Intellectual Property

We have represented clients in important intellectual property disputes. Such cases include:

  • A & M Records, Inc. v. Napster, Inc., 239 F.3d 1004 (9th Cir. 2001).
    We served as co-counsel to the Recording Industry Association of America in its copyright infringement suit against Napster. The Ninth Circuit upheld a preliminary injunction based on our clients’ claims of vicarious and contributory copyright infringement.
  • Eli Lilly and Company v. Barr Laboratories, Inc., Nos. 00-1262, 00-1263, 00-1264 & 00-1303 (Fed. Cir. 2000).
    We represented Eli Lilly in its effort to retain its patent on the drug Prozac, one of the largest-selling drugs in the nation. A panel of the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit held that patent invalid. We were retained to assist in seeking rehearing before the full en banc court. After receiving our petition, the panel vacated its prior decision and issued another opinion. During the year-long period in which the Federal Circuit deliberated, Eli Lilly’s patent remained in place.
  • Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank Int’l, 573 U.S. 208 (2014).
    We represented a group of technology companies as amicus counsel in a case concerning the patent-eligibility of computer-implemented inventions. We argued that such inventions should not be subjected to restrictive patent eligibility rules, which could incorrectly render many such inventions ineligible for patent protection under the judicial exception for “abstract ideas.”
  • Alarm.com Holdings, Inc. V. ABS Capital Partners Inc., et al., No. 360, 2018 (Sup. Ct. Del).
    We represent a corporation suing a former shareholder who, shortly after ending its involvement with our client, invested in and is now leading a competitor to our client, alleging that the former shareholder has misappropriated our client’s trade secrets and confidential information. The matter is currently pending before the Supreme Court of Delaware, where we argued the case.

We have also prepared extensive analyses of legislative efforts to encroach upon the intellectual property of pharmaceutical companies and the music industry. These white papers have focused on the validity of such efforts under the Takings Clause of the Fifth Amendment.

Prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome.

↑ Top of Page