For more than 60 years, Woodcock Washburn has been successfully litigating intellectual property cases - including patent infringement, trademark, copyright, trade secret, and other disputes - at the trial and appellate levels. The success of Woodcock Washburn’s litigation group has attracted considerable attention. We have consistently been ranked as a leading IP team by The Legal 500 and Chambers USA and were named by the National Law Journal in its prestigious “Plaintiff’s Hot List” of firms that did exemplary, cutting-edge work on the plaintiffs’ side.
But our litigation representations are by no means limited to plaintiff’s cases. About half of our representations are for defendants, and we have been successful in limiting or avoiding liability for our defendant clients, often having actions against our clients dismissed before trial or at the early stages of the proceedings.
Our attorneys’ combined technical backgrounds and legal expertise gives Woodcock Washburn an edge in all types of intellectual property litigation. We translate complex scientific and technical concepts into language juries and judges can comprehend, a critical step in bringing home a decision in our clients’ favor. By gaining a thorough understanding of our client’s technology and business strategy, we often see issues that others miss.
Our group includes a member of the American College of Trial Lawyers and numerous partners who are listed in The Best Lawyers in America and in Chambers USA: America's Leading Lawyers for Business. But the accolade of which we are most proud is the fact that many of our clients are “repeat customers” – who have seen the consistent value of a Woodcock Washburn team representing them in their IP litigation and turn to us as trusted counselors and advocates when the need arises.
Some recent cases at the trial level in which we represented clients include:
- TruePosition, Inc. v. Andrew Corporation (D. Del.). In September of 2007, a jury determined that Andrew willfully infringed a patent held by TruePosition relating to cell phone technology. TruePosition was awarded $23.25 million in compensatory and punitive damages. In 2009, TruePosition was awarded an additional $10.1 million in compensatory damages, $9.6 million punitive damages, as well as costs and attorneys’ fees.
- Tyco Healthcare Group LP d/b/a United States Surgical vs. Ethicon Endo-Surgery, Inc. (D. Conn.). Successfully defended client in a patent infringement action related to ultrasonic surgical tools. In January 2008, the court granted judgment as a matter of law (JMOL) in clients favor resulting in the dismissal of a nearly $300 million claim in the middle of trial.
- AT&T Corp. v. Microsoft Corp. (S.D. N.Y.) Represented Microsoft at district court and Federal Circuit, and as co-counsel at U.S. Supreme Court, in landmark victory for Microsoft. At issue was whether Microsoft was liable for the infringement of an AT&T patent on copies of the Windows® operating system that were manufactured and sold abroad. The Supreme Court held that Microsoft was not liable for damages under U.S. patent law because "Microsoft does not export from the United States the copies of Windows installed on the foreign-made computers" at issue.
- The Graham Company v. USI MidAtlantic & Haughey (E.D. Pa.). Our firm obtained an $18.9 million jury verdict in June 2006 in a landmark copyright case involving copying of insurance manuals. The district court threw out the verdict, but, on appeal, a unanimous three-judge panel of the Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit reversed. On remand, the district court reinstated the $18.9 million verdict.
- ABB Automation Inc. v. Schlumberger Resource Management Services Inc. (D. Del.). Our firm obtained a jury verdict of $22.3 million for Elster Electricity in a patent infringement action involving electrical meters.
- Heuser v. Boston Scientific Corp. (D. Ariz.). Our firm successfully defeated a trade secret misappropriation and unjust enrichment action brought against Boston Scientific Corp.
- CFMT Inc. v. Dainippon Screen Mfg. Co. (N.D. Cal.). Woodcock Washburn obtained a jury verdict on liability for CFMT Inc. in this patent infringement case. Before the damages issues were tried, our client received $40 million along with an agreement that the defendant would pay future royalties until the patents expire, bringing the total settlement amount to approximately $70 million.
- Constar International Inc. v. Continental PET Technologies, Inc. (D. Del.). Our firm obtained a favorable decision for Constar International Inc. in a dispute over rights under a patent license agreement. As a result of that decision, Constar was able to reach a favorable settlement that included a payment of $25.1 million.
In addition, our attorneys frequently appear on behalf of clients before the Federal Circuit Court of Appeals. Some recent examples include:
- In re McNeil-PPC Inc. (Fed. Cir. July 21, 2009), court reversed a U.S. Patent and Trademark Office decision that client’s reexamined patent invalid due to obviousness in view of the prior art.
- Crown Packaging Technology, Inc. v. Rexam Beverage Can Co. (Fed. Cir. March 17, 2009), reversing and remanding summary judgment of non-infringement in Crown’s favor.
- North American Container Inc. v. Plastipak Packaging Inc. et al. (Fed. Cir. July 14, 2005), affirming a summary judgment of non-infringement in favor of Constar.
- Anheuser-Busch Companies Inc. v. Crown Cork & Seal Techs. Corp. , 121 Fed. Appx. 388 (Fed. Cir. Dec. 23, 2004), reversing construction of the claims of Crown’s patent and summary judgment of non-infringement of Crown’s patent and affirming the district court’s judgment that Crown did not infringe Anheuser-Busch’s patent.
- Home Diagnostics Inc. v. LifeScan Inc. , 381 F.3d 1352 (Fed. Cir. 2004), reversing claim construction in LifeScan’s favor.
- Civix-DDI LLC v. Microsoft Corp. et al. , District Court (Fed. Cir. 2001), affirming grant of summary judgment of non-infringement that Woodcock Washburn obtained for Microsoft.