Knobbe/Martens: Intellectual Property Law



Lewis v. Moore, et al (11th Circ.)
Representing Masimo, who was sued for product liability and neglience, we obtained affirmance of summary judgment of no liability. Participants in a nationwide study alleged that customized pulse oximeters used in a double blind nationwide study were defective because of the manner in which they reported oxygen saturation and that they increased their risk of harm. The Eleventh Circuit held that the plaintiffs had no evidence of any actual injury sufficient to warrant a trial and affirmed summary judgment of no liability.

STAR EnviroTech, Inc. v. Redline Detection Inc.
STAR EnviroTech, Inc. designs and develops tools for testing vehicle evaporative emission control systems. We successfully defended STAR’s patent against an inter partes review (“IPR”) filed by STAR’s competitor Redline Detection, Inc. The Patent Trial and Appeal Board initially determined that Redline had demonstrated a reasonable likelihood of proving at least one of STAR’s patent claims unpatentable.  But as a result of persuasive evidence and arguments, Knobbe Martens successfully defended STAR’s patent, making its client STAR one of only a small percentage of patent holders to survive an IPR with all claims intact. In a 33-page precedential decision, the Federal Circuit affirmed the PTAB’s decision.

Stephenson v. Game Show Network LLC
We represented Game Show network in convincing the Federal Circuit to affirm the Patent Trial and Appeal Board's decision that a computerized gaming patent owned by John Stephenson, allegedly a competitor of Game Show Network, is invalid. In 2011, Stephenson, the founder of Multimedia Games Inc., sued GSN for infringement of a patent directed to computer gaming tournaments. GSN filed an IPR petition in 2013, and the litigation was stayed pending the Board’s review of the asserted patent. In its final written decision, the Board found that all 19 claims of Stephenson’s patent were unpatentable. The Knobbe Martens team convinced the Board that all of the patent's claims were anticipated or obvious in view of a prior art patent application.

St. Jude Medical, Inc. v. AccessClosure, Inc.
We represented medical device company AccessClosure and obtained a reversal of an injunction and a holding of invalidity for "double patenting," leading to a favorable settlement and a favorable sale of the company.

Smith & Nephew, Inc. v. Rea
We represented global medical technology business Smith & Nephew and obtained a reversal of the USPTO's finding of patentability of a competitor's patent.

KFx Medical Corp. v. Arthrex, Inc.
Knobbe Martens secured a decisive victory on behalf of client KFx Medical Corporation. The KFx patents at issue are directed to improved methods for attaching soft tissues to bone, which are widely used in rotator cuff repair. After a liability trial in August 2013, a jury found all three KFx patents were valid and willfully infringed by Arthrex. In October 2013, the same jury awarded $29 million in damages for the infringement. The district court granted additional damages and interest, bringing the total award to $35 million. The Federal Circuit summarily affirmed the district court judgment and the U.S. Supreme Court subsequently denied certiorari. Hundreds of thousands of rotator cuff surgeries are performed each year in the United States utilizing KFx’s patented technique.

Typhoon Touch v. Dell et al.
We represented numerous manufacturers of portable computers with touch screens and obtained affirmance of a judgment of no patent infringement.

The Laryngeal Mask Company Ltd., et al. v. Ambu A/S, et al.
We represented the plaintiff asserting a medical device patent on laryngeal mask airway devices. We obtained a reversal of summary judgment of no infringement and invalidity for lack of written description, leading to favorable settlement.

Kinetic Concepts, Inc. v. Blue Sky Medical Group
We represented a medical-device maker and obtained affirmance of a jury verdict that a gauze-based system for negative pressure wound therapy does not infringe patents.

Intamin Ltd v. Magnetar Technologies Corp.
We defended a start up maker of magnetic brakes that had been sued by Intamin, the largest amusement park ride manufacturer in the world. Intamin had repeatedly enforced its patents on magnetic braking systems without challenge until it sued Magnetar. The Federal Circuit summarily affirmed a judgment of unclean hands due to forged assignment documents, which also supported an award of attorneys’ fees to Magnetar.

Applied Medical Resources Corp. v. United States Surgical Corp.
We represented a medical-device maker and obtained affirmance of a $64.5 million judgment, which included a $43.5 million jury verdict, a finding that Tyco-Unit U.S. Surgical had willfully infringed a patent, and an award of enhanced damages and attorneys’ fees.

Koepnick Medical & Educ. Research Found., L.L.C. v. Alcon Labs., Inc. et al.
We representing Bausch & Lomb, Inc. and obtained affirmance of judgment that LASIK eye surgery did not infringe the patent in suit.

Princeton Biochemicals, Inc. v. Beckman Coulter, Inc
We represented a laboratory-instrument maker Beckman Coulter and obtained affirmance that the asserted patent was invalid for obviousness.

Mallinckrodt, Inc. v. Masimo Corp.
We represented a medical device maker and obtained affirmance of a $164.5 million judgment, including a $134.5 million jury verdict and a reversal of denial of a permanent injunction.

Hewlett-Packard Co. v. Mustek Systems, Inc.
We defended a manufacturer of digital scanners accused of infringing several Hewlett-Packard patents.  After a jury trial, the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit ruled in favor of Mustek on all issues, upholding the jury's invalidity finding and overturning the jury's infringement finding.

Rhodes v. Rhodes Music Corp.
We represented the defendant in a right of publicity case involving the use of the name "Rhodes" for musical instruments. We took over the case on appeal and successfully obtained reversal of summary judgment in favor of the plaintiff. 

Gart v. Logitech, Inc.
We represented an individual inventor of an ergonomic computer mouse and vacated a judgment of no patent infringement. 

Practice Management Info. Corp. v. American Medical Association
We represented a book publisher in a copyright infringement dispute and obtained affirmance that copyright was misused and thus unenforceable until the misuse was purged.

Lockwood v. American Airlines
We defended American Airlines in a patent infringement case in which three patents were asserted against its Sabrevision reservation system. After getting the Supreme Court to grant certiorari to vacate a Federal Circuit order that had reinstated a jury demand on mandamus, we obtained an affirmance of a judgment that none of the three patents was infringed and that two of the patents were invalid. 

Cabinet Vision v. Cabnetware
We represented the defendant in post-trial proceedings in a patent infringement action relating to computer-aided design software. Initially, we obtained an injunction against patent owner making misrepresentations to potential customers regarding the anticipated outcome of a lawsuit. Later, we successfully obtained judgment as a matter of law overturning an unfavorable jury verdict on invalidity, which was affirmed on appeal.

Hansen Beverage Co. v. Consolidated Beverage
We represented the owner of the Monster Energy brand in successfully enforcing a settlement agreement that required the defendant in trademark action to change the labeling on its energy drink.

Attorney Finder