Takeda Pioglitazone Litigation
Successfully protected patent coverage for antidiabetic drug against twelve different sets of defendants in 16 cases. Cases successfully resolved with settlements preserving patent protection at a value reportedly in the billions.
Takeda v. Mylan Labs
After successful trial on the merits resulting in judgment in Takeda’s favor against attacks under the Hatch Waxman Act on the validity and enforceability of its patent on a popular oral antidiabetic agent ACTOS®, Takeda was awarded all of the attorneys' fees and expenses it sought.
Sharp v. Xerox
Successfully negotiated settlement of patent litigation involving 29 patents covering various aspects of photocopier technology in a “rocket docket” case filed in the Eastern District of Texas. The case, involving more than 200 accused products, settled on favorable terms.
Roquette Frères v. SPI Pharma
Edwards Wildman helped defendant SPI Pharma obtain a favorable settlement after a jury trial in the U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware. At issue was a spray-dried mannitol product used as a sweetener and excipient in the food and pharmaceutical industries. SPI Pharma was alleged to have infringed a patent held by the French company, Roquette. After listening to cross-examination of Roquette’s lead expert witness and a presentation of SPI Pharma’s case, Chief Judge Gregory M. Sleet granted SPI Pharma’s motion for judgment as a matter of law as to non-infringement.
Mitsubishi Chemical Corp v. Barr Laboratories
After a lengthy trial, a U.S. federal judge issued a 156-page decision in favor of our client, Mitsubishi Chemical, in its patent infringement battle with Barr Laboratories over the direct thrombin inhibitor drug Argatroban, forbidding Barr from producing a generic version of the drug until after Mitsubishi’s patent expires in 2014.
VLP Watertown Limited Partnership v. TriState Breeders Coop., d/b/a Accelerated Genetics
Obtained a multimillion dollar judgment on behalf of VLP, a small research-based biosciences company, following a two-week jury trial in the U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts. VLP prevailed on counts of trade secret misappropriation and breach of contract after Accelerated Genetics, with whom VLP had entered into a research and development agreement, began to market a competing product based on VLP’s method and test data.
Competitive Edge v. Staples
Our client Staples won a patent infringement and trade dress suit involving its popular Pillow Top calculator. U.S. District Judge Virginia M. Kendall of the Northern District of Illinois granted Staples’ motions for summary judgment, ruling, among other things, that the calculator did not infringe a design patent asserted by plaintiffs, Competitive Edge. Edwards Wildman successfully defended the decision before the Federal Circuit, which affirmed the court’s decision in Staples’ favor.
Matrix Essentials v. Quality King Distributors
Our client, Quality King, was sued for contempt due to alleged violations of a permanent injunction and consent order. If L'Oreal had prevailed in the lawsuit our client could have been forced to pay $100 million in damages and possibly prohibited from selling Matrix products. We exposed the weaknesses in L'Oreal's case and after 2 years of discovery and a 6-day bench trial, L'Oreal could not effectively support its position or counter arguments and legal theories asserted by our team. Edwards Wildman also convinced the judge to vacate the 1990 consent order completely, so that Quality King is now free to sell Matrix products without restrictions.
Maxwell v. NessCap
Represented an ultracapacitor manufacturer in two co-pending patent infringement suits involving five patents. The case settled on favorable terms in April 2008, after the Court’s Markman ruling, and after successfully opposing summary judgment.
Brooktrout v. Eicon
In the plaintiff-friendly Eastern District of Texas, we obtained a favorable jury verdict on behalf of our client, which was accused of inducing infringement of two patents on a method of routing faxes through a computer network. The jury awarded only nominal damages despite the plaintiff’s exorbitant damages claims, and the Court declined to impose the injunction sought by the plaintiff.
A.W. Chesterton v. Durametallic
A manufacturing client successfully enforced its patent rights relating to mechanical sealing devices against several competitors. The case resulted in very favorable settlement in excess of $2 million after the inventor testified in day five of a jury trial in the District of Massachusetts.
Autoroll Machine Corp. v. Kammann Machines
After taking a damaging deposition of the plaintiff and filing a motion for summary judgment, Edwards Wildman persuaded the plaintiff to dismiss the patent infringement action it filed against its client, a German manufacturer of compact disc printing machinery.