Patent Litigation

The complexity of today’s technology and the high value of intellectual property make industry disputes inevitable. Successful patent litigation requires a keen combination of exceptional legal skills, deep technological knowledge, and a firm understanding of the client’s business.

Exceptionally knowledgeable about virtually all aspects of the electrical, mechanical, chemical, biological, and pharmaceutical arts, BakerHostetler’s patent litigation team handles our clients’ most important and technologically complicated matters, whether to defend against a claim of patent infringement or to halt a competitor’s unlawful technology exploitation. Our team will also seek to maximize the value of our clients’ patent portfolios through enforcement and licensing efforts targeting client financial and market-position goals.

Litigating to win

We draw from BakerHostetler’s deep bench of over 40 patent litigators, trial lawyers and registered patent attorneys, forming efficient, effective teams singularly focused on our clients’ intellectual property goals.

Our litigation teams also draw from BakerHostetler’s significant bench depth of over 60 patent prosecution attorneys and advisors, who possess comprehensive knowledge of virtually all technology fields.

Our sophisticated patent litigation advocacy has been battle tested in courts across the country, including in all high-volume patent litigation districts, in mediation and arbitration, and in proceedings before the International Trade Commission, the Patent Appeals and Trial Board, the U.S. Court of Federal Claims, and courts of appeals, including the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit.

On behalf of Siemens Gamesa Renewable Energy (SGRE), a market leader in wind turbine technology, we convinced a jury that General Electric (GE) infringed our client’s patent related to wind turbines. Following a fourteen-day trial in Boston, the jury found SGRE’s patent infringed and not invalid, and awarded our client a royalty of $30,000 per megawatt (valued at roughly $60 million). The court also granted a permanent injunction against GE’s offshore wind turbines and doubled the jury’s award for one wind turbine farm, resulting in total damages roughly valued at $97 million.
We also successfully defended SGRE in the ITC against claims brought by rival GE accusing SGRE’s wind turbines of infringing two of GE’s patents. A loss in the ITC would have prevented SGRE from importing, selling, installing, and servicing its wind turbines in the U.S. Instead, the victory we secured enabled SGRE to continue its business operations in the U.S.
We successfully represented longtime client Comcast Cable Communications against Sprint Communications in a two-week patent infringement trial in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania. Comcast’s patents were held valid and infringed, and judgment entered against Sprint.
We successfully demonstrated that all 32 claims of three patents asserted against client Jubilant Radiopharma in an ITC action are invalid. As a result, the ITC determined that Jubilant’s importation and sale of RUBY-FILL Generators and RUBY Elution Systems in the U.S. did not violate the 1930 Tariff Act. We also achieved significant IPR success for Jubilant in the PTAB, where we invalidated all 22 claims of 2 additional patents asserted against Jubilant in a district court action. After we successfully defended the ITC’s and PTAB’s decisions on appeal, the district court action was dismissed.
We successfully obtained a finding of no violation for client Guidance Software in an ITC action involving three patents asserted against drive duplicators, drive wipers and forensic bridges.
We successfully represented Henny Penny with one of the first cases involving the Pilot Program for Amending Claims during an IPR. The PTAB found all of the original claims involving deep frier technologies unpatentable and denied the motion to amend.
Secured a complete victory from the International Trade Commission for client Culligan International and its subsidiary, ZeroWater, and against Clorox Co.’s Brita brand (Brita LP). The Commission issued a final ruling finding the patent asserted by Brita invalid on three separate grounds and accordingly terminated the investigation against Culligan/ZeroWater and two other primary industry players in the gravity fed water filtration arena. As a result, ZeroWater can continue importing and selling its key product-line of 5-stage water filters and pitchers/dispensers in the U.S.