Representative Matters

The following is a selected sampling of matters and is provided for informational purposes only. Past success does not indicate the likelihood of success in any future matter.

• Successfully represented a Petitioner pharmaceutical company in a PGR alleging a patent covering a method of treating cancer is invalid. The PTAB invalidated the patent on all asserted obviousness and lack of enablement grounds.

• Successfully represented a pharmaceutical company asserting patent infringement against multiple generic manufacturers in a Hatch–Waxman litigation involving a statin. After a two week trial, the district court found the patents valid and infringed. Mr. Bauer’s cross–examination was quoted in the favorable opinion. The district court's decision was affirmed by the Federal Circuit.

• Successfully represented a pharmaceutical company asserting patent infringement against another pharmaceutical company for its manufacture and sale of an anti–cancer agent. The case settled favorably for millions of dollars.

• Successfully represented a patent owner and by defending two IPRs relating to video coding.  The PTAB upheld the validity of the challenged claims and the decisions were not appealed to the Federal Circuit. 

• Successfully represented a Respondent in a § 337 ITC action alleging wrongful importation and patent infringement of microneedle patches. After discovery, the Petitioner withdrew the complaint with prejudice.

• Successfully represented a Petitioner eyeglass manufacturer in two IPRs relating to fluid–filled adjustable eyeglasses.  The PTAB invalidated all of the challenged claims and the the decisions were not appealed to the Federal Circuit. 

• Successfully represented a food manufacture asserting trade dress infringement against a competitor who ultimately redesigned its trade dress.

• Successfully represented a company that laid solar cable using allegedly infringing heavy machinery.  Defeated a motion for a preliminary injunction and thereafter plaintiff dismissed the case. 

• Successfully represented a pharmaceutical company asserting patent infringement against a generic manufacturer in a Hatch–Waxman litigation involving a delayed–release prednisone. The case settled favorably.

• Successfully defended a manufacturer of multimillion–dollar computer controlled plate glass coating equipment against a charge of patent infringement alleging damages for the use of said equipment. The case settled favorably.

• Successfully defended a pharmaceutical company against a charge of patent infringement alleging damages for hundreds of millions of dollars for its manufacture and sale of a recombinantly produced EPO. After a successful trial, case settled favorably just before Federal Circuit oral argument.

• Successfully defended a pharmaceutical company in a case involving alleged infringement of a recombinant tPA analog. Obtained partial summary judgment of no infringement before the pharmaceutical company was purchased and forced by the FTC to sell its rights to the analog to a third party.

• Successfully defended a medical device company against a charge of patent infringement for its manufacture and sale of a self–expanding nitinol stent. Case settled favorably after a jury trial, but before the jury rendered its verdict.

• Successfully defended a major university against a charge of patent infringement involving laser technology. The district court granted summary judgment of no infringement, and the case settled favorably after a Federal Circuit decision.

• Successfully represented a telecommunications company in a bet–the–company patent infringement case involving telecommunications and e–commerce. Initially defeated a motion for a preliminary injunction and subsequently won the case on a motion for summary judgment of no infringement.

• Successfully defended a molecular diagnostics company against a charge of patent infringement relating to biological assays. Case settled favorably just prior to a claim construction hearing.

• Successfully represented a pharmaceutical company and university that sued the USPTO in district court to obtain the correct (and significantly longer) period of Patent Term Adjustment (PTA).