Jenner & Block

Patent Litigation and Counseling

Recent Victories

  • Achieved a significant victory for a chemical company in a patent infringement suit filed against it in 2012, by global paints and coatings manufacturer.  On January 26, 2015, the Delaware District Court granted their motion for summary judgment of non-infringement in the case, which relates to the client's technology, used in the manufacture of aqueous polymer dispersions. 
  • Deere & Co. V. Bush Hog LLC et al.:  Won a complete defense victory for client Duroc LLC, formerly known as Bush Hog LLC, when an Iowa jury ruled that Duroc did not infringe Deere & Co.’s patent covering rotary cutters and that the patent was invalid.  At issue was Deere’s claim that Duroc infringed a patent for an “easy clean dual wall deck” for rotary cutters that are used to clear farms and mow large fields and the sides of expressways.  Duroc sold the Bush Hog brand of equipment until 2009; however, after an asset sale, Bush Hog, Inc., a subsidiary of the Alamo Group Inc., continued to sell the Bush Hog brand of equipment.  Deere sought in excess of $100 million in damages from the defendants for alleged willful infringement.  In 2011, U.S. District Judge Charles R. Wolle granted summary judgment to Duroc and the other defendants, finding they had not infringed and dismissing the suit.  In 2012, the Federal Circuit reversed that ruling and remanded the case to the lower court for further proceedings.  Prior to the trial, the District Court entered summary judgment dismissing the claim that any infringement was willful.  On December 19, 2013, after a 14-day trial, an Iowa jury found by clear and convincing evidence that Deere's patent was invalid for three independent reasons: anticipation, obviousness and lack of adequate written description.  The jury also found that Deere had not proven by a preponderance of the evidence that the Bush Hog cutters infringed Deere's patent. 
  • National Institute for Strategic Technology Acquisition and Commercialization (NISTAC) v. Nissan North America, et al.: Achieved dismissal of a patent infringement suit against client Nissan Motor Co., Ltd. of Japan and its subsidiary Nissan North America, Inc.  In October 2010, the auto manufacturer was sued for infringement in federal court in Kansas by the NISTAC, a not-for-profit corporation associated with Kansas State University.  NISTAC asserted three patents related to a piston configuration in combination with a solid film lubricant coating and a solid film lubricant coating composition for pistons.  NISTAC had obtained the patents as a part of a donation from Ford valued at $27 million.  In March 2011, the Firm successfully transferred the lawsuit to the federal court in the Eastern District of Michigan, i.e., Detroit, and the case was set for a Markman hearing in December 2011.  Prior to the Markman hearing, one of the plaintiff’s patents was dismissed from the case in view of ownership defects relating to a terminal disclaimer on the patent and another patent not involved in the suit, which was still owned by Ford.  On September 27, 2012, the court’s Markman ruling essentially adopted all of the defendants’ positions and rejected the aggressive positions taken by plaintiff.  Though a Markman ruling itself is not case dispositive, this ruling was so well-reasoned and detrimental to plaintiff’s case that it resulted in a stipulated dismissal of the case with prejudice on October 16.
     
  • Viskase Companies, Inc. v. World Pac International AG and World Pac International USA, and Sun Products Marketing Und Manufacturing AG: Secured a significant appellate victory for client Viskase Companies, Inc., when the Federal Circuit affirmed, in all respects, a Northern District of Illinois decision in favor of Viskase in a patent infringement case involving a food casing product that is a key product line for the company.  In invalidating the competitor’s (World Pac) patent, the Court relied on the Firm’s argument that the patent was anticipated by a Japanese prior art reference, finding sufficient evidence in the record that every element of the asserted World Pac patent was disclosed in the Japanese prior art reference and rejecting World Pac’s novel claim that the Japanese prior art referenced by Viskase needed to be built and tested to prove anticipation.
     
  • The Dow Chemical Company v. Nova Chemicals Corporation (Canada) and Nova Chemicals Inc.: Achieved a significant victory for client The Dow Chemical Company (Dow) when the Federal Circuit upheld a $61.7 million damages award initially won by the Firm on behalf of the manufacturer.  In a 2-1 decision, the appellate court affirmed Delaware District Court jury and bench trial decisions holding Dow competitor Nova Chemicals Corporation guilty of infringing two patents used in one of Dow’s major product lines.  The patents in question relate to blends of two specific polymer components that, in combination, form a plastic that is stronger and more stretchable than conventional plastics.  
  • Semiconductor Energy Laboratory Co., Ltd.(“SEL”) v. Samsung, et al.: Enforced four of SEL’s patents related to semiconductor devices, specifically thin film transistors, and related liquid crystal display technologies.  The matter settled after a summary judgment ruling finding that Samsung’s LCD TVs, monitors and cell phones met a number of the asserted claims of SEL’s patents.
     
  • Infuturia Global Ltd. v. Sequus Pharmaceuticals, Inc.: Represented Sequus Pharmaceuticals, Inc. in litigation concerning alleged tortious interference with and conversion of licensed patent rights seeking $2.5 billion in damages.  We successfully removed the matter to federal court and subsequently filed a motion to dismiss Infuturia’s Second Amended Complaint.  The district court agreed with our arguments and granted the motion to dismiss with prejudice.