- John Caracappa
+1 202 429 6267
- James (Jay) R. Nuttall
+1 312 577 1260
- John J. Molenda, Ph.D.
+1 212 378 7540
Steptoe’s patent litigation practice is recognized as among the premier in the country, achieving recognition in publications including Intellectual Asset Magazine’s “Patent 1000 – The World’s Leading Patent Practitioners” in each of the last two years; Chambers USA and Chambers Global; and Legal 500 US. Our team combines Steptoe’s traditional strength in litigation with an advanced understanding of the technical aspects of the issues at hand, allowing our lawyers to effectively advocate for our clients the trial level, at appeal, at arbitration venues throughout the world, and in front of various regulatory bodies. We are:
Skilled Litigators. The lawyers in our patent litigation practice understand how to prepare a case for trial. We spend the time to develop case themes early, performing pre-litigation investigations on behalf of clients in order to develop the best strategy to attain our client’s business objectives. We hone in on the key issues at hand and combine that with the ability and willingness to take a case to trial. Steptoe lawyers have tried cases to verdicts before judges and juries, and have handled arbitrations before arbitral panels throughout the world. As a result, we put out clients in a strong position to achieve the most favorable result – either at trial, through a summary judgment, or negotiations.
Technically Strong. We combine our advocacy with a substantive and nuanced understanding of the technological issues in dispute. Several lawyers and specialists in our practice have PhDs and masters degrees in such areas as biology, chemistry, chemical engineering, electrical engineering, and mathematics, represent clients in all disciplines of patent law, and have the background to thoroughly understand the intricacies of the technologies at issue in each case. That allows the lawyers on our team to present these often complex issues in a form that a lay judge or jury can understand, so that they can make an informed, and correct, judgment.
Deeply Experienced. We represent a variety of clients, from Fortune 500 corporations, to midsize companies, and small, emerging high-tech ventures, and for them, we litigate cases in a range of industries, including automobile, consumer products, electronics, financial, telecommunications, transportation, and the internet. Our extensive litigation experience means we appear before every significant patent jurisdiction in the country, including US District Courts, the Federal Circuit, and the International Trade Commission (ITC). Several of our IP litigators provide trial and appellate representation of corporations in major patent litigation cases, as well as patent interferences before the Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences, and trademark opposition/cancellation proceedings before the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board, in the US Patent and Trademark Office.
In addition, we understand that while patent litigation is vital to protecting intellectual property, it is inherently unpredictable and can be an expensive proposition. We recognize our clients’ top priorities, including budgeting, responsiveness, and efficiency. Our experience allows us to handle matters in a cost-effective manner, with lean staffing and cross-office collaboration leading to efficient and complete coverage. We are committed to helping our clients meet their goal of protecting and profiting from patents that represent a significant investment in time and money.
District Court Litigation
- Raytheon Company v. Sony Kabushiki Kaisha et al (E.D. Tex. 2015) - Representing Raytheon in asserting allegations of patent infringement involving a patent related to a process of manufacturing a microelectric device.
- Cruise Control Technologies LLC v. American Honda Motor Co. Inc. (D. Del. 2013) (D. Mich. 2014) – Represented American Honda Motor Co. in a patent infringement suit involving cruise control products and services. The matter was transferred in April 2014 to the Eastern District of Michigan. Steptoe also represented Honda as lead counsel in an inter partes review of the patents in suit, which was settled. The case was settled.
- Schrader-Bridgeport International, Inc. et al v. Continental Automotive Systems US, Inc. (E.D. Mich. 2012) – Represented Continental in a patent infringement suit involving technology for tire pressure monitors. We obtained a decision on summary judgment invalidating Schrader Electronics’ ‘495 patent and the case was dismissed with prejudice. The case is on appeal and various related proceedings at the patent office are on-going.
To see a comprehensive list of our pending and completed representative patent litigation matters, please click here.
Section 337/ITC Litigation
- Certain Audio Processing Hardware and Software And Products Containing Same (2015) - USITC Inv. No. 337-TA-949 - Representing Realtek Semiconductor Corp. against claims asserted by Andrea Electronics Corp. alleging infringement of five patents involving audio signal processing.
- Certain Vision-Based Driver Assistance System Cameras and Components Thereof (2014), USITC Inv. No. 337-TA-899 – Represented Magna Electronics, Inc. in a patent infringement investigation based on a complaint filed by TRW Automotive U.S. LLC regarding the use of road profile prediction systems. The case was terminated when the complainant withdrew its complaint shortly before the evidentiary hearing.
- Certain Laundry and Household Cleaning Products and Related Packaging (2013), USITC Inv. No. 337-TA-891 – Represented complainant Clorox in trademark infringement litigation against AlEn and AlEn USA. Clorox asserted AlEn's Cloralex and Pinol products infringe Clorox's Clorox and Pine-Sol trademarks. The investigation was terminated based upon the entry of a settlement agreement.
To see a comprehensive list of our Section 337/ITC Litigation matters, please click here.
Federal Circuit Litigation
- AstraZeneca v. Sandoz Inc., et al (Fed. Cir. 2015) – Lead counsel for appellee Sandoz Inc. in appeal of district court case relating to a patent for Pulmicort Respules®. The court affirmed the district court’s invalidity ruling and dissolved AstraZeneca's injunction.
- CSP Technologies, Inc. v. Sud-Chemie AG (Fed. Circ. 2015) – Lead counsel for appellant CSP Technologies in an appeal of summary judgment and claim construction.
- CSP Technologies, Inc. v. Clariant Corp. (Fed. Circ. 2015) – Lead counsel for appellant CSP Technologies in an appeal PTAB final written decision.
To see a comprehensive list of our Federal Circuit matters, please click here.
- Ranked among the top patent litigation firms in Intellectual Asset Management (IAM) magazine's Patent 1000: The World's Leading Patent Practitioners, 2012-2015
Select News & Events
- Steptoe Receives 80 Individual Mentions in Best Lawyers 2017
- Jeremy Goldkind, Randal Alexander Again Named Illinois ‘Emerging Lawyers’
- Law360 Covers John Molenda’s Oral Arguments for Pharma-Related IPR Appeal
- Law360 Quotes Vishal Gupta on PTAB’s Post-Grant Review Decisions
- "Deciphering the On-Sale Bar: Clarifying 'Public Use' Under Section 102," ACI
- "Paragraph IV Disputes Master Symposium," ACI
- “BPCIA Litigation: Updates & Developments in 2016,” The Knowledge Group
- 2016 PTAB: Five Years of IPRs