSE®. Judgment entered against generic defendants.

Halo Electronics Inc. v. Bel Fuse Inc., et al.
Counsel for Halo Electronics, a family-run business, in a long-running patent case related to packaging for surface mount magnetic components used in electronics products. In November 2012, a jury found defendant Pulse Electronics liable for willful infringement on three Halo patents, confirmed the patents’ validity, and awarded past damages. At that time, five other competitors had licensed the Halo patent portfolio.

St. Jude Medical, et al. v. Volcano Corp.
Defended Volcano Corp. in patent litigation and jury trial related to pressure sensing guide wires used to diagnose heart problems. At trial, jury found two St. Jude patents invalid, two not infringed; a fifth patent was declared not infringed by the court on the eve of trial.

Tarkus Imaging, Inc. v. Adobe Sys., Inc. et al.
Represented Adobe Systems, Inc. in patent litigation in the District of Delaware over Adobe Photoshop, one of the leading digital imaging products worldwide. Won a jury verdict of no infringement.

Prometheus Laboratories Inc. v. Mayo Collaborative Services, et al.
Fish defended Mayo in an action for patent infringement over metabolite assays for 6-mercaptopurine drugs. We argued and obtained summary judgment of invalidity for the client. Appealed to the Supreme Court, which ruled unanimously in favor of Mayo, finding the Prometheus patents described a law of nature, not patentable under Section 101 of U.S. patent law.

IMRA America Inc. v. IPG Photonics Corp.
Defended IPG Photonics in a patent litigation matter related to rare earth-doped high power optical fiber lasers and amplifiers, such as for use in cutting, welding, and telecommunications. Jury verdict of non-infringement.

Eolas Technologies Inc. et al. v. Adobe Systems Incorporated et al.
Represented Adobe and Go Daddy in a multi-defendant, multi-patent litigation in the Eastern District of Texas relating to interactive content in browsers. Jury verdict of invalidity of all asserted claims.

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.

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.)

SRI International, Inc. v. Symantec Corporation and Internet Security Systems, Inc
Fish successfully represented SRI International as co-lead counsel in the District of Delaware in securing a jury verdict of infringement and patent validity against both defendants Symantec and ISS. Technology at issue related to computer network intrusion detection. The case is currently in the post-trial motions stage and the issues of damages and willful infringement have been bifurcated.

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.

Alzheimer’s Institute of America v. Mayo Clinic, et al
Fish represented Mayo Clinic and Myriad Pharmaceuticals in an action for patent infringement and breach of contract over Myriad's lead candidate for Alzheimer's, FLURIZAN. After securing arbitration over breach of contract claim, we tried and obtained a decision for defendants. The patent infringement action pending.

Encyclopaedia Britannica Inc. v. Magellan Navigation Inc., et al.
Represented TomTom in patent infringement case involving navigation devices. Won summary judgment of invalidity of two Britannica patents.

JuxtaComm Technologies Inc. v. Ascential Software Corp., et al.
Represented Microsoft in a multi-defendant patent infringement case filed in the Eastern District of Texas involving database technologies and data integration software. Case settled favorably.

MHL TEK LLC v. Nissan Motor Co., et al.
Represented Porsche and Subaru in a patent infringement case relating to tire pressure monitoring systems.

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.

Fenner Investment Ltd. v. Microsoft Corp., et al.
Represented Microsoft in a patent infringement case relating to an interface for joysticks used in Microsoft's Xbox game systems. The case was won on summary judgment the day before trial was scheduled to begin.

Netcraft Corporation v. AT&T Inc., et al.
Represented plaintiff Netcraft in patent litigation involving Internet billing methods. Settled favorably.

Parallel Networks, LLC v. Netflix, Inc., et al.
Representing Netflix, Orbitz, and Priceline against alleged infringement of two patents relating to dynamic webpage creation.

Northeastern University, et al. v. Google, Inc.
Defending Google against claims for patent infringement. The technology at issue relates to techniques for searching large, distributed databases.

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.

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").

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.

NetRatings, Inc. v. WebTrends, Inc.
Defended WebTrends in a patent infringement case relating to web analytics and page tagging. Case settled.

Yodlee v. Ablaise Ltd. and General Inventors Institute A, Inc.
Representing Yodlee in a declaratory judgment action arising from Ablaise’s allegations of patent infringement concerning online data aggregation and banking services.

HyperPhrase Technologies, LLC and HyperPhrase, Inc. v. Google, Inc.
Successfully defended Google, Inc. in a multi-patent case brought by HyperPhrase. The accused technology included Google Search, AdSense, and the autolink feature of the Google toolbar. Won summary judgment of noninfringement of all asserted claims.

Arendi U.S.A. Inc., et al. v. Microsoft Corp., et al.
Defended Microsoft in a patent case relating to Office XP "smart tag" technology, which involves associating actions with certain content in an electronic document. Won jury verdict of non-infringement (the first ever for Microsoft) after a two week trial. Verdict selected by the National Law Journal as one of the ten top defense verdicts of 2004.

NetJumper Software L. L. C. v. Google, Incorporated
Defending Google, Inc. in a patent case brought by NetJumper Software, L.L.C. relating to methods for navigating among search results in a web browser.

Uniloc USA Inc., et al. v. Microsoft Corp., et al.
Defending Microsoft in patent infringement lawsuit accusing Microsoft Product Activation. District court granted post-trial JMOL of non-infringement and no willfulness, along with, in the alternative, a new trial. Appeal currently pending before the Federal Circuit.

Sybase, Inc. v. Vertica Systems, Inc. (E.D. Texas)
Successfully defended Vertica in bet-the-company litigation involving two patents and column-oriented databases. Obtained summary judgment of invalidity on one half of one patent and a stipulation of no infringement based on the Court’s claim construction on the other half. Case settled on favorable, but confidential, license terms one week before scheduled invalidity hearing on second patent.

Litigation

Animation & Graphics

Fish Global

Patent Litigation

News/Events

Events