Companies in the rapidly evolving computer, software, electronics, life sciences and pharmaceutical industries rely on Womble Bond Dickinson (WBD) for patent litigation counsel.
Our team includes multiple litigators with first chair experience, who have tried patent cases in courtrooms across the United States. We know what it takes to win—by procuring the strongest evidence to support claims or defenses, developing advantageous claim construction positions, prevailing on impactful motions, and making compelling presentations at trial (and, if necessary, on appeal). We also are adept at navigating the strategic interplay between district court and USPTO proceedings, and coordinating multi-venue patent disputes, including those that cross borders.
We regularly represent clients in patent lawsuits in federal courts, including nearly 400 cases in the past ten years. Our practice includes strong IP litigation teams in Delaware, California and Texas, three of the nation’s busiest patent litigation venues.
WBD’s patent litigators hold degrees in a wide variety of technical disciplines. Moreover, our patent litigation practice is complemented by a deep bench of patent prosecution attorneys and agents. Many of our patent professionals were practicing scientists or engineers working for industry leaders and trailblazers, and many have advanced degrees, including 25 with PhDs. Understanding the science underlying patents can be key in any patent lawsuit. Having a broad-based team with backgrounds in science and engineering gives us an invaluable understanding of the IP issues our clients face in litigation.
B-5, Inc. et al v. Accu-Tac, LLC et al., C.D. Cal (No. 20-cv-00532). Represented Accu-Tac resulting in a major victory in a dispute related to the company’s firearms technology. After two years of dispute, the judge granted the client a summary judgment as to non-infringement of its current redesigned projects, and also barred pre-suit damages.
Ferring Pharmaceuticals Inc. et al. v. Fresenius Kabi USA, LLC, D. Del. (No. 20-cv-431-MN). Represent Ferring Pharmaceuticals Inc., Ferring International Center S.A., Ferring B.V., and Polypeptide Laboratories in a Hatch-Waxman litigation involving an ANDA filed by Fresenius Kabi USA, LLC seeking approval to market and sell a generic version of Ferring’s product FIRMAGON, which is indicated to treat patients with advanced prostate cancer. Trial is scheduled for January 18, 2022.
Lucio Development LLC et al. v. Qorvo, Inc. et al., E.D. Tex. (No. 6:19-cv-00034). Defended Qorvo against patent infringement claims asserted by a non-practicing entity (NPE) Lucio Development LLC. Plaintiff dismissed with prejudice after assertion that claims violated North Carolina’s Abusive Patent Assertions Act.
Nuance Communications Inc. v. Omilia Natural Language Solutions, Ltd., D.Mass. (1:19-cv-11438). Represented Nuance in asserting claims against Omilia for infringement of 8 patents relating to artificial intelligence, speech recognition and interactive voice response systems, as well as claims for copyright infringement, violations of the Digital Millennium Copyright Act, the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act, and claims for conversion and trespass to chattels.
Fuma International LLC v. R.J. Reynolds Vapor, M.D.N.C. (No. 1:19-cv-260) and Civil Action No. 1:19-cv-660. Representing defendant in patent infringement case involving electronic cigarette technology. Case remains ongoing.
SAS Institute Inc. v. World Programming Limited et al., E.D.Tex. (2:18-cv-00295). Represented SAS in prior litigation against WPL in North Carolina and won a $79 million judgment affirmed by the Fourth Circuit; ongoing litigation in multiple jurisdictions over collection of that judgment; SAS sued WPL in ED Tex., seeking additional relief for copyright infringement and patent infringement.
Silbersher, et al. v. Valeant Pharmaceuticals, et al., N.D. Cal. (No. 18-cexpv-1496) & No. 20-16176 (9th Cir.). Represent Defendant Dr. Falk Pharma in a qui tam action; won dismissal of Relator’s claims, which are currently on appeal.
Thunder Power New Energy Vehicle Dev. Co. v. Byton N. Am. Corp., N.D. Cal. (No. 18-cv-03115-JST). Represented Byton N.A. against a rival start-up electric car manufacturer, Thunder Power Energy, in patent infringement suit involving three patents relating to vehicle user interface displays. In response to motion for preliminary injunction, had claims invalidated. Affirmed on appeal.
Eloqui v. Nuance Communications, Inc., C.D. Cal. (No. 17-cv-890). Represented Nuance in patent infringement action relating to virtual digital assistants; won summary judgment of noninfringement.
GEODynamics, Inc. v. DynaEnergetics US, Inc., E.D.Tex. (No. 2:17-cv-00371-JRG-RSP). Represented DynaEnergetics in a patent infringement case related to a product method involving oil and gas well perforation technology. After a four-day jury trial in 2018, DynaEnergetics obtained a complete defense verdict, including a finding of noninfringement and invalidity of each of the patent claims.
GEODynamics, Inc. v. DynaEnergetics US, Inc., E.D. Tex. (No. 2:16-cv-00697-JRG-RSP) and DynaEnergetics US, Inc. v. GEODynamics, Inc., Case IPR2016-1850 (PTAB). Represented DynaEnergetics in a patent infringement case involving a product patent for use of DPEX® shaped charges in oil and gas well perforations. After DynaEnergetics filed a petition for inter partes review with the PTAB challenging validity of the patent, the PTAB cancelled all challenged claims of the patent in favor of DynaEnergetics. GEODynamics dismissed its appeal to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, and the related District Court litigation was dismissed.
North Star Innovations Inc. v. Elite Semiconductor Memory Technology Inc., C.D. Cal. (No. 16-cv-600). Represented Elite in patent litigation involving specialty DRAM products; dismissed with prejudice pursuant to settlement.*
Graphic Arts, Inc. v. Compact Foilers, et al. D.N.J. (No. 16-cv-09408). Represented defendants in patent infringement case involving metal printing technology. Secured neutral determination of non-infringement, after which the plaintiff dismissed the case with prejudice and paid clients’ legal fees.
GEODynamics, Inc. v. DynaEnergetics US, Inc., E.D. Tex. (No. 2:15-cv-01546-JRG-RSP). Represented DynaEnergetics in patent infringement case related to a method patent for use of its DPEX® shaped charges in oil and gas well perforations. After a four-day jury trial in 2017, DynaEnergetics obtained a complete defense verdict, including a finding of noninfringement and three different bases of invalidity for each of the patent claims.
Inline Packaging, LLC v. Graphic Packaging International, LLC, D. Minn. (No. 15-3183). Represented Graphic Packaging International in a 2018 victory by summary judgment against rival Inline Packaging in a patent and antitrust dispute relating to microwavable food packaging. In July 2020, the lower court decision was affirmed by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit in a landmark victory.
Graphic Packaging International, LLC v. Inline Packaging, LLC, D.Minn. (No. 15-cv-3476). Represented Graphic Packaging International in suit alleging infringement of four patents for microwavable food packaging. After a stay pending inter partes review, the case was reopened in 2018. Dispositive motions are currently pending and trial is expected in early 2021.
Card-Monroe Corp. v. Tuftco Corp., E.D. Tenn. (1:14-cv-00292). Represented carpet industry client, Card-Monroe, in patent litigation involving carpet tufting technology. Successfully obtained summary judgment that our client’s patents were valid and infringed by a direct competitor.
Companies in the rapidly evolving computer, software, electronics, life sciences and pharmaceutical industries rely on Womble Bond Dickinson for patent litigation counsel.
Our team includes multiple litigators with first chair experience, who have tried patent cases in courtrooms across the United States.
We know what it takes to win—by procuring the strongest evidence to support claims or defenses, developing advantageous claim construction positions, prevailing on impactful motions, and making compelling presentations at trial (and, if necessary, on appeal). We also are adept at navigating the strategic interplay between district court and USPTO proceedings, and coordinating multi-venue patent disputes, including those that cross borders.
We regularly represent clients in patent lawsuits in federal courts, including nearly 400 cases in the past ten years. Our practice includes strong IP litigation teams in Delaware, California and Texas, three of the nation’s busiest patent litigation venues.
WBD’s patent litigators hold degrees in a wide variety of technical disciplines. Moreover, our patent litigation practice is complemented by a deep bench of patent prosecution attorneys and agents. Many of our patent professionals were practicing scientists or engineers working for industry leaders and trailblazers, and many have advanced degrees, including 25 with PhDs. Understanding the science underlying patents can be key in any patent lawsuit. Having a broad-based team with backgrounds in science and engineering gives us an invaluable understanding of the IP issues our clients face in litigation.
Need legal advice and guidance in Patent Litigation?
Our team is able to help provide solutions to you and your organization. Browse through our lawyers and professional staff to find the right attorney near you.
Examples of our work and how we’ve helped companies of all sizes with a wide range of challenges.
Representative Experience
B-5, Inc. et al v. Accu-Tac, LLC et al., C.D. Cal (No. 20-cv-00532). Represented Accu-Tac resulting in a major victory in a dispute related to the company’s firearms technology. After two years of dispute, the judge granted the client a summary judgment as to non-infringement of its current redesigned projects, and also barred pre-suit damages.
Ferring Pharmaceuticals Inc. et al. v. Fresenius Kabi USA, LLC, D. Del. (No. 20-cv-431-MN). Represent Ferring Pharmaceuticals Inc., Ferring International Center S.A., Ferring B.V., and Polypeptide Laboratories in a Hatch-Waxman litigation involving an ANDA filed by Fresenius Kabi USA, LLC seeking approval to market and sell a generic version of Ferring’s product FIRMAGON, which is indicated to treat patients with advanced prostate cancer. Trial is scheduled for January 18, 2022.
Lucio Development LLC et al. v. Qorvo, Inc. et al., E.D. Tex. (No. 6:19-cv-00034). Defended Qorvo against patent infringement claims asserted by a non-practicing entity (NPE) Lucio Development LLC. Plaintiff dismissed with prejudice after assertion that claims violated North Carolina’s Abusive Patent Assertions Act.
Nuance Communications Inc. v. Omilia Natural Language Solutions, Ltd., D.Mass. (1:19-cv-11438). Represented Nuance in asserting claims against Omilia for infringement of 8 patents relating to artificial intelligence, speech recognition and interactive voice response systems, as well as claims for copyright infringement, violations of the Digital Millennium Copyright Act, the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act, and claims for conversion and trespass to chattels.
Fuma International LLC v. R.J. Reynolds Vapor, M.D.N.C. (No. 1:19-cv-260) and Civil Action No. 1:19-cv-660. Representing defendant in patent infringement case involving electronic cigarette technology. Case remains ongoing.
SAS Institute Inc. v. World Programming Limited et al., E.D.Tex. (2:18-cv-00295). Represented SAS in prior litigation against WPL in North Carolina and won a $79 million judgment affirmed by the Fourth Circuit; ongoing litigation in multiple jurisdictions over collection of that judgment; SAS sued WPL in ED Tex., seeking additional relief for copyright infringement and patent infringement.
Silbersher, et al. v. Valeant Pharmaceuticals, et al., N.D. Cal. (No. 18-cv-1496) & No. 20-16176 (9th Cir.). Represent Defendant Dr. Falk Pharma in a qui tam action; won dismissal of Relator’s claims, which are currently on appeal.
Thunder Power New Energy Vehicle Dev. Co. v. Byton N. Am. Corp., N.D. Cal. (No. 18-cv-03115-JST). Represented Byton N.A. against a rival start-up electric car manufacturer, Thunder Power Energy, in patent infringement suit involving three patents relating to vehicle user interface displays. In response to motion for preliminary injunction, had claims invalidated. Affirmed on appeal.
Eloqui v. Nuance Communications, Inc., C.D. Cal. (No. 17-cv-890). Represented Nuance in patent infringement action relating to virtual digital assistants; won summary judgment of noninfringement.
GEODynamics, Inc. v. DynaEnergetics US, Inc., E.D.Tex. (No. 2:17-cv-00371-JRG-RSP). Represented DynaEnergetics in a patent infringement case related to a product method involving oil and gas well perforation technology. After a four-day jury trial in 2018, DynaEnergetics obtained a complete defense verdict, including a finding of noninfringement and invalidity of each of the patent claims.
GEODynamics, Inc. v. DynaEnergetics US, Inc., E.D. Tex. (No. 2:16-cv-00697-JRG-RSP) and DynaEnergetics US, Inc. v. GEODynamics, Inc., Case IPR2016-1850 (PTAB). Represented DynaEnergetics in a patent infringement case involving a product patent for use of DPEX® shaped charges in oil and gas well perforations. After DynaEnergetics filed a petition for inter partes review with the PTAB challenging validity of the patent, the PTAB cancelled all challenged claims of the patent in favor of DynaEnergetics. GEODynamics dismissed its appeal to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, and the related District Court litigation was dismissed.
North Star Innovations Inc. v. Elite Semiconductor Memory Technology Inc., C.D. Cal. (No. 16-cv-600). Represented Elite in patent litigation involving specialty DRAM products; dismissed with prejudice pursuant to settlement.*
Graphic Arts, Inc. v. Compact Foilers, et al. D.N.J. (No. 16-cv-09408). Represented defendants in patent infringement case involving metal printing technology. Secured neutral determination of non-infringement, after which the plaintiff dismissed the case with prejudice and paid clients’ legal fees.
GEODynamics, Inc. v. DynaEnergetics US, Inc., E.D. Tex. (No. 2:15-cv-01546-JRG-RSP). Represented DynaEnergetics in patent infringement case related to a method patent for use of its DPEX® shaped charges in oil and gas well perforations. After a four-day jury trial in 2017, DynaEnergetics obtained a complete defense verdict, including a finding of noninfringement and three different bases of invalidity for each of the patent claims.
Inline Packaging, LLC v. Graphic Packaging International, LLC, D. Minn. (No. 15-3183). Represented Graphic Packaging International in a 2018 victory by summary judgment against rival Inline Packaging in a patent and antitrust dispute relating to microwavable food packaging. In July 2020, the lower court decision was affirmed by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit in a landmark victory.
Graphic Packaging International, LLC v. Inline Packaging, LLC, D.Minn. (No. 15-cv-3476). Represented Graphic Packaging International in suit alleging infringement of four patents for microwavable food packaging. After a stay pending inter partes review, the case was reopened in 2018. Dispositive motions are currently pending and trial is expected in early 2021.
Card-Monroe Corp. v. Tuftco Corp., E.D. Tenn. (1:14-cv-00292). Represented carpet industry client, Card-Monroe, in patent litigation involving carpet tufting technology. Successfully obtained summary judgment that our client’s patents were valid and infringed by a direct competitor.
*Handled at a prior firm.
You might be interested in...
Featured Content
Supreme Court Focuses Scope of Patent Enablement—What Patent Owners Need to Know
This selection will switch the website from presenting information primarily about the United Kingdom to information about the United States. If you would like to switch back, you may use location selection options at the top of the page.
Contact
Although we would like to hear from you, we cannot represent you until we know that doing so will not create a conflict of interest. Also, we cannot treat unsolicited information as confidential. Accordingly, please do not send us any information about any legal matter until we authorize you to do so. To initiate a possible representation, please call one of our lawyers or staff members.
By clicking the “ACCEPT” button, you agree that we may review any information you transmit to us. You recognize that, even if you submit information that you consider confidential in an effort to retain us, our review of that information will not create an obligation on us to keep it confidential and will not preclude us from representing another client directly adverse to you, even in a matter where that information could and will be used against you.
Please click the “ACCEPT” button if you understand and accept the foregoing statement and wish to proceed.
