REPRESENTATIVE CASES In which our Attorneys were Lead Counsel:
Mickowski v. Visi-Trak, 36 F. Supp.2d 171 (S.D.N.Y.1999), aff’d , 230 F.3d. 1379 (Fed. Cir. 2000).
Our client owned two patents related to process monitoring for manufacturing machines. We served as lead counsel for the trial and the appeal.. The district court issued an injunction, found that the defendant had willfully infringed our client’s patents, and awarded our client a multi-million dollar verdict, including damages and attorneys’ fees. The court of appeals upheld the district court judgment.
Kerzner International Limited v. JEC II LLC, Opposition No. 91167455 (TTAB Sept. 25, 2007)
Kerzner Int’l opposed several federal trademark applications and an issued federal registration of our client JEC II LLC, based upon Kerzner’s federal service mark registrations. We moved, on behalf of our client, for partial summary judgment to cancel all but one of the service recitations of one of Kerzner’s registrations. The motion was based upon admissions that Kerzner was not providing, and had never provided, these services in the United States, so that the registration of these services by Kerzner was void ab initio. Summary judgment was granted in our client’s favor, cancelling these services (resort services, restaurant and bar services, health clubs services, golf club services, and the like) from the registration in question.
Chembio Diagnostic Systems, Inc. v. Saliva Diagnostic Systems, Inc., 04-cv-1149 (E.D.N.Y. 2005)
A competitor of our client brought a declaratory judgment action of non-infringement with respect to our client’s patents for an HIV testing kit. The District Court for the Eastern District of New York rejected the defendant’s position, and adopted our client’s claim interpretation. The litigation was settled on favorable terms.
Connectel, LLC v. ITXC Incorporated, 2004 WL 540444 (E.D. Pa. 2004)
Our client was accused of infringing a patent related to routing of telephone calls over the Internet. After pretrial proceedings in which our client prevailed on all issues concerning the interpretation of the patent claims, a prompt settlement resulted.
PLX, Inc. v. Prosystems, Inc., 220 F.R.D. 91 (N.D.W. Va. 2004)
We represented the plaintiff in an infringement suit against the defendant company and its two officers. After prevailing on several pretrial matters, including sanctions against the defendant and its counsel for discovery abuses, the Court ruled in our client’s favor on every one of the disputed patent claim terms in the Markman hearing. A prompt settlement resulted.
Worldwide Dreams LLC v. James Grintz et al., Index No. 602897/05 in the Supreme Court of the State of New York, County of NY
Our clients were defendants in this NY State Court action which claimed they had aided and abetted a breach of fiduciary duty of an ex-employee of the plaintiff company. Plaintiff was represented by a large international law firm. We were successful in having all claims against our clients dismissed on summary judgment, with a ruling that opened the doors to a sanctions hearing against the plaintiff and its counsel.