Innovation is blind to borders and boundaries. That’s why Knobbe Martens maintains a truly global presence, representing clients and their interests in nearly every country in the world and helping them achieve their international market and strategic goals.
We serve our domestic clients through a cohesive network of foreign lawyers and agents, teaming with them to quickly resolve matters in a particular country or region. Likewise, we serve our international clients throughout the U.S. to meet the full range of their U.S intellectual property requirements—whether it is litigation, patent prosecution, due diligence or trademark work. Also, we work with our foreign practitioner colleagues to represent clients in the United States.
Members of our international practice have been recognized by numerous major surveys as among the world's leading practitioners. Many are bilingual, allowing them to personally communicate with and serve foreign clients and direct foreign associates regarding local law and practice. Team members regularly travel abroad to protect our clients' rights in foreign countries, foster relationships with foreign associates and keep abreast of local developments. Their efforts are supported by our active participation in every leading international intellectual property law organization. We also host seminars in international intellectual property law, as well as seminars and training for foreign practitioners in U.S. law.
Explore related practice areas:
Vistas – International Internship Program
Learn about the Knobbe Martens International Internship Program offered for the firm’s clients, associated law firms and others having an ongoing relationship with our firm. Click here to download the PDF.
Archie Comic Publications, Inc. v. Chaoyang Baolansi Meticulous & Chemical Co., Ltd.
Successfully represented applicant seeking to register trademarks for cosmetics in opposition action before the TTAB.
Ranbaxy Labs., Ltd. et al. v. Abbott Labs. et al.
We represented Ranbaxy as a declaratory judgment plaintiff in the Northern District of Illinois on three patents relating to extended-release formulations of clarithromycin (the active ingredient in Abbott’s Biaxin XL® product). At preliminary injunction stage involving multiple defendants, we achieved a ruling that two patents were likely invalid for inequitable conduct. We subsequently achieved a favorable case-dispositive settlement for our client.
Ranbaxy Labs. Ltd. v. Vertex Pharmaceuticals, Inc.
In one of the first inter partes review (“IPR”) petitions to challenge the validity of a patent protecting a branded pharmaceutical, Knobbe Martens achieved a positive settlement for Ranbaxy. Another generic producer challenged the validity of patent claims protecting Vertex's Lexiva product for treatment of HIV-1 and was later sued by Vertex for patent infringement. Ranbaxy filed an IPR petition challenging the same patent claims as obvious over the prior art. The PTAB granted Ranbaxy’s petition and instituted the IPR. The PTAB’s institution of the IPR, as well as the ensuing proceedings, resulted in a favorable settlement.
Pfizer, Inc. v. Ranbaxy Labs., Ltd.
The firm successfully represented Ranbaxy in trial and before the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit in Ranbaxy's efforts to be the first company to seek approval to market a generic version of the world's best-selling drug, Pfizer's cholesterol-reducing drug Lipitor®. On appeal, the Federal Circuit invalidated one of the patents protecting Lipitor, shortening Pfizer's patent protection by fifteen months. Through our representation, Ranbaxy ultimately obtained a favorable settlement, and was able to successfully launch its generic product with six months of market exclusivity.
Glaxo Group Ltd. v. Ranbaxy Pharmaceuticals
The firm successfully defended Ranbaxy in a patent infringement lawsuit brought by GlaxoSmithKline (“GSK”). Ranbaxy prevailed in its appeal to the Federal Circuit and overturned a preliminary injunction that had prevented Ranbaxy from marketing a generic version of GSK's anti-infective drug Ceftin®. Post appeal and after a six-week bench trial, the district court determined that Ranbaxy’s product does not infringe and Ranbaxy was not required to pay any monetary damages to GSK.
To sign up for our Federal Circuit Review and/or Trademark Review Japanese newsletters, please email firstname.lastname@example.org with your request.
Knobbe Martens worked closely with Professor Yamanaka and his team to obtain U.S. Patent No. 8,048,999, the first patent granted for the work which led to Professor Yamanaka’s Nobel Prize. This patent relates to a nuclear programming factor for the production of induced pluripotent stem cells from adult cells. It is expected that the production of these induced pluripotent stem cells will ultimately lead to treatments that allow the complete regeneration of injured and diseased tissues.
Knobbe Martens continues to represent Kyoto University in connection with its ongoing efforts to obtain patent protection in the United States for Professor Yamanaka’s further work. We are greatly honored that Kyoto University entrusted Knobbe Martens to assist it in connection with such groundbreaking work, and we particularly appreciate the opportunity to work with Professor Yamanaka, a scientist of such renowned stature.
Typhoon Touch Technologies, Inc. v. Dell, Inc. et al.
Typhoon filed suit against our client, Toshiba, and other leading laptop and cell phone manufacturers, alleging that their touchscreen devices infringed two patents. After we obtained a District Court judgment of no infringement, the Federal Circuit affirmed. Because the patents-in-suit had been asserted against essentially any device with a touchscreen, the decision was significant because it removed a major obstacle in the market.
Toshiba Corp. v. Wistron Corp.
We represented Toshiba in an ITC investigation (and a parallel district court action) involving patents on computer hardware and software features. We prosecuted the ITC investigation through discovery, with depositions taking plac ein Japan, Taiwan, the US and Korea. Just before trial and after defeating each summary judgment motion brought by Wistron, the case settled with Wistron paying for a license under Toshiba's patents.
Computer Docking Station Corp. v. Dell Inc. et al.
Non-practicing entity Computer Docking Station sued our client, Toshiba, and other leading computer makers, alleging that their products infringed a patent that related to computer docking technology. Though other defendants settled the case, we obtained summary judgment of non-infringement, successfully arguing that the patent-in-suit did not cover docking stations and docking connecotrs for use with laptop computers. We subsequently obtained affirmance of the judgment by the Federal Circuit on appeal.
Kabushiki Kaisha MegaHouse v. Anjar Co. LLC
Knobbe Martens successfully represented MegaHouse Corp., a Japanese toy company and subsidiary of Bandai Co., Ltd., in trademark and copyright litigation regarding the famous game Othello®. As a result, MegaHouse is now the undisputed owner and licensor of the Othello® trademark and related intellectual property. MegaHouse and its predecessors had been involved in disputes regarding the intellectual property rights in Othello® for more than a decade. The firm filed a federal lawsuit in the Central District of California, and defeated the defendants’ motion to dismiss. The litigation was eventually resolved through settlement, and MegaHouse was very pleased with the resolution. The firm’s efforts helped to clarify the rights and obligations of Othello® licensees and distributors throughout the world and bring certainty to Othello® enthusiasts in time for the 2015 World Othello Championship in Cambridge, U.K.
In the Matter of Certain Personal Watercraft and Components Thereof
We represented Yamaha in an ITC investigation against Bombardier Inc. on Yamaha’s watercraft patents. The case progressed through a four-week hearing before the ALJ. Just before the ALJ’s initial determination was issued, the parties settled.
Credit Management Services v. Fisher & Paykel Financial Services Ltd.
Represented Fisher & Paykel in ICDR arbitration proceeding by challenging the jurisdiction of the arbitration panel and successfully obtained a dismissal with prejudice of the entire arbitration.
In the Matter of Certain Point of Sale Terminals and Components Thereof
We defended CyberNet (Korea) and CyberNet USA in a patent infringement investigation involving point of sale terminals.
Hewlett-Packard Co. v. Mustek Systems, Inc.
We successfully represented Mustek Systems, Inc. in defending against a patent infringement lawsuit filed by Hewlett-Packard Co. after jury trial and appeal. The patents-at-issue related to document scanners. Mustek was the world's leading seller of scanners. HP alleged that Mustek's sales infringed five HP patents. Before trial, three of HP's asserted patents were dismissed. During trial, we presented evidence to the jury that the two remaining patents were invalid or not infringed. The jury found one patent invalid and the other patent valid and infringed. 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.
Sanofi-Aventis U.S. LLC et al. v. Ebewe Pharma GmbH Nfg.Kg
We represented Ebewe Pharma in a patent infringement action involving multiple defendants and three patents relating to oxaliplatin. We achieved a favorable settlement for our client.
California-Pacific Labs, Inc. v. Nalge Nunc Int'l Corp.
Represented Defendants, Nalge and Apogent, and obtained summary judgment dismissing most of plaintiff’s causes of action.
Kinetic Concepts, Inc. v. Smith & Nephew, Inc.
We scored a major patent litigation victory for Smith & Nephew in a case involving patents relating to negative pressure wound therapy (NPWT). After a jury trial, the judge in a 37-page ruling granted Judgment as a Matter of Law of invalidity of the patent asserted against our client due to obviousness based on the many early uses of NPWT we prented on behalf of Smith & Nephew at trial.
AngleFix Tech, LLC v. Smith & Nephew, Inc.
Knobbe Martens obtained a stay pending inter partes review (IPR) on behalf of client Smith & Nephew, Inc. from the district court for the Western District of Tennessee. The motion effectively halted litigation in the patent infringement case brought by non-practicing entity, AngleFix LLC, relating to variable angle bone plates and screws for use in orthopedic surgery. Smith & Nephew subsequently obtained a favorable settlement.
Mattel, Inc. v. Simba Toys GmbH & Co. KG et al.
We represented the defendant in a copyright and trade dress infringement suit involving dolls, resulting in a mediated settlement.
Otto Bock Healthcare LP v. Össur HF
Össur is a global company active in the development and distribution of products in the fields of non-invasive prosthetics, medical braces and supports. After Össur invested substantial resources to bring to market its Unity product of vacuum suspension prosthesis, Otto Bock filed a motion for a preliminary injunction seeking to enjoin Össur.
We vigorously opposed the motion on Össur's behalf. The district court denied Otto Bock’s motion, and concluded that Otto Bock was unlikely to prevail on the merits of any of its claims. The Federal Circuit affirmed the district court’s decision in favor of Össur and concluded that Otto Bock is unlikely to establish infringement of the asserted claims.
Represented Ferrari against a counterfeit car manufacturer in patent, trademark and trade dress infringement cases resulting in a contempt judgment, permanent injunction and an award for attorneys’ fees and costs for Ferrari.
Custom Connect v. Bartholomew
We represented the plaintiff Custom Connect in a case involving customer lists. We obtained a permanent injunction and judgment by consent, an apology letter to the industry, and a substantial settlement payment from the defendants.
Schindler Elevator Corp. and Inventio AG v. Otis Elevator Co.
We achieved a complete victory for Schindler in jury trial in Manhattan involving Schindler's patented Schindler ID® elevator system. After a two-week jury trial, the jury answered all 33 questions in Schindler's favor and the district court entered a permanent injunction. We previously represented Schindler in a successful appeal overturning an erroneous claim construction and obtaining reversal of noninfringement ruling.
Rolex Watch USA, Inc. v. Agarwal
We sued Melrose.com LLC, a Los Angeles-based e-retailer, and its founder and owner, Krishnan Agarwal, for trademark counterfeiting and trademark infringement on behalf of Rolex. The court permanently enjoined the defendants from all counterfeiting and infringing activities, and also ordered the defendants to permanently take down the Melrose.com website, to transfer the domain name Melrose.com to Rolex, and to deliver to Rolex all watch heads bearing its trademark. We also convinced the court to award Rolex $8.5 million in damages.
Small v. Nobel Biocare USA, LLC
A dentist sued Nobel Biocare alleging infringement of two patents relating to dental implant designs. The patents survived years of re-examination and reissue proceedings, and numerous other defendants settled. Nobel instead chose to have us challenge the patents, with $50 million in damages at stake. After obtaining key admissions from the dentist about the first patient on whom she used the patented implant, we obtained summary judgment of invalidity due to an on-sale bar. We also proved the second patent was invalid on multiple grounds, including the rare defense of “reissue recapture.” The dentist promptly dismissed the case.
Nobel Biocare USA, LLC v. Technique D’Usinage Sinlab
We obtained summary judgment for Nobel Biocare. Competitor Sinlab accused Nobel of willfully infringing five U.S. patents for computerized dental surgery planning and customized dental prosthetics. The parties had litigated related patents for years in Canada and Europe. To quickly end this infringement threat, we filed a declaratory judgment action in the “rocket docket” of Eastern District of Virginia. Only six months after filing suit, the court granted summary judgment of non-infringement on all patents at issue. The case subsequently settled globally very favorably to Nobel.
Zimmer Inc. v. Nobel Biocare, USA, Inc.
The firm successfully defended Nobel Biocare, USA, Inc. in a binding arbitration proceeding involving a dental implant patent dispute where alleged past damages of $100 million and a possible injunction against future sales were at risk. Two of Nobel’s popular product lines were accused of infringement in this binding arbitration conducted by a panel of three patent attorneys. The patent had been previously enforced against over a dozen companies in the dental implant industry, resulting in settlements and payments of millions of dollars in royalties to the patent owner. Instead of owing any damages, Nobel Biocare was found not to infringe, and was awarded over $2 million in lawyers' fees and expenses.