Litigation

When challenges arise before or after a patent is granted by the United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO), BSKB's intellectual property attorneys are there to help.

When challenges arise before or after a patent is granted by the United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO), BSKB's intellectual property attorneys are there to help. BSKB's litigation practice group has substantial experience counseling and representing its clients in patent interference proceedings before the USPTO and in patent opposition proceedings in foreign countries. BSKB intellectual property attorneys are well-versed in the rules and procedures governing patent interference practice. Our firm is regularly involved in multiple patent interference proceedings in a variety of technical areas. Our expertise in interference practice enables us to effectively advocate on our clients' behalf, to establish their right to priority of invention or to negotiate advantageous settlements.

Pending and Recent Cases

Adaptive Sonics LLC v. Sonic Innovations Inc., U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Texas, Civil Action No. 2:12-cv-00032

In the Matter of Certain Wiper Blades, U.S. International Trade Commission, Investigation No. 337-TA-816

In the Matter of Certain Components for Installation of Marine Autopilots with GPS or IMU, U.S. International Trade Commission, Investigation No. 337-TA-738

Ayoub Supply, LLC v. Danco, Inc., U.S. District of Maryland, Civil Action No. 8:11-cv-00915

Hutzler Manufacturing Co., v. Bradshaw International, Inc.,  U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia, Civil Action No. 1:11-cv-07211

Bancroft Life & Casualty ICC, Ltd. v. TMC Financial, et al., U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, Civil Action No. 1:11-cv-00903

Institut Pasteur De Lille, et al., v. Hon David Kappos, U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia, Civil Action No. 1:11-cv-00870

Otels, Inc. v. Metin Altun, et al., U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, Civil Action No. 1:11cv604

Rydex, Ltd. v. General Motors Company, et al., U.S. District for the Southern District of Texas, Civil Action No. 4:11-cv-00122

Effectively Illuminated Pathways, LLC v. Mitsubishi Motors North America, et al. U.S. District for the Eastern District of Texas, Civil Action No. 6:11-cv-34

Sound Design Technologies, Ltd. v. Oticon, Inc., et al., U.S. District Court of Arizona, Civil Action No. 2:11-cv-03311

Kone Corporation v. Thyssenkrupp U.S.A., U.S. District Court of Delaware, Civil Action No.: 1:2011-cv-00465

Pragmatic Marketing, Inc. v. Pinkesh Shah, et al., U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California, Civil Action No.: 5:11-cv-01766

Sirona Dental Systems v. Cefla S C et al., U.S. District Court for Delaware, Civil Action No. 1:10-cv-00228

Traffic Information LLC v. Hauwei Technologies Co., Ltd., et al., U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Texas, Civil Action No. 2:10-cv-145

Mitsubishi Tanabe Pharma Corp. v. Hon. David Kappos, U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia, Civil Action No. 1:10-cv-00129

In Re Tanaka, No. 2010-1262, United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit

Condatis, LLC v. Arcturus Marine Systems, Inc., et al., U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida, Civil Action No. 0:10-cv-60540

Vivatone Hearing Systems, LLC. v. GN Resound A/S et al., U.S. District Court for the District of Connecticut, Civil Action No. 3:09-cv-01227-AWT

Kone Corporation v. ThyssenKrupp Elevator Corp., et al., U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware, Civil Action No. 1:09-cv-00452-GMS