Intellectual Property Law

Representative Cases


Our team has experience from the following representative litigations:

Linde LLC v. Cryogenic Systems Equipment, Inc., (N.D.Ill.) - Defended a client in a patent case brought by a large German multi-national company.   


Iovate Health Sciences, Inc. et al. v. Bio-Engineered Supplements & Nutrition, Inc. et al., (E.D. Tex) - Successfully represented a defendant in a patent case in the allegedly notorious plaintiff friendly Eastern District of Texas.  In a case based out of Lufkin Texas (but scheduled to be held in Beaumont Texas), obtained a decision finding seven patent claims to be invalid on a motion for summary judgment.  This decision was upheld on appeal to the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit.  On an interesting discovery issue, we obtained an order that not only allowed us to take the deposition of the head of the Plaintiff Corporation, but required him to travel to the Eastern District of Texas for his deposition.

Material Research Institute, Inc. v. Bio-Engineered Supplements & Nutrition, Inc. et al., (E.D. Tex) - Successfully represented another defendant in the notoriously plaintiff friendly Eastern District of Texas, but this time in Tyler Texas. Used motion practice and hearings concerning Markman claim construction issues to obtain a claim construction that was favorable to the defendant.  After the claim construction decision issued, the plaintiff admitted it could not prove infringement and filed a motion to dismiss. 

Corrugated Metals, Inc. v. Spirit of America Corporation, (N.D. Il) - Northern  District of Illinois case involved a violation of the Lanham Act under 15 U.S.C. Sec. 1051, et seq., breach of contract, copyright infringement and a violation of the Illinois Uniform Deceptive Trade Practices Act.

Hagenbuch v. 3B6 Sistemi Ind SRL, et al, (N.D. Il) -
Prior to settlement, successfully litigated numerous complex and hard-fought discovery issues for the plaintiff.  Discovery decisions in this case were cited numerous times, in numerous publications by law firms, law reviews, treatises, books and other litigations.  Among other places, such opinions are cited in: 5-900 Weinstein's Federal Evidence, 900.05; Article: Preserve or Perish Destroy or Drown - - eDiscovery Morphs into Electronic Information Management, 8 N.C. J. L. & Tech 1. (2006); Article: The Increasing Importance of Metadata in Electronic Discovery, 14 Rich. J. L. & Tech 10 (2008); Discovery of Electronically Stored Information - Surveying the Legal Landscape by Ronald J. Hedges (BNA Books 2007), at p. 54; Antitrust Law Developments (Sixth) by Jonathan M. Jacobsen (American Bar Association 2007) , at p. 98; Digest of United States Practice in International Law by Sally J. Cummins (Oxford University Press 2008); Multinational Enterprises and the Law by Peter Muchlinski (Oxford University Press 2007); Patent Litigation Strategies Handbook, Second Edition 2007 Cumulative Supplement, by Barry L. Grossman and Gary M. Hoffman (BNA Books 2007 Cumulative Supplement), at p. 132; Cited especially for issues involving electronic discovery or for discovery from foreign (non-US based) entities. 

Matweld Inc v. Portaco, Inc., (N.D. Il).

Polytronics Tech v. Littlefuse, Inc., (N.D. Il).

WKI Holding Co., Inc. et al. v. Mikasa Inc., et al.,(N.D. Il).

WKI Holding Co., Inc., et al. v. STK Intl Inc., (N.D. Il).

General Housewares Corp. v. Tristar Products, Inc., (N.D. Il)

Techsearch v. Sara Lee Corp, et al., (N.D. Il).

Jerominski v. Royal Roofing, Inc., (N.D. Il) - This case and a related state court case involved trademark infringement and unfair competition. 

General Housewares Corp. v. Dollar Tree Stores, (N.D. Il).

Energaire Corp. v. E S Originals, Inc., (N.D. Il) and Energaire Corp. v. E S Originals, Inc., (S. D. NY).

General Housewares Corp. v. Metro-Thebe, Inc.., (N.D. Il).

Gummow v. Snap-On Tools, Inc., (N.D. Il).

Lemelson Medical, Education & Research Foundation, LP v. Intel Corporation, et al., (Arizona).

Ford Motor Company, et al. v. Lemelson, (Nevada).

Mitsubishi v. Lemelson and Lemelson v. Mitsubishi, (Cases in Nevada and California).

Williamson v. Lemelson - Two very complex and litigious patent interferences.