Differentiating patent attorneys
IPBiz noted text from a release from MarketWatch:
As lead and co-counsel in jury and bench trials involving patent infringement and trade secret misappropriation nationwide, she has accrued an enviable record of success. She litigates matters in a wide range of technologies including chemistry, biotechnology, semiconductor, computer and oilfield industries.
Ms. ****** skills and experience are recognized by both peers and clients alike. According to Chambers USA 2008, "Respondents cannot heap enough praise on the 'incredibly incisive and bright' *********, whose 'tremendous grasp of the law and of science' makes her 'an awesome trial lawyer - absolutely the best.'"
***
******* Intellectual Property, Media & Technology Department is recognized for its trial and appellate experience. The practice is rankedas one of the strongest IP litigation firms for both plaintiffs and defendants, and its lawyers are regularly listed as among the top practitioners in the U.S. and abroad.
***Of Chambers USA-->
Many recommended firms choose to have the results of our research reproduced in glossy, full colour or print-ready PDF format. Chambers and Partners will prepare brochures which contain only your firm's rankings and editorial, and your firm and individual lawyers' profiles.
A brochure is a great way of allowing your clients to see your firm's results exclusively. Whether you choose the PDF or hard copy format it is a proven way to demonstrate your expertise to both existing and potential clients.
****Also, from MarketWatch
Lerner David Littenberg Krumholz & Mentlik LLP is a well known intellectual property (IP) law firm located in Westfield, NJ. LDLKM specializes solely in IP matters. General Patent selected LDLKM as litigation counsel for Worlds.com based on their stellar record of success.
The interested reader might review the Lilly case, 471 F.3d 1369:
William L. Mentlik, Lerner, David, Littenberg, Krumholz & Mentlik, LLP, of Westfield, New Jersey, argued for defendant-appellant, Zenith Goldline Pharmaceuticals, Inc. (now known as Ivax Pharmaceuticals, Inc.). With him on the brief were Roy H. Wepner and Michael H. Teschner. Of counsel on the brief were Jeffrey S. Ward and Thomas P. Heneghan, Michael Best & Friedrich LLP, of Madison, Wisconsin. Joining in the brief were Steven J. Lee, Elizabeth Holland, and Patrice P. Jean, Kenyon & Kenyon, of New York, New York, for defendant-appellant, Teva Pharmaceuticals USA, Inc.
Zenith Goldline Pharmaceuticals, Inc. (now known as IVAX Pharmaceuticals, Inc.) (IVAX); Dr. Reddy's Laboratories, Ltd. (DRL); and Teva Pharmaceuticals USA, Inc. (Teva) (defendants), filed an Abbreviated New Drug Application (ANDA). In response, the plaintiffs, Eli Lilly and Company and Lilly Industries Ltd. (collectively Lilly), filed suit against all defendants for infringement of United States Patent No. 5,229,382 ('382 patent). Following a two and one-half week bench trial, the United States District Court for the Southern District of Indiana found the '382 patent valid and infringed. Eli Lilly & Co. v. Zenith Goldline Pharm., 364 F. Supp. 2d 820 (S.D. Ind. 2005) (Final Judgment); Eli Lilly & Co. v. Zenith Goldline Pharm., 1:01-cv-443-RLY-VSS, 2005 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 44282 (S.D. Ind. May 9, 2005) (Amended Final Judgment). In 221 pages of written analysis, the trial court documented its findings and conclusions. Eli Lilly & Co. v. Zenith Goldline Pharm., 364 F. Supp. 2d 820 (S.D. Ind. 2005) (Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law). The defendants appeal the trial court's conclusions on the validity of the '382 patent and inequitable conduct. Finding no reversible error, this court affirms.
Also, the reader might note Hunter Douglas, 153 F.3d 1318 :
There is one final matter to address. The Defendants cross-appeal the denials of
their motions for attorney fees under 35 U.S.C. ยง 285. We affirm, for the
district court applied the proper legal standard, and it did not clearly err in
finding the case not to be exceptional. See, e.g., PPG Indus. v. Celanese
Polymer Specialties Co., 840 F.2d 1565, 1567, 6 U.S.P.Q.2D (BNA) 1011, 1012-13
(Fed. Cir. 1988).
****Separately
Differentiating universities?
As lead and co-counsel in jury and bench trials involving patent infringement and trade secret misappropriation nationwide, she has accrued an enviable record of success. She litigates matters in a wide range of technologies including chemistry, biotechnology, semiconductor, computer and oilfield industries.
Ms. ****** skills and experience are recognized by both peers and clients alike. According to Chambers USA 2008, "Respondents cannot heap enough praise on the 'incredibly incisive and bright' *********, whose 'tremendous grasp of the law and of science' makes her 'an awesome trial lawyer - absolutely the best.'"
***
******* Intellectual Property, Media & Technology Department is recognized for its trial and appellate experience. The practice is rankedas one of the strongest IP litigation firms for both plaintiffs and defendants, and its lawyers are regularly listed as among the top practitioners in the U.S. and abroad.
***Of Chambers USA-->
Many recommended firms choose to have the results of our research reproduced in glossy, full colour or print-ready PDF format. Chambers and Partners will prepare brochures which contain only your firm's rankings and editorial, and your firm and individual lawyers' profiles.
A brochure is a great way of allowing your clients to see your firm's results exclusively. Whether you choose the PDF or hard copy format it is a proven way to demonstrate your expertise to both existing and potential clients.
****Also, from MarketWatch
Lerner David Littenberg Krumholz & Mentlik LLP is a well known intellectual property (IP) law firm located in Westfield, NJ. LDLKM specializes solely in IP matters. General Patent selected LDLKM as litigation counsel for Worlds.com based on their stellar record of success.
The interested reader might review the Lilly case, 471 F.3d 1369:
William L. Mentlik, Lerner, David, Littenberg, Krumholz & Mentlik, LLP, of Westfield, New Jersey, argued for defendant-appellant, Zenith Goldline Pharmaceuticals, Inc. (now known as Ivax Pharmaceuticals, Inc.). With him on the brief were Roy H. Wepner and Michael H. Teschner. Of counsel on the brief were Jeffrey S. Ward and Thomas P. Heneghan, Michael Best & Friedrich LLP, of Madison, Wisconsin. Joining in the brief were Steven J. Lee, Elizabeth Holland, and Patrice P. Jean, Kenyon & Kenyon, of New York, New York, for defendant-appellant, Teva Pharmaceuticals USA, Inc.
Zenith Goldline Pharmaceuticals, Inc. (now known as IVAX Pharmaceuticals, Inc.) (IVAX); Dr. Reddy's Laboratories, Ltd. (DRL); and Teva Pharmaceuticals USA, Inc. (Teva) (defendants), filed an Abbreviated New Drug Application (ANDA). In response, the plaintiffs, Eli Lilly and Company and Lilly Industries Ltd. (collectively Lilly), filed suit against all defendants for infringement of United States Patent No. 5,229,382 ('382 patent). Following a two and one-half week bench trial, the United States District Court for the Southern District of Indiana found the '382 patent valid and infringed. Eli Lilly & Co. v. Zenith Goldline Pharm., 364 F. Supp. 2d 820 (S.D. Ind. 2005) (Final Judgment); Eli Lilly & Co. v. Zenith Goldline Pharm., 1:01-cv-443-RLY-VSS, 2005 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 44282 (S.D. Ind. May 9, 2005) (Amended Final Judgment). In 221 pages of written analysis, the trial court documented its findings and conclusions. Eli Lilly & Co. v. Zenith Goldline Pharm., 364 F. Supp. 2d 820 (S.D. Ind. 2005) (Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law). The defendants appeal the trial court's conclusions on the validity of the '382 patent and inequitable conduct. Finding no reversible error, this court affirms.
Also, the reader might note Hunter Douglas, 153 F.3d 1318 :
There is one final matter to address. The Defendants cross-appeal the denials of
their motions for attorney fees under 35 U.S.C. ยง 285. We affirm, for the
district court applied the proper legal standard, and it did not clearly err in
finding the case not to be exceptional. See, e.g., PPG Indus. v. Celanese
Polymer Specialties Co., 840 F.2d 1565, 1567, 6 U.S.P.Q.2D (BNA) 1011, 1012-13
(Fed. Cir. 1988).
****Separately
Differentiating universities?
posted by Lawrence B. Ebert at 10:30 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home