Irwin IP has extensive experience litigating offensive and defensive patent infringement matters in a diverse range of technologies. Irwin IP has successfully litigated patent infringement matters against the largest, most prestigious law firms representing some of the world’s largest companies, including those resolved on an expedited basis and requiring numerous depositions within a short period of time after service of the complaint on our client. Irwin IP has the skill and resources needed to litigate any patent infringement matter, regardless of the size or the adversary, and is proud to have been retained for, and prevailed in, numerous patent infringement offensive and defensive litigation matters since its founding. For example, Irwin IP was:
Trial counsel for a mid-sized software company in a multi-patent offensive matter resulting in an eight-figure jury verdict after a three-week jury trial;
Lead counsel for a medical products company against a Fortune 50 company defeating its expedited attempt to enjoin our client’s product for allegedly infringing patents touted as being the foundation of a billion-dollar-per-year business, and which had survived invalidity challenges in two prior litigations (where injunctions had been entered by the same judge handling the matter) and an IPR action;
Lead counsel for a small, disruptive media streaming company achieving summary judgment against a large, multi-national company in two related multi-patent, defensive matters;
Lead counsel in a defensive patent infringement matter for an industrial equipment supplier convincing the court to deviate from local practice and consider an early motion for summary judgment that was successful on three separate, independent grounds and attorneys’ fees were recovered;
Lead counsel for an industry leading supplier of a popular self-balancing vehicle in several defensive patent infringement matters; and
Lead counsel in numerous other offensive and defensive patent infringement matters that have been successfully resolved, including matters involving chief competitors, market leaders pursuing claims against their smaller rivals, and non-practicing entities.
Irwin IP lawyers have a long history of success in patent infringement matters, including: a complete defense verdict in a $500 million, multi-patent infringement defense; a $16 million jury award in three-week patent infringement trial; a permanent injunction and $7.3 million jury award in an offensive matter protecting a $100-million-dollar-a-year product line; and numerous pre-trial victories, including numerous matters where Irwin IP lawyers obtained (or avoided) preliminary or stipulated injunctions, and consent judgments.
Irwin IP takes pride in its ability to master virtually any technology area. Our lawyers have handled patent matters involving authentication systems; automatic vehicle identification systems; automatic card shufflers; biopharmaceuticals; cable television systems; cellular telephones; cellular switching systems; chemical and petrochemical manufacturing processes, clothes washers; cold-rolled motor laminate steel; computer processing and memory devices; consumer products; dental technologies (both chemical and mechanical); digital multimedia (video and audio) data streaming; digital signal processing; digital signage; encryption systems; enhanced facsimile services; gaming systems; HVAC systems; internet display and content delivery systems; internet transmission protocols; kitchen applications; medical devices; ophthalmic surgical equipment; pharmaceuticals; protective encasements for electronic devices; radio frequency identification (RFID) systems; silicon ingot manufacturing; slot machines; speech coding systems; surgical equipment; telephone call back systems; trocars, and ultrasonic scalpels.
Representative matters for Irwin IP, or its lawyers, include:
Action Gaming. Trial and lead counsel for Action Gaming in several offensive patent infringement matters involving patented poker games, including a jury trial resulting in a $7.3 million jury award and a permanent injunction protecting a $100-million-dollar-a-year product line; and first-chairing several successful preliminary injunction arguments and obtaining dozens of voluntary cease and desist agreements.
Activision TV v. NEC, et al. Lead counsel for Activision TV in multi-patent, patent assertion matters involving internet display and content delivery systems resulting in several license agreements.
Adobe v. Wowza Media Systems. Lead counsel for Wowza Media Systems in two multi-patent infringement, false advertising and unfair competition defensive matters involving video streaming formats (RTMP, RTMPe, HTTP Dynamic Streaming) which were settled on confidential terms after Irwin IP obtained summary judgment of no patent infringement and the court announced its intention to grant Irwin IP’s summary judgment motion on the non-patent claims.
Apple Computer, Inc. Represented Apple Computer, both in federal district court and before the International Trade Commission, in multiple patent infringement matters relating to multiple devices and GUI’s, operations, and designs.
AuthWallet LLC v. Visa Inc. Lead counsel for Visa in defense of a patent infringement matter related to methods for processing financial transaction data that was voluntarily dismissed shortly after Irwin IP demonstrated to the plaintiff that its claims lacked merit.
Avaya. Lead counsel for Avaya on several patent infringement matters, including a multi-patent infringement defense involving enhanced facsimile services, and a patent infringement defense that resulted in a non-infringement judgment for an internet over cable system.
Baxter Healthcare v. Fresenius Medical Care Holdings, Inc., et al. Represented Baxter in a patent infringement matter where plaintiffs asserted infringement of nine patents relating to peritoneal dialysis.
Bayer v. Zoetis. Represented defendants Pfizer and Zoetis in a patent infringement defensive matter where Bayer asserted infringement against Pfizer’s single-dose fluoroquinolone product, ADVOCIN, for treating bovine respiratory disease. Defeated motion for temporary restraining order that sought to block launch of the product.
BIAX Corporation v. Sun Microsystems, Inc., et al. Represented defendant in patent infringement case involving both processor architecture and software claims.
BIAX Corporation v. Int’l Business Machines. Represented Motorola in patent infringement case involving dual processor technology.
Borden v. AMF Bowling. Lead counsel in a patent infringement defensive matter related to glow-in-the-dark bowling.
BRK Brands, Inc. v. Nest Labs, Inc. Represented Nest in defending against BRK’s assertion of six patents against Nest’s smart CO/smoke alarm product. Successfully defeated motion for preliminary injunction.
Cisco, Moto, Netgear v. Innovatio (MDL). Represented wireless product manufacturers Motorola, Cisco, and Netgear, as well as scores of their customers, in a consolidated Multi-District Litigation proceeding covering nearly two dozen patents relating to allegations of infringement based upon implementation of the 802.11 wireless standard. The case settled shortly after the court set a favorable FRAND licensing rate.
Cygnus v. Telegroup. First-chair in a patent infringement damages trial involving a discontinued telephone call-back system technology, where the case was “reverse-bifurcated” such that damages were tried first and the verdict was a tiny fraction of estimated cost of a liability trial.
DAK v. Indorama. Represented defendant in a case involving patent infringement and trade secret misappropriation allegations involving technologies relating to methods of making polyethylene terephthalate (PET) resins and polyesters. The case was favorably settled prior to trial.
Furrion Property Holding Ltd. et al. v. Way Interglobal Network, LLC. Lead defense counsel in design and utility patent infringement case involving kitchen appliances in recreational vehicles.
Greenheck Fan Corp. v. Loren Cook Company. Represented defendant in patent infringement case involving mixed flow and in-line centrifugal fan technology. The case settled on beneficial terms shortly after a favorable claim construction ruling.
HALO Branded Solutions v. Keepcool. Lead counsel for company accused of infringing design patent for reusable bags. Assisted client in demonstrating non-infringement of design patent.
Indufil v. Hy-Pro. Lead counsel for plaintiff-patentee involving industrial oil filtration, obtaining consent judgment and permanent injunction against accused infringer.
Industry Association Sponsored Litigation. Lead counsel for exclusive design patent licensee, in design patent infringement litigation related to aftermarket vehicle parts brought by patent owner, which resulted in permanent injunction and attorney fee award.
International Game Technology. Lead and trial counsel in numerous patent infringement matters involving a diverse range of technology, including “virtual reel” technology, “method of play” patents, cashless technology, authentication technology and progressive systems obtaining numerous preliminary injunctions, successful verdicts and permanent injunctions.
Invista and Auriga v. M&G. Represented plaintiff Auriga in a patent infringement case involving active and passive polymer barrier technologies.
IQ Biometrix. Lead counsel for IQ Biometrix in several patent infringement matters related to facial recognition technology resulting in numerous license agreements and consent judgments.
Kioba Processing, LLC v. Discover Financial Services et al. Represented defendant in patent infringement suit pertaining to five utility patents related to authentication and security services for financial payments, methods for effecting mobile payments, and wireless payment systems. The matter was settled within four months of the filing of the complaint.
Leading Warehouse Distribution Software Company. Lead counsel for mid-sized, leading software distribution company in defense of patent infringement claims by Fortune 100 company demonstrating before suit was filed that products did not infringe resulting with withdrawal of infringement claim.
LKQ Corporation v. General Motors Co. Lead counsel for supplier of aftermarket automotive parts seeking declaratory judgments of non-infringement and invalidity of several patents.
Mark IV v. Transcore. Lead counsel for Mark IV in multi-patent patent assertion matter involving radio frequency and automatic vehicle identification systems, arguing claim construction on over 30 terms, and prevailing on each construction; settled on confidential terms.
McDavid Knee Guard, Inc. v. Nike USA, Inc. Represented plaintiff in patent infringement matter relating to padded athletic sportswear, settled on confidential terms.
Medtech Products Inc. v. Ranir, LLC. Lead counsel for Ranir in hotly contested litigation, defending assertions of patent infringement matter relating to thermoplastic nightguard design, and asserting offensive claims of unfair competition and tortious interference, culminating in a settlement on confidential terms.
Otter Products, LLC d/b/a OtterBox v. Fellowes, Inc. Counsel for OtterBox in a patent infringement and trade dress case wherein OtterBox has asserted the willful infringement of eight patents covering protective cases for digital devices and associated trade dress. Fellowes counterclaimed infringement by OtterBox of two patents but was forced to dismiss those claims with prejudice in light of invalidity issues raised by OtterBox.
Outboard Marine v. Orbital Engine. Counsel for Outboard Marine in patent declaratory judgment action involving fuel injection technology.
Pfizer v. Apotex. Represented Pfizer in ANDA litigation seeking to halt the entrance of a generic version of Zyvox. The case was favorably settled prior to trial.
Pfizer v. Inventia. Represented Pfizer in ANDA litigation seeking to halt the entrance of a generic version of Detrol LA. The case was favorably settled prior to trial.
Ronald A. Katz Tech. Licensing L.P. v. Time Warner Cable, Inc. et al., (D. Del. 2006) – Represented Qwest entities in patent infringement action relating to telecommunications. The case settled on confidential terms.
Rambus, Inc. v. Infineon Technologies AG. Represented Infineon in fraud and patent infringement matter involving SDRAM and DDR-SDRAM, invalidity and inequitable conduct.
Ranir, LLC v. DenTek Oral Care Inc., et al. Lead counsel for Ranir in offensive patent infringement litigation against DenTek Oral Care, Inc. regarding disposable nightguard technology.
Razor v. Swagway, et al. Lead counsel for industry leader Swagway in defensive patent infringement matters relating to self-balancing vehicle design and control logic both in federal district court and before the International Trade Commission.
Research in Motion Corp. (“RIM”). Represented RIM in a breach of contract claim, an anti-trust claim, and several patent infringement matters relating to PDA technology, including text disambiguation.
Rotec v. Potain, et al. Lead counsel for Potain before obtaining dismissal for lack of personal jurisdiction.
Security & Access v. Motorola. Second-chair in two-week patent infringement jury trial that resulted in a complete defense verdict for client, Motorola.
Shuffle Master. First-chair and lead counsel in numerous offensive and defensive patent infringement matters involving a diverse range of technology, including automatic card shufflers, proprietary table games, and table game monitoring systems obtaining numerous preliminary injunctions and successful verdicts.
Segway v. Swagway. Lead counsel for industry leader Swagway LLC in defensive multi-patent infringement matters relating to self-balancing vehicle technology both in Federal district court and before the International Trade Commission.
Smart Options v. Options Away. Lead counsel for Options Away in patent infringement aspects of multi-faceted patent infringement and breach of contract matter.
Sturdy Floss v. CVS. Lead counsel for CVS in patent infringement matter involving flossing tool.
Tech-ni-Fold v. F.P. Rosback. Lead counsel for F.P. Rosback in a defensive patent infringement matter involving industrial equipment for creasing and scoring paper products, obtaining summary judgment of no infringement on three separate, independent grounds.
Trading Technologies v. CQG. Trial counsel for Trading Technologies in an offensive patent infringement matter culminating in a $16 million jury verdict after a three-week trial.
Unverferth v. Par-Kan. Lead counsel for Par-Kan in patent infringement defensive matter involving farm agricultural equipment.
Warn Industries, Inc. v. Holley Performance Products Inc. Lead counsel for Warn Industries in a patent infringement case wherein, in response to Warn’s allegations of Holley’s willful infringement of Warn’s patented winch technology, Holley agreed to immediately and permanently withdraw its infringing products from the marketplace.
Wi-LAN v. Acer, Inc., et al.; Wi-LAN v. Westell Technologies, Inc., et al. Represented defendant Intel in patent infringement case involving two patents relating to 802.11 wireless communications standards.
Wi-LAN v. Research in Motion, Motorola Inc., and UTStarcom, Inc. Represented defendant Motorola in patent infringement case involving two patents relating to CDMA and 802.11 wireless communications standards.
WorldGate Communications. Lead counsel for WorldGate Communication in several patent infringement matters involving data over cable technology and interactive television guides.
Qualcomm v. Motorola. Counsel for Motorola in multi-count intellectual property litigation.Lead counsel for Visa in defense of a patent infringement matter related to methods for processing financial transaction data that was voluntarily dismissed shortly after Irwin IP demonstrated to the plaintiff that its claims lacked merit.