Patent Litigation

For more than 30 years, our team members have successfully represented multinational corporations in complex, high-stakes patent litigation in federal district courts across the United States and patent appeals before the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit.

In addition to being registered patent attorneys, we are trial attorneys with a proven track record in both bench and jury trials. We plan for trial from day one – developing an effective strategy from the earliest pleading stages through trial to ensure efficiency and position our clients for the best possible outcomes.  Aggressively pursuing an early trial date reduces overall costs and increases the likelihood of early resolution whether it be through settlement or by securing dismissals following claim construction and/or successful motion practice. 

In addition to district court practice, we are experienced in unfair trade cases before the U.S. International Trade Commission (ITC) under Section 337 of the Tariff Act of 1930.  For example, in Certain Printing and Imaging Devices and Components Thereof (Inv. No. 337-TA-690), we obtained a ruling of no violation on behalf of the respondents for five (5) unrelated patents involving mechanical, electrical, chemical, and internet technologies.  We also have experience in patent infringement cases before the United States Court of Federal Claims. 

We regularly represent both appellants and appellees before the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit. 

Our team members have participated in some of the seminal patent cases of the last 30 years including the Regents of the University of California v Eli Lilly human insulin case -- a multidistrict litigation (MDL-912) that combined six patent infringement cases involving UC, Genentech and Lilly and helped define the modern interpretation of the written description requirement of the first paragraph of 35 USC §112. Regents of the University of California v. Eli Lilly & Co., 39 USPQ2d 1225 (S.D. Ind. 1995), aff'd, 119 F.3d 1559 (Fed. Cir. 1997).

Other notable cases include:

  • Represented client Funai Corporation in a patent infringement suit brought by the NPE plaintiff. Plaintiff alleged infringement of four patents directed to electronic means of increasing user control over subscription entertainment content. The suit was coordinated for pretrial proceedings with four other cases against LG Electronics U.S.A., Inc., On Corp US, Inc., Panasonic Corp. of N. Am. and Vizio, Inc.  We successfully moved to dismiss the suit under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) – prior to claim construction – with the court holding the asserted patents were invalid/ineligible under 35 U.S.C. § 101. Maxon, LLC v. Funai Corp., 255 F.Supp.3d 711 (N.D. Ill. 2017), aff'd, 726 Fed.Appx. 797 (Fed. Cir. 2018).

  • Served as lead counsel for declaratory judgment plaintiff whose holographic pop star Hatsune Miku was accused of infringing two U.S. patents. After successfully defeating the patent holder's efforts to block the Hatsune Miku performance on the Late Show with David Letterman, the case was successfully resolved with our client having no liability, paying no damages, and receiving a covenant not to sue.  Crypton Future Media, Inv. V. Hologram USA, Inc, et al., Civil Action No. 1:14-cv-01247-RGA (D. Del. 2014).

  • Represented plaintiff Applera Corp. (Perkin-Elmer) in Applera and Roche Molecular Systems v. MJ Research in a case concerning patent infringement, unfair competition, and antitrust involving the six patents directed to the Nobel Prize-winning gene amplification process called the polymerase chain reaction (PCR) and thermal cycling instruments used to automate PCR. After a three-week jury trial in the District of Connecticut, the jury found all six patents infringed, four of them willfully infringed. The Court awarded more than US$35 million in damages.

  • Represented Dow AgroSciences in patent infringement actions involving patents for genetically modified plants to make the plants insect-resistant.  A series of lawsuits, known as the “Seed Wars”, pitted the largest biotech companies in the world against one another battling for control of a multi-billion dollar seed market. Dow prevailed against a competitor asserting patent claims that were alleged to cover all transgenic corn products, both commercial and pre-market, in the United States.   

  • Successfully represented Japanese defendant OKI Electric in Navcom Tech. and John Deere & Co. v. Oki Electric Industry, Co. Ltd. in defense of a breach of contract claim regarding the design, development, and manufacturing of a customized advanced GPS RF Chipset. After a ten-day trial, the jury returned a verdict in OKI's favor. The jury verdict was affirmed on appeal to the Ninth Circuit and our client was awarded more than US$4 million in attorney fees.

  • Represented Bayer Corp. in a suit concerning the misappropriation of trade secrets and breach of fiduciary duty regarding Bayer's Aleve Cold & Sinus® product. Obtained voluntary dismissal of trade secret claims and, following key deposition, a settlement on favorable terms.

  • Represented Seagate Technology in Convolve, Inc. and The Massachusetts Institute Of Technology (MIT) v. Seagate Technology, Inc. et al. in a suit concerning trade secret misappropriation and patent infringement claims regarding systems and methods for reducing unwanted vibrations in computer disk drives. Seagate was held not to have infringed any claims and the law regarding willful infringement was redefined in a rare unanimous en banc opinion of the CAFC overruling its prior precedent and holding that willful infringement enhanced damages now requires “at least a showing of objective recklessness.”

  • Filed suit on behalf of biotech client Clontech charging Life Technologies, Inc. with false marking under 35 U.S.C. § 292 in conjunction with its marking and marketing of certain genetically modified enzyme products. A landmark judgment for Clontech was entered holding that the patent holder had falsely marked the accused products in violation of § 292. Oral argument in this case, the first § 292 case to be heard by the Federal Circuit, was held in October 2004. This case would pave the way for a cottage industry in false marking qui tam cases. Clontech Labs., Inc. v. Invitrogen Corp., 263 F.Supp.2d 780 (D. Del. 2003), aff'd, 406 F.3d 1347 (Fed. Cir. 2005).

  • Successfully represented Japanese plaintiff Ajinomoto Co., Inc. against food giant Archer Daniels Midland in a patent infringement case that not only resulted in a damage award of nearly US$30 million but also was intertwined with one of the most significant international price-fixing scandals in history. 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).

  • Represented Swedish scientific instrument manufacturer Biacore (formerly known as Pharmacia Biosensor) as plaintiff patent holder in a patent infringement case against Thermo Biosciences, Inc. The Court found Biacore's patent valid and infringed, holding that Biacore was entitled to a permanent injunction and a 40% royalty based upon the gross revenues of the infringing biosensors. 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).

Let Our Experience and Expertise Work For You

Our clients turn to us for their most challenging cases. Don't let our size fool you – we are regularly retained as lead counsel in bet-the-company cases and recently obtained a $475,000,000 arbitration award for one of our clients. We work hard to maintain our reputation for consistently developing and presenting creative legal strategies that allow our clients to succeed in high-stakes domestic and international disputes. 

Contact us for a free consultation and let us explain how we can help you successfully resolve your next patent dispute in a more timely and cost-effective manner. 

Let Our Experience and Expertise Work For You

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).