Appellate Practice

We regularly represent clients before the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit where we have achieved an impressive track record of success.  Demonstrating the size does not dictate success, we consistently succeed against the national and international top tier law firms. Additionally, we have experience in successfully opposing certiorari on high profile patent cases before the Supreme Court.   

Our attorneys regularly handle complex litigation through trial and appeal.  This includes ensuring issues are properly preserved should an appeal prove necessary.  Our record of success across a wide variety of technical subject matters and legal issues demonstrates our ability to distill complex and abstract technical concepts in a way that makes them approachable and understandable. 

Recognizing that the same thought process that led to an adverse result at trial will rarely succeed in correcting the issue on appeal, clients have retained us to step in to provide a fresh perspective and increase the likelihood of success on appeal.

We are frequently retained by clients seeking counsel on particularly difficult or unsettled legal issues, not only on appeal, but by providing our legal opinion (e.g., non-infringement, invalidity, ineligibility, unenforceability) even before a dispute has arisen.

Additionally, we regularly support appellate counsel in international appeals in post-arbitral proceedings (e.g., set aside, annulment, enforcement).

Representative appellate engagements include:

  • Infinity Computer Products, Inc. v. Oki Data Americas, Inc., Docket no 21-413, cert. denied, 595 U.S. ___, ___ S.Ct. ___ (2021). Successfully opposed petition for certiorari. 

  • CAI v CAJ [2021] SGHC 21, aff'd [2021] SGCA 102. Supported Singapore counsel in appeal resulting in affirmance of partial set aside of arbitral award.  

  • Infinity Computer Products, Inc. v. Oki Data Americas, Inc., 987 F.3d 1053 (Fed. Cir. 2021). Successfully represented Appellee Oki Data Americas, Inc., with court affirming the district court's judgment finding the four asserted patents were invalid as indefinite under 35 U.S.C. § 112, ¶2.

  • SC v OE1 and Another [2020] HKCFI 2065, aff'd [2020] HKCFI 2844. Supported Hong Kong counsel in opposing application to appeal the High Court's decision denying efforts to set aside and resist enforcement of arbitral award. 

  • Navcom Technology Inc. and Deere & Co. v. Oki Electric Industry Co., Ltd., 756 Fed.Appx. 682 (9th Cir. 2018). Successfully represented Appellee Oki Electric Industry Co., Ltd., with court affirming jury verdict in client's favor on claims of breach of contract to develop RF application-specific integrated circuits (ASICs) and denial of motions for judgment as a matter of law and for a new trial.

  • Maxon, LLC v. Funai Corp., 255 F.Supp.3d 711 (N.D. Ill. 2017), aff'd, 726 Fed.Appx. 797 (Fed. Cir. 2018). Successfully represented Appellee Funai Corporation, Inc. with court affirming the district court's judgment finding all asserted claims of the asserted patents drawn to patent ineligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. § 101.

  • Clontech Labs., Inc. v. Invitrogen Corp., 263 F.Supp.2d 780 (D. Del. 2003), aff'd, 406 F.3d 1347 (Fed. Cir. 2005). Landmark Judgment for Clontech was entered holding that Invitrogen had falsely marked the accused products in violation of 35 U.S.C § 292. Successfully represented Appellee Clontech in case of first impression on appeal.

  • Biacore AB and Biacore, Inc. v. Thermo BioAnalysis Corp., 79 F.Supp.2d 422 (D. Del. 1999) aff'd, 2002 U.S. App. Lexis 13957 (Fed. Cir. Mar. 15, 2002).  Successfully represented client Biacore (formerly known as Pharmacia Biosensor) at trial achieving judgment that Biacore's patent was infringed with the court entering a permanent injunction and awarding a 40% royalty based upon the gross revenues from the infringing biosensors.  Judgment affirmed on appeal.

  • Ajinomoto Co. v. Archer-Daniel-Midland Co., 1998 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 3833 (D. Del. 1998), aff'd, 228 F.3d 1338 (Fed. Cir. 2000), cert. denied, 121 S.Ct. 1957 (2001).  Successfully represented client Ajinomoto Co. at trial, affirmance on appeal and denial of certiorari before the Supreme Court in landmark infringement case under 35 U.S.C. § 271(g).  Cited in the Manual of Patent Examining Procedure (MPEP), Section 2402.

Global Reach

Personal Touch

Our Firm

The Law Offices of Marc R. Labgold, P.C. is a District of Columbia Professional Corporation. Our practice is limited to: International Arbitration, United States Patent Law, and practice before United States Federal Courts, the United States International Trade Commission (USITC), and the United States Patent & Trademark Office (USPTO).

Menu