Patent LitigatioN
DBJG regularly represents clients in high stakes and “bet-the-company” litigation. Our objective is to put our clients in the best position for trial from the beginning of the case. Our successes can be attributed to creative litigation strategies, thorough preparation, dogged determination, and a willingness to do the work necessary to prevail.
We have represented plaintiffs and defendants in multi-defendant actions and in jurisdictions across the U.S. Also, our lawyers have represented clients in popular patent infringement venues, including the Eastern District of Virginia and the Eastern District of Texas. Our firm has litigated patent infringement allegations against the United States in the U.S. Court of Federal Claims. DBJG also represents clients in International Trade Commission (“ITC”) Section 337 investigations involving allegations of patent infringement by imported goods, where patent owners seek to exclude allegedly infringing, imported goods from the U.S. market.
DBJG's patent infringement litigation experience includes:
+ Computer network management
+ Cellular telephones and networking
+ Computer software
+ Processor and integrated circuit design (including analysis of hardware description language)
+ Semiconductor fabrication LED, LCD, and lasers
+ Exercise bikes
+ Video processing
+ Office furniture
+ Industrial machinery
+ Asphalt plants
+ Chemical compositions
+ Global positioning system (GPS)
+ Mattress construction
+ Business forms
+ Manufacture of resealable glues
+ Optical vend detection systems for vending machines
+ Cable modems
+ Pharmaceuticals (ANDA)
REPRESENTATIVE LITIGATION MATTERS
DBJG lawyers have represented clients in the following litigation matters.
+ Avocent Redmond Corp v. Raritan Americas, Inc., U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York, No. 1:10-CV-06100-PKC. Patent infringement relating to computerized switching systems for remote administration of computers.
+ Exelis Inc. (formerly ITT Manufacturing Industries, Inc.) v. Cellco Partnership, et al., U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware, No. 1:09-CV-00190-JJF. Patent infringement relating to GPS functionality in cellular phones.
+ Tempur-Pedic Management, Inc. v. Simmons Bedding Co., et al., U.S. District Court for the Western District of Virginia, No. 2:09-CV-00032. Patent infringement relating to mattress construction.
+ Avocent Redmond Corp. v. United States, U.S. Court of Federal Claims, No. 1:08-CV-00069-LSM. Patent infringement relating to computerized switching systems for remote administration of computers.
+ Automated Merchandising Systems Inc. v. Crane Co., et al., U.S. District Court for the Northern District of West Virginia, Nos. 3:08-CV-0097-JPB, 3:03-CV-88, 3:04-CV-48, 3:04-CV-75, and 3:04-CV-80. Patent infringement relating to optical vend detection systems for vending machines.
+ In Re: Rembrandt Technologies, LP Patent Litigation, U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware, No. 07-MD-01848-GMS. Multi-district patent infringement action relating to cable modem patents.
+ Avocent Redmond Corp. v. Rose Electronics, et al., U.S. District Court for the Western District of Washington, No. 2:06-CV-01711-MJP. Patent infringement relating to computerized switching systems for remote administration of computers.
+ L’Enfant Trust v. Capitol Historic Trust, Inc., U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia, No. 1:04-CV-01735-RJL. Trademark/service mark infringement action relating to conservation easement donation services.
+ Automated Merchandising Systems Inc. v. Fawn Engineering Corp., et al., U.S. District Court for the Northern District of West Virginia, No. 3:04-CV-00007-WCB. Patent infringement relating to optical vend detection systems for vending machines.
+ Forcillo v. Lemond Fitness, Inc., et al., U.S. District Court for the Western District of Washington, No. 2:04-CV-00848-JLR. Patent infringement relating to exercise bikes.
+ ITT Manufacturing Industries, Inc. v. Samsung Electronics America, Inc., et al., U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware, No. 1:03-CV-01086-GMS. Patent infringement relating to GPS functionality in cellular phones.
+ Avocent Huntsville Corp. v. ClearCube Technology, Inc., U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Alabama, No. 5:03-CV-02875. Patent infringement relating to accurate transmission of computer video over long distances.
+ Automated Merchandising Systems Inc. v. Automatic Products International Ltd., et al., U.S. District Court for the Northern District of West Virginia, No. 3:02-CV-00082-WCB. Patent infringement relating to optical vend detection systems for vending machines.
+ Moore v. Poser, U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware, 2002. Patent infringement relating to business forms.
+ Moore v. Standard Register, U.S. District Court for the Western District of New York, 2002. Patent infringement relating to business forms.
+ Apex, Inc. v. Raritan Computer, Inc., U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York, No. 1:01-CV-04435-PKC. Patent infringement relating to computerized switching systems for remote administration of computers.
+ Apex PC Solutions, Inc. v. Cybex Computer Products Corp., U.S. District Court for the Western District of Washington, No. 98-CV-246Z. Patent infringement relating to computerized switching systems for remote administration of computers.
+ Ericsson, Inc., et al. v. Harris Corp., et al., U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Texas, No. 4:98-CV-325. Patent infringement relating to (1) integrated circuits used in telecommunication systems, and (2) semiconductor fabrication technology.
+ Tekmax Inc. v. Exide Corp., U.S. District Court for the District of Oregon, 1995-1996. Patent infringement relating to automotive battery plate stackers.
+ Hester Industries v. Tyson Foods, U.S. District Court for the Northern District of New York, 1995-1997. Trademark infringement and contempt action relating to “Wing Fling” trademark.
+ Gencor v. Astec, U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Florida, 1995-1996. Patent infringement relating to commercial asphalt plant and mixers.
+ Citibank v. Online, U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, 1995. Patent infringement relating to telephones for remote banking.
+ Sitrick v. Nintendo, U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, 1994-1995. Patent infringement relating to hand held video game.
+ Quantum Design v. LakeShore Cryotronics, U.S. District Court for the Southern District of California, 1995. Patent infringement relating to measuring instruments.
+ Haworth v. Herman Miller, U.S. District Court for the Western District of Michigan, 1992-1996. Patent infringement relating to powered furniture panels.
+ Haworth v. Allsteel, U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania, 1991-1992. Patent infringement relating to powered furniture panels.
+ Haworth v. Steelcase, U.S. District Court for the Western District of Michigan, 1989-1995. Patent infringement relating to powered furniture panels.
+ Allied v. Knogo, U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, 1991. Patent infringement relating to amorphous metal security tags.
+ Holland Sweetener v. NutraSweet, U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware, 1990.
+ Patent infringement relating to Aspartame patents.
The results obtained in these matters are not necessarily indicative of the results obtained in other or future matters.