We combine technical expertise and courtroom savvy.
Quick find: All Services

Intellectual Property

We innovate — like our clients. While winning is our first priority, providing cutting-edge counseling and courtroom advocacy are close behind.

We enforce and defend against infringement claims under patents, trade secrets, trademarks, trade dress rights, and copyrights. We have successfully litigated and tried cases involving a wide range of technologies and products, including medical devices, pharmaceuticals, biotechnologies, consumer products, software, electronics, semiconductors, ecommerce, and mechanical devices. We develop defense strategies against nonpracticing entities (aka patent trolls). We argue in the Patent & Trademark Office (PTO), the International Trade Commission (ITC), and federal and state courts throughout the county.

We define the “win” with our clients up front. We gather facts and then chart the steps to victory, aligning the legal strategy with business needs. We match personal and corporate styles with budgets. We recognize that litigation is distracting and time-consuming. While we specialize in dispute resolution, most of our clients do not. These alignments ensure that our work consistently keeps our clients’ needs at the fore.

We are law professors, pro tem judges, and pro bono counsel. We are law firm, bench, and bar association leaders. Our clients benefit from our reputations, and our communities benefit from our support.

Our clients range from small start-ups to global corporations. We are especially proud of our work in “bet-the-company” IP matters between archcompetitors, where we have secured injunctive relief, lost profits, and other remedies. With decades of intellectual property experience, we navigate holistically and contextually. We win wars, not just battles.

State of the Art

We recognize that innovation also occurs in the prosecution and litigation of IP. We summarize key decisions and trends here.

  • Congress’s Proposed Revisions to Patent Eligibility Leave Critical Questions Unanswered

    Senators Chris Coons (D-Del.) and Thom Tillis (R-N.C.), the ranking member and chairman, respectively, of the Senate Judiciary Subcommittee on Intellectual Property, have released a proposed framework for an overhaul of the statutory definition of patent-eligible subject matter. A parallel version has also been released in the House of Representatives by Reps. Doug Collins (R-Ga.), Hank Johnson (D-Ga.), and Steve Strivers (R-Ohio).

  • Supreme Court Limits Post-Sale Patent Rights

    On May 30, 2017, the Supreme Court struck another in a series of blows to patent owners this term and significantly broadened the doctrine of patent “exhaustion,” which bars a patentee from asserting patent rights over an article after an authorized sale of the article. The decision reversed longstanding Federal Circuit precedent permitting patent infringement actions if (1) a sale was subject to clearly communicated, lawful restrictions on post-sale use or resale; or (2) a sale was made overseas. The Supreme Court voided these safe harbors, finding them to be sales that exhausted patent rights, reasoning “patent exhaustion is uniform and automatic.” Slip Op. at 13. The Supreme Court’s decision not only has immediate ramifications for patent licensing and enforcement actions, but also is likely to have a cascading effect on worldwide supply chains, pricing and product availability in some countries.

  • Are the Days of E.D. Texas Waning?

    On March 27, 2017, the Supreme Court heard arguments regarding an issue that has long plagued defendants in patent cases: are the venue rules applied by the Federal Circuit at odds with the patent statute and Supreme Court precedent? TC Heartland LLC v. Kraft Foods Group Brands, LLC, No.16-341.

  • Federal Circuit Clarifies the Boundaries of the Elusive “Abstract Idea” in Section 101 Challenges

    Affinity Labs of Texas, LLC v. DirecTV, LLC et al. (Fed. Cir. 2016)

  • Supreme Court Abolishes Laches Defense in Patent Cases

    SCA Hygiene Products v. First Quality Baby Products, Case No. 15-927 (March 21, 2017)

  • Federal Circuit Offers Further Ammunition to Section 101