- Intellectual Property
- Patent: Business Methods
- Patent: Chemistry
- Patent: Electronics & Software
- Patent: Materials Science
- Patent: Mechanical
- Patent: Medical Devices
- Patent: Nanotechnologies
- Patent: Pharmaceuticals & Biotechnology
- Section 337/ITC Litigation
Patent litigation is inherently unpredictable and can be an expensive proposition. Yet, in a time of increasing financial pressures, it is vital to a company’s success to protect its intellectual property. Steptoe’s patent litigation team combines its wealth of experience with lean staffing and a teamwork approach to provide our clients with top-notch, effective, and efficient representation.
Over the past five years, Steptoe has developed a thriving, national patent litigation practice that operates seamlessly with the traditional litigation strengths of the firm. Our patent litigation team consists of several former in-house counsels, who understand clients’ top priorities, including budgeting, responsiveness, and efficiency. Client teams are staffed leanly; clients are able to speak directly with lead lawyers, who are intimately involved with the matters and are available at any time. We have attracted several lawyers and specialists with PhDs and masters degrees in all areas of technology and who represent clients in all disciplines of patent law.
Our attorneys have tried scores of cases to judgment for Fortune 500 companies, midsize companies, and small, emerging high-tech companies. We have litigated cases for prominent companies in a range of industries, including automobile, consumer products, electronics, financial, telecommunications, transportation, and the internet. Our clients, many of whom are not long-standing clients of the firm, have consistently returned to Steptoe and expanded their relationships with us year after year since the creation of the practice in 2003. We believe these companies come back to Steptoe because of our responsiveness, quality, and focus on efficient litigation.
Our partners have extensive litigation experience in courts throughout the United States and before the US International Trade Commission. They have been lead counsel in several patent infringement litigations in federal district courts across the country. Several of our IP litigators provide trial and appellate representation of corporations in major patent litigation cases. Another member of the team successfully litigated important patent interferences before the Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences, and trademark opposition/cancellation proceedings before the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board, in the USPTO.
Finally, as an added value to our clients, the firm established a Complex Litigation Discovery Center (CLDC) in 2003 in Rockville, Maryland. More than 100 contract attorneys at the CLDC with much reduced rates assist in all aspects of discovery and litigation, performing legal analysis of documents and electronic files accurately and cost-efficiently. This turnkey operation is dedicated to that function and applies tried and true quality assurance protocols.
Current Federal Court Patent Cases
- MonoSol Rx, LLC, et al. v. Par Pharmaceutical, Inc., et al. (D. Del. 2013) – Representing MonoSol Rx, LLC in asserting allegations of patent infringement regarding an ANDA for a generic version of Suboxone®.
- Magna Mirrors v. 3M (Fed. Cir. 2013) – Lead counsel for appellant Magna Mirrors in appeal of a district court decision on equitable estoppel. Pending.
- AstraZeneca v. Sandoz, et al. (Fed. Cir. 2013) – Lead counsel for appellee Sandoz in appeal of a trial court determination that AstraZeneca’s patents on Pulmecort Respules®, generic budesonide, are either invalid or not infringed. Pending.
- Autoliv ASP, Inc. v. Hyundai Mobis Co., Ltd. et al. (M.D. Ala. 2013) – Representing Hyundai Mobis Co., Ltd. and Mobis Alabama, LLC in a patent infringement suit involving automotive safety airbag technology. Pending.
- HBAC Matchmaker Media Inc. v. Blip Networks, Inc. (D. Del. 2013) – Representing Blip Networks in a patent infringement suit relating to Internet advertising. Pending.
- Innovative Biometric Technology, LLC (IBT) v. Toshiba (Fed. Cir. 2013) – Lead counsel for appellant IBT in appeal of district court decision on attorney fees. Pending.
- Allergan, Inc. v. Apotex Inc., et al. (Fed. Cir. 2013) – Representing defendant-appellant Sandoz Inc. in an appeal of a district court decision finding infringement and validity of patents. Pending.
- Wildcat Licensing WI, LLC v. Johnson Controls, Inc. (W.D. Wis. 2013) – Representing plaintiff Wildcat Licensing WI, LLC in a patent infringement suit regarding the method of assembly and sale of seats manufactured using that method to its customers in Mexico and Canada. Pending.
- Cruise Control Technologies LLC v. American Honda Motor Co. Inc. (D. Del. 2013) – Representing defendant American Honda Motor Co. Inc. against allegations of patent infringement involving cruise control products and services. Pending.
- Lamina Packaging Innovations, LLC v. Moët Hennessy USA, Inc. (E.D. Tex. 2013) - Represented Moët Hennessy USA, Inc. against allegations of patent infringement regarding the use of laminated packaging for Dom Perignon and Moët Chandon products. Plaintiff voluntarily dismissed the case.
To see a comprehensive list of our pending and completed representative patent litigation matters, please click here.
- Steptoe ranked among top patent litigation firms in Intellectual Asset Management (IAM) magazine's "Patent 1000 - The World's Leading Patent Practitioners," 2012-2013
Select News & Events
- Steptoe Named Law Firm of the Year in Railroad Law
- Steptoe Receives 18 Practice, 65 Individual Mentions in Legal 500 US 2013
- Steptoe Receives 16 Partner, Four Firm Mentions in IAM Patent 1000
- Steptoe Secures Favorable Decisions for Individual in Patent Suit Against GE
- "Best Practices: Litigation in the Federal Circuit and the South Korean Courts," FCBA International Series
- "Infringement Based on the Acts of Multiple Parties," PLI Patent Litigation 2013 Seminar
- "A View From the Bench," ACI Paragraph IV Disputes Master Symposium
- "Apples, Oranges, and the ITC: Insights into Section 337 Patent Litigation Practice," Colorado Bar Association