Representative Engagements

In addition to their legal prowess, Paul, Weiss intellectual property lawyers are well-versed in the advanced scientific and technical aspects surrounding patent law. Recent client matters have included representing:

• 10X Genomics, Inc. in a dispute before the ITC against Bio-Rad Laboratories, Inc. and Lawrence Livermore National Security, LLC. They allege patent infringement of 10X’s microfluidic chips used in DNA and RNA sequencing products. 10X and Bio-Rad reached a worldwide settlement resolving all outstanding litigation between two companies.
• Amgen Inc. in a host of precedent-setting challenges by would-be rivals seeking permission to market biosimilars to Amgen’s popular biologic drugs, including but not limited to Neulasta®, a post-chemotherapy drug and Neupogen®, which treats the side effects of certain forms of cancer therapy.
• Cabaret Biotech, Ltd. in an action challenging the validity of its patent on the path-breaking cancer therapy CAR-T.
• Chugai Pharmaceutical in a pair of inter partes review victories against a major pharmaceutical company, defending two of Chugai’s patents relating to a new, simpler, less costly method of removing DNA contaminants from proteins, a key step in the production of genetically engineered and biologic drugs.
• Edwards Lifesciences in various high-profile patent disputes over the last 15 years in protecting its innovative investment as the industry leader in artificial heart valves, including scoring multiple victories at trial, including a $393 million patent infringement jury verdict against a competitor, Medtronic, and a record-breaking $1.1 billion settlement highly favorable to our client.
• Evolus, Inc. in an International Trade Commission dispute with its competitors Allergan plc, Allergan, Inc. and Medytox, Inc. The three companies filed a section 337 complaint alleging that misappropriated trade secrets had been used in the manufacture of Evolus’ botulinum toxin product, JEUVEAU™, which competes with Allergan’s BOTOX®.
• Garmin in various patent disputes, including a Federal Circuit victory invalidating a competitor’s marine sonar patents following an ITC investigation; a Federal Circuit and district court jury trial victory in a significant patent litigation in which a competitor alleged that Garmin’s portable navigation devices infringed five patents on traffic information technology; as well as a Federal Circuit and district court victory in a dispute involving Garmin’s fitness devices.
• Genentech, Inc. in litigations challenging its innovative products, including therapies to treat hemophilia (Hemlibra®) and cancer (Tecentriq® and Alecensa®).
• General Electric in achieving a jury trial victory in patent infringement litigation related to wind turbine technology. The jury in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Texas found that the patent-in-suit was valid and infringed by Mitsubishi Heavy Industries and Mitsubishi Power Systems Americas’ wind turbine technology, and awarded GE approximately $170 million in damages.
• Nichia Corporation, a worldwide supplier of LEDs, in various patent-related disputes nationwide to enforce Nichia’s patent rights to white LEDs and backlights and liquid crystal displays. We defended those patents against challenges at the PTAB, which led to four non-institution decisions and seven dismissals/terminations. Previously we successfully defended Nichia in a patent suit brought by Bluestone Innovations LLC in the Northern District of California, involving the design and manufacturing of LEDs. The Court dismissed Bluestone’s claims with prejudice. Nichia did not pay or provide any consideration for that dismissal, which followed Nichia obtaining a favorable claim construction order and moving for summary judgment of non-infringement.
• SAP AG in the defense of an action brought by business analytics provider Teradata alleging that SAP, the Germany-based multinational enterprise software company, misappropriated trade secrets and infringed patents, in addition to alleging violations of the Sherman Act, related to SAP’s product, HANA.
• Serta Simmons Bedding in proceedings against Tempur Sealy before the PTAB, district court and the Federal Circuit involving claims of design patent infringement, trade secret and unfair competition. We successfully challenged three Tempur Sealy patents in inter partes reexaminations at the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office and on internal appeals before the PTAB, and, on Tempur Sealy’s further appeal of two of those results, received affirmances of both decisions by the Federal Circuit.
• Take-Two Interactive Software Inc. and two subsidiaries, Rockstar Games (maker of the Grand Theft Auto series) and 2K Games (maker of NBA 2K and other leading games), in patent challenges filed in the District of Delaware by McRO, Inc. alleging that Take-Two infringed two McRO patents related to phoneme-based lip-synched animation techniques; the parties stipulated to dismissal of all claims with prejudice.
• Twitter, Inc. in various patent disputes including the successful resolution of a high-profile patent infringement lawsuit brought by BlackBerry and the related challenge of two of BlackBerry’s asserted patents in inter partes review (IPR) proceedings before the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB).
• Vanda Pharmaceuticals Inc. in precedent-setting trial and appellate wins against Roxane Laboratories (now known as Hikma) related to Vanda’s antipsychotic drug, Fanapt®, and in ongoing generic-drug challenges to Vanda’s circadian-rhythm-disorder drug, Hetlioz®. Vanda won the Fanapt® trial in the District of Delaware, and prevailed in the Federal Circuit, securing a landmark decision that clarified that pharmaceutical methods of treatment are patentable. The Supreme Court denied further review.
• Visible World and Cablevision in a patent infringement action brought by Invidi Technologies in the U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware. Invidi alleges that Visible World, a leading provider of targeted television advertising solutions, and Cablevision alone and jointly infringe a U.S. patent owned by Invidi. Settlement reached wherein Invidi’s claims of infringement were dismissed with prejudice and defendants’ counterclaims were dismissed without prejudice.