Cadwalader's Intellectual Property Practice Group provides true full-service IP legal counsel for its clients and is known for its depth of experience and exceptional capabilities in intellectual property matters. Our experience ranges from patent trials in district courts, in the ITC, in WIPO arbitrations and in a host of European tribunals, to the preparation and prosecution of patent and trademark applications as well as copyright protection, to strategic counseling and licensing advice for our clients. The breadth of technology handled by lawyers in the Group is virtually unbounded, extending from simple mechanical and electro-mechanical subject matters to computer hardware/software, to cellular telephone and semiconductor technologies, to sophisticated medical devices, to complex biotechnology matters handled by our lawyers with Ph. D. degrees, to chemical and pharmaceutical matters.

With nearly 40 lawyers, Cadwalader's IP Practice Group helps Fortune 500 clients protect their bottom lines, whether that involves enforcing or defending IP claims in litigation and trials, providing expert opinions, evaluating, selling, or licensing intellectual property, obtaining comprehensive/strategic IP protection, or conducting due diligence.  They have gained particularly extensive experience in the complexities of dealing with IP rights in bankruptcy proceedings where there has been an acute demand for skilled IP lawyers capable of advising clients in the disposition of IP rights in Bankruptcy.  They are also highly experienced in handling IP issues abroad and frequently partner with local counsel in a large number of foreign countries to direct and coordinate protection and enforcement of our clients' important IP rights around the world (including trials seeking preliminary relief and/or cross-border injunctions), as well as nullity, cancellation and opposition proceedings in various courts, patent tribunals and patent offices throughout the world.

Our group not only conducts trials of complex patent and trade secret matters (including "bet-the-company" cases), but we also team up with Cadwalader's other premier practice groups to provide fully-integrated counseling on any matter that might involve intellectual property.  Our IP lawyers are thus able to rely on Cadwalader attorneys in other practice areas and geographical locations, including over 150 commercial litigators and specialists in the areas of antitrust, bankruptcy, corporate law, healthcare, and securities regulation and the like. We have the unique ability to draw upon the experiences and insight of trial lawyers in many of these other disciplines in order to maximize our effectiveness in IP trials.

The IP practice is built around a large and growing number of nationally and internationally recognized intellectual property lawyers, including those with Ph.D., bio-medical, engineering and other advanced scientific degrees, who are highly experienced in the intricacies of patent, trademark, trade secret and copyright law.  Many have served in prestigious leadership positions with, and as members of, key bar associations, including the New York Intellectual Property Law Association "NYIPLA," the American Intellectual Property Law Association "AIPLA," the International Trade Commission Trial Lawyers Association "ITCTLA," the Licensing Executives Society "LES," Intellectual Property Owners"IPO," the Patent, Trademark & Copyright Law and Intellectual Property Sections of New York State Bar Association and American Bar Association.  Their industry expertise is equally wide ranging, covering virtually every sector, including computer hardware/software, all telephone technologies, semi-conductor technology, medical devices, electro-mechanical and mechanical subject matter, consumer electronics, biotechnology, pharmaceuticals, chemicals, and many others. 

The Intellectual Property Group has handled every aspect of complex patent and trade secret disputes and trials before state courts, U.S. District Courts, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, the U.S. International Trade Commission, and the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation, as well as numerous arbitration and mediation proceedings. We have successfully guided clients in determining whether they have a viable, enforceable claim or whether an adversely asserted claim is defensible. 

Our ITC litigators have decades of experience trying patent infringement matters in the ITC including as Staff Counsel for the ITC itself. These complex cases require the experience our attorneys offer, from knowledge of the technology to the experience in the running of the day-to-day efforts in the multi-party, fast-track litigation.

Our IP litigators are also experienced in the supervision, management  and trial of large, complex civil patent cases -- efficiently handling the burdens of enormous discovery in highly contentious litigations, and working closely with technical consultants, experts and in-house counsel to effectively and efficiently further the interests of our clients.  We continually explore state of the art technologies to help us organize and manage discovery and trial materials, design exhibits and communicate with our clients.  We have extensive experience in conducting Markman hearings and achieving successful results that are carried forward into winning summary judgment and other case dispositive motions to significantly reduce or eliminate the issues remaining for trial.  In several instances, our lawyers have achieved summary judgment of an entire case in our clients' favor, and on more than one occasion, have even obtained the affirmative grant of summary judgment of patent infringement in favor of our client.  While we have been particularly effective in utilizing carefully focused motion practice to reduce or eliminate costly discovery and trial issues and burdens, in those cases that have gone to trial, our lawyers have been successful in achieving highly favorable jury verdicts and judgments. 

The IP team also has had intense experience in evaluating the patentability of client inventions, as well as preparing and prosecuting patent applications to protect inventions that are highly valued or of strategic importance.  Among the patents obtained by lawyers in our group is the famous "Priceline Patent" which helped launch one of the leading companies of the internet era.  Other patents have served to protect the core business segments for our clients.  We have also routinely coordinated efforts to optimize corresponding patent protection throughout the world, carefully coordinating the corresponding activities abroad with those of the U.S. counterpart patents.

We have had similar success with trademark matters where we have produced significant results, working diligently to obtain protection for our clients' "house marks" and successfully guiding clients in avoiding potential infringement issues with others in their field, including by facilitating the acquisition of marks that would otherwise present obstacles.  We also provide clients with assistance in worldwide trademark risk analysis, and the clearance and management of domestic and foreign trademark portfolios, trade dress, copyrights, and Internet domain names.  We also manage domestic and foreign registration and enforcement programs and counsel clients on the rebranding of products and services; the clearance of advertising, promotional materials, packaging, and websites; and trademark and copyright licensures and audits. 

In the transactional area, we partner with the firm's bankruptcy, corporate and capital markets (M&A and private equity) attorneys regarding the acquisition and divestiture of intellectual property portfolios and the securitization of revenue streams from intellectual property assets.

A listing of cases which were successfully handled by lawyers at Cadwalader include the following:

Counsel to Plaintiff

• Hoffmann-La Roche Inc. v. Apotex Corp. and Apotex Inc., Civil Action No. 09-647-PGS-ES (D.N.J. 2009). Represented plaintiff Hoffmann-La Roche Inc. ("Roche") in filing Motion for an Order to Show Cause for a preliminary injunction in response to Paragraph IV Certifications filed by defendants Apotex Corp. and Apotex Inc. (collectively "Apotex") to enjoin Apotex from entering the market with its generic drug products prior to the expiration of Roche's patent-in-suit. The case was voluntarily dismissed following the parties' agreement by Stipulation and Order to adjourn the preliminary injunction hearing indefinitely based on Apotex effective representation that it would not commercially launch prior to the expiration of Roche's patent-in-suit.
• Medinol, Ltd. v. Guidant Corp. and Advanced Cardiovascular Systems, Inc., (S.D.N.Y., 03 Civ. 2604 (SAS) (Patent Infringement)). Representing Medinol in patent infringement action involving several patents relating to cardiovascular stents; significant decisions include 2004 U.S. Dist. 19705 (S.D.N.Y. 9/30/04). Favorable Markman decision, 2005 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 35866 (S.D.N.Y. 2005). Defeating summary judgment of invalidity. 2006 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 5812 (S.D.N.Y. 2/10/06). Granted summary judgment of patent infringement.
• Heidelberger Druckmaschinen AG v. Corel Corp. Represented Heidelberger asserting patents covering digital color-image storage technology. (SDNY, settled favorably by creative use of Court mediation process).
• IBM v. Compuware, (04-cv-000357 (CM)(LMS) (S.D.N.Y. 2004)). Represented plaintiff IBM in asserting several patents related to database management, distributed computing and data processing. (Settled)
• Robert Bosch GMBH v. Applied Materials, Inc., 1:02-cv-01523-JJF (D. Del. 2002). Represented Robert Bosch asserting patents covering silicon plasma etching technology. Obtained favorable settlement after pursuing aggressive discovery and motion practice (Settled).
• Roche Palo Alto LLC v. Ranbaxy Laboratories Limited and Ranbaxy Inc., Civil Action No. 06-2003 (FLW) (D.N.J. 2008). Represented plaintiff Roche Palo Alto LLC in patent infringement action against defendants Ranbaxy Laboratories Limited and Ranbaxy Inc., tried before Judge Freda L. Wolfson on December 1 through 22, 2008.
• Symbol Technologies, Inc. v. Bell Data Software Corp., 56 USPQ2d 1534 (E.D. Mich. 2000) (Summary Judgment of Invalidity). Represented Symbol in declaratory judgment action seeking invalidity of defendant's patent covering encoded identification cards. Succeeded in establishing subject matter jurisdiction to challenge patent validity, despite withdrawal of infringement charges by alleging novel theory based on Lanham Act violations. Grant of summary judgment of patent invalidity disposed of case favorably.
• Convolve Inc. v. Compaq Computer Corp., Civil Action No. 5141 (GBD)(JCF) (S.D.N.Y. 2000) Cadwalader represents plaintiffs Convolve, Inc. and Massachusetts Institute of Technology in an intellectual property suit versus Compaq Computer Corp. and Seagate Technology LLC. The case involves technology related to disk drives and includes claims of patent infringement, trade secret misappropriation, breach of contract and other torts. This case is currently scheduled for trial in early 2010.
• Hoffmann-La Roche Inc. v. Genpharm, Inc., 2000 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 8128, 2000 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 8124 (D.N.J. 2000) and 50 F. Supp. 2d 367 (D.N.J. 1999). Represented plaintiff Hoffmann-La Roche Inc. ("Roche") in case involving alleged infringement of Roche's patents directed to a process of manufacturing ticlopidine hydrochloride and successfully dismissing defendant Genpharm's counterclaims.
• Lucent Technologies Inc. v. Micron Technology, Inc., Civil Action No. 99-403 (GMS) (D. Del. 1999). Represented Lucent asserting several semiconductor device and fabrication technology patents as well as breach of license/contract claim; plus defended countersuit of complex telecommunication patents. Also, successfully achieved a rare transfer of Micron's countersuit from ED Va. to Delaware (Settled).
• Stryker Corp. and Osteonics Corp. V. Intermedics Orthopedics, Inc. and Marli Medical Supplies, Inc., 891 F. Supp. 751 (E.D.N.Y. 1995) (Patent infringement). For orthopedic hip replacement patent, award of $72 million in damages after trial, based on novel lost profits theory, plus increased damages and attorneys' fees, after willful infringement was established. Affirmed. 96 F3d. 1409 (Fed. Cir. 1996).
• The Procter & Gamble Company v. Paragon Trade Brands, Inc., 989 F. Supp. 547 (D. Del. 1997). Represented plaintiff The Procter & Gamble Company ("P&G") in bench trial resulting in $178 million awarded to P&G for infringement of P&G's patents directed to barrier leg cuffs for diapers.
• Mobil Oil Corporation v. Amoco Chemicals Corporation, 915 F. Supp. 1333 (D. Del. 1995). Represented plaintiff Mobil Oil Corporation ("Mobil") in bench trial involving damages resulting in $120 million including interest awarded to Mobil for infringement of Mobil's patents directed to ZSM-5 catalysts and processes for conversion of hydrocarbons.
• Stryker Corp. and Osteonics Corp. v. Zimmer, Inc., 741 F. Supp. 509 (D.N.J. 1990) (Patent Infringement). Represented plaintiffs asserting patent for orthopedic hip replacement and defending charge of patent infringement asserted by way of counterclaim; summary judgment dismissing defendants' counterclaim patent for laches and estoppel. Case then settled for $22 million payment to plaintiffs.
• Mobil Oil Corporation v. Amoco Chemicals Corporation, 779 F. Supp. 1429 (D. Del. 1991). Represented plaintiff Mobil Oil Corporation ("Mobil") in bench trial resulting in judgment of infringement of Mobil's patents directed to ZSM-5 catalysts and processes for conversion of hydrocarbons.
• Procter & Gamble Co. v. Nabisco, Keebler & Frito Lay (Patent/Trade Secret) (1984-1989). Represented P&G in highly complex patent and trade secret/industrial espionage case involving food chemistry. Settled on eve of trial for payment to P&G of $125 million, which, at the time, represented the largest settlement in a patent case. Interlocutory published decisions: 604 F. Supp. 1485 (D. Del. 1985); 109 F.R.D. 673 (D. Del. 1986); 711 F. Supp. 759 (D. Del. 1988); 111 F.R.D. 326 (D. Del. 1986); 697 F. Supp. 1360 (D. Del. 1988); and 125 F.R.D. 405 (D. Del. 1987).
• Slater Electric, Inc. v. Thyssen-Bornemisza, Inc., 650 F. Supp. 444 (S.D.N.Y. 1986) (Patent Infringement). Represented plaintiff-patentee on patent covering electrical outlet boxes. Prevailed on rarely issued affirmative grant of summary judgment of patent infringement.
• Lucent v. Gateway, et al., (represented Lucent Technologies Inc.)
• Agere v. Multiplex, (represented Agere Systems Inc.)
• Lucent v. Newbridge, (represented Lucent Technologies, Inc.)
• Agere v. Intersil, (represented Agere Systems Inc.)
• Cadwalader attorneys have also handled confidential arbitrations trials for patent infringements under the rules of the World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO). These arbitrations included both US and European patents.
• Cadwalader is directing several patent litigations on behalf of Medinol Ltd, a medical device innovator and manufacturer, against Abbott Vascular (and affiliates) in Germany, Ireland, Netherlands and United Kingdom.

Counsel for Defendant

• ASUSTek Computer, Inc., ASUS Computer International v. International Business Machines Corporation, Civil Action No. C08-CV-1168-MMC (N.D. Cal.). Representing IBM as declaratory judgment defendant and counterclaim plaintiff patentee.
• Man Roland Inc. v. Goss International Americas, Inc. and Heidelberger Druckmaschinen AG, Civil Action No. C-03-513-SM (D.N.H. 2007). Represented counterclaim-defendant Heidelberger Druckmaschinen AG in successfully dismissing eleven counterclaims for alleged antitrust allegations. See 2006 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 27923; 2006 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 25769; 2006 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 36386; and 2007 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 18112.
• Broadcom Corp. v. Qualcomm, Inc., Civil Case No. SACV05-0467-JVS (C.D. Cal. 2005) (Patent). Defended Qualcomm Inc., a world-leading provider of wireless technology and services, against allegations of patent infringement brought by Broadcom Corp. The case settled on favorable terms.
• Medtronic Vascular, Inc. v. Boston Scientific Corp., Scimed Life Systems, Inc. Boston Scientific Scimed, Inc. and Medinol, Ltd., District of Delaware, Civil Action No. 98-478-SLR (Patent). Defending Medinol against charges of infringement of several patents relating to cardiovascular stents. Obtained summary judgment of no direct infringement and no contributory infringement. Medtronic, 348 F. Supp. 2d 316 (D. Del. 2004); received favorable Markman ruling and grant of summary judgment of no infringement, including no active inducement of infringement. Medronic, Civ. No. 98-478-SLR, 2005 U.S. Dis. LEXIS 822 (D. Del. 2005) (Markman); Medtronic, Civ. No. 98-478-SLR, 2005 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 1157 (D. Del. 2005) (no infringement). (D. Del., 2004-2005).
• Hakim v. Cannon Avent Group, PLC, 2005 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 16827 and 2005 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 16833 (W.D. La. 2005). Represented defendant Cannon Avent Group, PLC ("Avent") in decisive victory granting summary judgment that Avent's accused non-spill cup products do not infringe one of the asserted patents and that the second patent is invalid over the prior art.
• SCO v. IBM, 03-cv-0294 (DAK)(D. Utah 2003). Represented defendant IBM in patent counterclaim involving three patents related to high availability and encoding.
• Compuware v. IBM, 02-cv-70906 (E.D. Mich. 2002). Represented defendant IBM against claims of trade secret theft, copyright infringement and antitrust violations and in asserting counterclaims of infringement of six patents related to graphical user interfaces, error detection and system monitoring.
• Yamaha et al. v. Bombardier et al., 2001 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 24568 (C.D. Cal. 2001). Represented defendants Bombardier Inc., Bombardier Corporation and Bombardier Motor Corporation in action brought by plaintiffs Yamaha Motor Co. and Sanshin Industries Co., Inc. involving allegations of infringement of 33 patents directed to personal watercraft. The case was settled as part of settlement of companion ITC proceeding.
• TM Patents, L.P. v. IBM Corp., 97 Civ. 1529 (CM) (S.D..N.Y. 1997) (Patent Infringement). Represented IBM against charge of infringing four complex computer patents in the area of data storage, memory control and parallel processing data routing . . . whittled down the case until "there [was] not very much to try" (136 F. Supp. 2d at 224) through aggressive discovery and innovative dispositive motion strategies. In case of first impression, the Court rules that patentee is collaterally estopped from challenging claim construction rulings obtained in a prior action that was settled before appeal. 72 F. Supp. 2d 370 (S.D.N.Y. 1999) (includes favorable Markman rulings). Summary judgments dismissing patents following Markman ruling. 121 F. Supp. 2d 349 (S.D.N.Y. 2000) (patent rights also lost for failure to comply with government-grant license requirements) and 136 F. Supp. 2d 209 (S.D.N.Y. 2001).
• Marketel Int'l v. Priceline.com, et al., C-99-0161 (N.D. Cal. 1999) (Trade Secret and Patent Inventorship/Ownership Dispute). Represented Priceline.com against charges of trade secret misappropriation and a patent inventorship dispute including demands for ownership of the famous "Priceline Patent." Summary judgment granted in favor of Priceline.com dismissing all counts. 2001 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 10495 (N.D. Cal. 1/23/01).
• Data General v. IBM Corp., (Patent Infringement - three actions). Represented IBM against charge of infringing a dozen complex computer patents, including patent infringement counterclaim for infringement of seven IBM patents in various aspects of computer technology. Favorable Markman decision at 93 F. Supp. 2d 89 (D. Mass. 2000).
• Pope & Talbot, Inc. v. The Procter & Gamble Company, W.D. Wash., Civil Action No. C97-203 (OD) and D. Del., Civil Action No. 98-CV-504 (RRM) (1998) (Represented defendant/counterclaim plaintiff The Procter & Gamble Company ("P&G") in declaratory judgment action settled by the parties involving P&G's patents directed to barrier leg cuffs for diapers).
• Union Oil Company Of California v. Atlantic Richfield Company, 34 F. Supp. 1208 (C.D. Cal. 1998). Represented defendants Atlantic Richfield Company, Chevron U.S.A., Inc., Exxon Corporation, Mobil Oil Corporation, Shell Oil Products Company and Texaco Refining And Marketing, Inc. in bench trial involving alleged inequitable conduct during prosecution of plaintiff Union Oil Company of California's patent directed to unleaded automotive gasoline.
• Union Oil Company Of California v. Atlantic Richfield Company, 1998 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 22847 (C.D. Cal. March 10, 1998). Represented defendants Atlantic Richfield Company, Chevron U.S.A., Inc., Exxon Corporation, Mobil Oil Corporation, Shell Oil Products Company and Texaco Refining And Marketing, Inc. in jury trial involving alleged infringement of plaintiff Union Oil Company of California's patent directed to unleaded automotive gasoline.
• Square D. v. Slater Electric, Inc., (Patent/Trademark/Unfair Competition). Invalidated all six patents-in-suit at jury trial, judgment dismissing trademark and unfair competition claims. Court granted partial aware of attorneys' fees for establishing four of six patents procured by inequitable conduct. 223 USPQ 804 (E.D.N.Y. 1983).
• Hybrid Patents LLP v. Charter Communications, (represented manufacturers that supplied the defendant.)
• Foundry Networks v. Lucent, (represented Lucent Technologies Inc.)
• MLMC v. Verizon, et al., (represented Lucent Technologies Inc.)
  
  

Representative Proceedings In The International Trade Commission

• In The Matter of Certain Computer Products, Computer Components And Products Containing Same, No. 337-TA-628 (U.S.I.T.C. 2008). Represented complainant IBM in patent infringement proceeding against respondents ASUSTek Computer, Inc. and ASUS Computer International.
• In the Matter of Certain Products and Pharmaceutical Compositions Containing Recombinant Human Erythropoietin, Investigation No. 337-TA-568, Fed. Reg. Vol. 71, No. 172 (U.S.I.T.C. September 6, 2006). Represented respondents Roche Holding Ltd., F. Hoffmann-La Roche Ltd., Roche Diagnostics GmbH, and Hoffmann-La Roche Inc. in dismissing on summary determination a patent infringement proceeding commenced by complainant Amgen, Inc..
• In The Matter Of Certain Personal Watercraft and Components Thereof (U.S.I.T.C. Inv. No. 337-TA-452 (2002)). Represented respondent Bombardier Inc. in proceeding before International Trade Commission brought by complainants Yamaha Motor Co. and Sanshin Industries alleging infringement of 11 patents directed to personal watercraft. Obtained dismissal of six of the patents before trial through successful motions for summary determination of noninfringement, invalidity or lack of jurisdiction (no domestic industry). The matter was settled after trial on the remaining five patents. Published decisions: 2001 ITC LEXIS 865 (August 14, 2001) (Initial Determination Granting Respondents' Motion For Summary Determination With Respect To U.S. Patent No. 5,390,621); 2001 ITC LEXIS 867 (August 20, 2001) (Initial Determination Granting In Part Respondents' Motion For Summary Determination Of Noninfringement And Invalidity Of Claim 1 Of U.S. Patent No. 4,813,898); 2002 ITC LEXIS 586 (September 4, 2001) (Initial Determination Granting In Part Respondents' Motion For Summary Determination Of No Domestic Industry Of Claims 1-22 Of The 5,699,749 Patent); 2001 ITC LEXIS 974 (November 15, 2001) (Initial Determination Granting Respondents' Motion For Summary Determination That Asserted Claim 24 Of U.S. Patent No. 4,811,560 Is Invalid For Violation Of 35 U.S.C. § 102(b)); 2001 ITC LEXIS 973 (November 16, 2001) (Initial Determination Granting Respondents' Motion For Summary Determination That Asserted Claim 9 Of U.S. Patent No. 5,550,337 Is Invalid For Violation Of 25 U.S.C. § 102(b)).

Representative Proceedings in the Federal Circuit Court of Appeals

• Amgen Inc. v. International Trade Commission, 565 F.3d 846 (Fed. Cir. 2009). Represented intervenors Roche Holding Ltd., F. Hoffmann-La Roche Ltd., Roche Diagnostics GmbH and Hoffmann-La Roche Inc. in petition for rehearing en banc granted in part by the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit.
• Medtronic Vascular, Inc. v. Medinol, Ltd. et al., summary judgment of no-infringement in favor of client - Medinol - affirmed by Federal Circuit; 182 Fed. Appx. 994, 2006 WL 1478513 (Fed. Circ. 2006).
• Marketel Int'l v. Priceline.com, et al., dismissal of all claims (trade secret) and patent inventorship/ownership against client - Priceline.com - affirmed by Federal Circuit; 36 Fed. Appx. 423, 2002 U.S. App. LEXIS 7843 (Fed. Cir. 2002).
• Hoffmann-La Roche Inc. v. Invamed Inc., 213 F.3d 1359 (Fed. Cir. 2000). Represented appellee Hoffmann-La Roche Inc. ("Roche") in appeal affirming order that Roche's claim of infringement was not unreasonable.
• Union Oil Company Of California v. Atlantic Richfield Company, 208 F.3d 989 (Fed. Cir. 2000). Represented appellants Atlantic Richfield Company, Chevron U.S.A. Inc., Exxon Corporation, Mobil Oil Corporation, Shell Oil Products Company and Texaco Refining And Marketing Inc. in appeal involving alleged infringement of Union Oil Company of California's patent directed to unleaded automotive gasoline.
• Mobil Oil Corporation v. Amoco Chemicals Corporation, 980 F.2d 742 (Fed. Cir. 1992). Represented appellee Mobil Oil Corporation ("Mobil") in appeal affirming judgment of infringement of Mobil's patent directed to ZSM-5 catalysts and processes for conversion of hydrocarbons.

Counsel for Amicus Curiae before the U.S. Supreme Court and Federal
Circuit Court of Appeals

• Eli Lilly & Co. v. Barr Labs., 251 F.3d 955 (Fed. Cir. 2001) (Briefing for amicus curiae Federal Circuit Bar Association).
• eBay v. MercExchange, LLC, (January 2006). Filed amicus brief in the U.S. Supreme Court as lead counsel on behalf of IBM 126. S. Ct. 733 (2005). See, Supreme Court decision 126 S. Ct. 1837 (2006).
• Lab Corporation of America v. Metabolite Labs, Inc., (December 2005). Filed amicus brief in the U.S. Supreme Court as lead counsel on behalf of IBM. 126 S. Ct. 543 (2005). See, Supreme Court decision 548 U.S. __ (2006).
• Festo Corp. v. Shoketsu Kinzoku Kogyo Kabushiki Co., Ltd., (2001). Lead counsel on Amicus brief filed in U.S. Supreme Court on behalf of IBM, Kodak, Ford, DuPont, Agere Systems and the Financial Services Roundtable. 533 U.S. 915 (2001).
• Festo Corp. v. Shoketsu Kinzoku Kogyo Kabushiki Co., Ltd., (December 1999). Lead counsel on Brief for Amici IBM, Eastman Kodak and Ford Motor Co. in connection with en banc rehearing. Decision tracks position proposed in our Amicus brief which was specifically cited with approval in majority opinion. 234 F. 3d 558, 575 (Fed. Cir. 2000).
• UMC Electronics Co. v. United States (Oct. 1987). Co-authored Amicus brief on behalf of American Intellectual Property Law Association (AIPLA) in support of Petition for Writ of Certiorari. (Petition granted). 484 U.S. 1025.