Success Stories

Mollo v. Elkin Manufacturing, Inc. U.S. District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania, Judges Ziegler and Cindrich

– Represented defendant corporation, as well as its President, accused of false patent marking and breach of patent license agreements

– Successfully eliminated breach of license action by way of summary judgment prior to trial

– Jury verdict in favor of defendants on all remaining counts

– Affirmed by Court of Appeals for Federal Circuit, without opinion, following oral argument

Elkin Manufacturing Inc. v. Old Dominion Brush Co., et al., U.S. District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania, Magistrate Judge Caiazza and District Judge Cindrich

– Represented patent owner/Plaintiff against Virginia manufacturer, alleged to infringe Plaintiff’s patent

– Patent directed to a mechanical device for spreading aggregate on a road surface

– Successfully defended Defendant’s summary judgment motion for non-infringement

– During course of discovery, we uncovered dramatic evidence of copying

– At the deposition of Defendant’s manufacturing engineer, we gained an admission of copying by Defendant

– Immediately following an amendment to the complaint to join a corporate officer for directing the infringing activity, Defendant agreed to a permanent injunction, and to pay Plaintiff a portion of its lost profits for past infringement

– The permanent injunction was particularly beneficial to Plaintiff, since with the elimination of the infringer, Plaintiff became the sole supplier in the market for adjustable rubber trough spreaders

Precision Solar Controls, Inc. v. Truck-Lite, Co., Inc., Northern District of Texas, Dallas Division

– Represented Defendant alleged to have infringed a patent directed to an LED lamp with associated optics

– After discovery had begun, the Court ordered the parties to mediate their dispute

– In preparation for the mediation hearing, an invalidity search revealed prior art not previously before the Patent Examiner, which seriously called into question the patent’s validity

– During the mediation hearing, the mediator, a retired Texas State Court Judge, recommended that plaintiff accept a “de minimis” amount in view of the evidence of invalidity. The defendant accepted the recommendation and promptly settled the case against our client.

Douglas Dynamics v. Meyer Products v. Truck-Lite Co., Inc., Northern District of Ohio

– Represented third-party Defendant alleged to have sold an allegedly infringing product to Defendant charged with patent infringement

– Prior to the start of discovery, all parties agreed to mediation

– A delicate twist to this case, and the mediation process, in particular, was that our client wanted to maintain business relationships with both Plaintiff and Defendant, in terms of the manufacture and sale of snow plow lighting kits, while at the same time extricating itself from the litigation. Plaintiff and Defendant are fierce competitors

– In preparing for the mediation hearing, we discovered evidence of the patent’s unenforceability, in the form of a patent license agreement between Plaintiff and a third-party, which unlawfully sought to extend the term of the patent-in-suit. We armed the defendant with the unenforceability agreement for purposes of the mediation, while we defended our client’s design and raised doubts about the strength of Plaintiff’s infringement case

– Our client settled out at the mediation hearing for an amount within its stated success criteria, (as defined by its parent’s board of directors) $50,000, including attorney’s fees, and business potential with both Plaintiff and Defendant. Plaintiff and Defendant are still litigating.

Dynamics Research Corp. v. Industrial Equipment Machine Corp., U.S. District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania, Magistrate Judge Caiazza/District Judge Cindrich

– Represented patent owner against alleged infringer

– Patent is directed to computer aided balancing technology

– Defendant filed a preliminary injunction motion to prevent Plaintiff from contacting customers about the lawsuit. The Magistrate Judge denied the motion (affirmed by Judge Cindrich), and, in its written report, stated that Plaintiff had demonstrated a likelihood of showing success on the issues of infringement and validity

– Defendant then filed a summary judgment motion for non-infringement. Following extensive briefing and oral argument in Pittsburgh, the Magistrate Judge ruled in favor of our client and that defendant appealed to the District Judge

– The case settled while on appeal to the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit.

…AND MUCH MORE…