Arent Fox is a nationally recognized leader in patent litigation. Our firm has a wide range of experience representing corporations, manufacturers, distributors, retailers, professionals, nonprofit organizations, and associations in a vast array of industries in federal court litigation, before the International Trade Commission, and in other disputes.

Arent Fox has been involved in hundreds of suits involving patent infringement and related IP issues, including trademark infringement, unfair competition and other claims in state and federal courts, before the US Patent and Trademark Office, and in foreign courts and administrative agencies. The Arent Fox patent litigation group includes a combination of patent lawyers with varied technical backgrounds and seasoned trial lawyers focusing only on patent litigation. In the past two decades, Arent Fox patent litigators have been lead counsel in more than 100 patent cases in numerous jurisdictions. Many of these cases involve telecommunications, semiconductors, consumer electronics, data encryption, authentication, online purchases/customized offers, and business methods.

Arent Fox also counsels clients on how to avoid liability for patent infringement and how to enforce their patent rights. We are skilled in devising strategies for protecting intellectual property rights without resorting to litigation.

We utilize the latest innovations in litigation support technology, including document scanning and retrieval systems, which can be used at trial to retrieve documents from large databases. We also use litigation software that provides full-text scanning and retrieval of depositions and court transcripts as well as key word searches to retrieve the most relevant portions of testimony.

Below is a sampling of our representative matters:

• Matsushita v. MediaTek (N.D. Cal). Prior to coming to Arent Fox, attorney Anthony Shaw was lead patent counsel for Panasonic (then Matsushita) in a multiple patent lawsuit involving DVD algorithms, on-chip clock circuitry, and semiconductor fabrication.
• ICS v. Sony et al. (E.D. Tex). Prior to coming to Arent Fox, attorney Anthony Shaw was lead counsel for TTE, the largest television receiver manufacturer in the PRC and owner of the RCA brand, in a patent lawsuit involving television volume control.
• Premier v. Microsoft et al. (E.D. Tex). At his previous firm, attorney Anthony Shaw was lead counsel for Samsung in a patent lawsuit brought by a non-practicing entity. The lawsuit involved playlist creation and control for portable music players and smartphones.
• VIA v. Intel (W.D. Tex). Arent Fox’s Anthony Shaw was counsel for Intel in a patent lawsuit in the Western District of Texas involving microprocessor architecture.

• Certain Computers, Monitors, and Components Thereof, US International Trade Commission Investigation No. 337-TA-547. Arent Fox Team Members represented LG Electronics USA (LGE USA) in connection with burdensome ITC subpoenas seeking to compel production of documents and of employees to give deposition testimony. Working with LGE USA’s General Counsel, Arent Fox attorneys engaged in extensive negotiations with counsel for the party on whose behalf the subpoenas were issued and convinced the counsel that the subpoenas were flawed both in terms of content and the sufficiency of service. As a result, the subpoenas were withdrawn and LGE USA did not have to comply with them.
• In the Matter of Certain Zero-Mercury-Added Alkaline Batteries, Parts Thereof, and Products Containing the Same, US International Trade Commission Investigation No. 337-TA-493. Arent Fox represented FDK, a Japanese manufacturer of batteries in this proceeding brought by Energizer holdings. Arent Fox negotiated a resolution for FDK, which allowed it to continue doing business in the United States.
• ResQNet v. Lansa, Inc. (S.D.N.Y.). Arent Fox represented the defendant in a case involving software for graphical user interfaces. After a bench trial, the trial court found non-infringement of one patent, and infringement of another, and assessed damages. The Federal Circuit recently affirmed the findings of infringement/ non-infringement, but vacated and remanded the case with respect to the royalty amount, strongly suggesting that the royalty rate should be much lower.
• In the Matter of Certain Integrated Circuits and Chipsets, US International Trade Commission Investigation No. 337-TA-709. Arent Fox represented a downstream seller of products containing the accused, allegedly infringing circuitry and chipsets. Although brought into the case just days before trial, Arent Fox’s cross-examination of the complainant’s testifying expert witness formed the basis for a ruling in favor of Arent Fox’s client and the other respondents.
• In re Certain Composite Wear Components, US International Trade Commission Investigation No. 337-TA-644. In this case, Arent Fox Team Members represented a respondent accused of patent infringement. The firm successfully negotiated a worldwide, multijurisdictional settlement of all claims.
• In the Matter of Certain Bulk Weld Wire, US International Trade Commission Investigation No. 337-TA -686. Arent Fox Team Members represented an Italian manufacturer accused of infringing a patent on welding wire. After a full hearing, the presiding Judge found non-infringement and the Commission agreed.
• Draka-Comteq Americas Inc. v. Furukawa Electric North America, Inc. (E.D. Tex). In this case of patent infringement over fiber optic cables, Arent Fox successfully negotiated a multi-forum settlement for the client, Draka-Comteq.
• Devices for Determining Organ Positions, US International Trade Commission Investigation No. 337-TA -555. Arent Fox represented US and French patent owners and licensees who brought patent infringement cases involving medical devices used in radiation therapy, and negotiated a favorable settlement after the defendant’s summary determination motion for non-infringement at the ITC was denied.
• Advanced Recovery Systems, v. Photocircuits Corp. (E.D. N.Y.). This case involved cold-process extraction of copper solids from etchants used in making printed circuit boards. The patent claims concerned an expired license, and licensed claims involved a dispute about the effectiveness of the technology. After Arent Fox entered the case and filed numerous dispositive motions on the eve of trial, the parties reached a mediated settlement.
• Allcare Health Management System, Inc. v. Harvard Pilgrim Healthcare, Inc. (E.D. Tex). Arent Fox represented Harvard Pilgrim in a patent infringement action concerning technology for a comprehensive healthcare management system. The case was amicably and favorably resolved.
• Certain R-134a Coolant, US International Trade Commission Investigation No. 337-TA-623. In this case, the US International Trade Commission twice reversed and remanded adverse findings by the presiding Administrative Law Judge relating to a patent issue. This case concluded with a complete victory for the client.
• Black & Decker v. Universal Security Instruments, et al. (E.D. Va.); Black & Decker v. GSL Engineering, Ltd., et al. (E.D. Va.). Arent Fox Team Members assisted in defending two accused infringers of four Black & Decker utility and design patents covering various functional and ornamental aspects of the popular Snakelight product. The cases were settled shortly before trial.
• Duncan McCoy, et. al. v. Mitsuboshi Cutlery Co., Civil Action No. H-93- 1774 (S.D. Tex). Arent Fox represented the defendant, a foreign knife manufacturer, which was accused of infringing the plaintiff’s patent. At trial, the client obtained a favorable verdict on the breach of contract counterclaim against the plaintiffs, but not on the infringement claim. However, Arent Fox obtained in the US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit a complete reversal of a jury determination of infringement. (A prior motion to dismiss was responsible for dismissing six additional counts in plaintiffs’ complaint).
• Micro Typing Systems et al v. Immucor et al (SD Tex). Arent Fox represented the plaintiffs — a foreign diagnostic tool patent-holder and its US licensee — in an infringement action against their primary US competitors. This case was a paradigm for creatively using our patent prosecution assets to further litigation goals. Arent Fox resolved this complex, multinational case by obtaining a supplemental patent that was tailored to the activities of the infringers. Arent Fox succeeded in entering this patent into the pending action and forcing the defendants to cease all worldwide production of the infringing devices, to transfer all of their device manufacturing equipment to our client, and to assign our client the rights to the infringing device patents.
• INA Bearings and Toledo Technologies, International Court of Arbitration of the International Chamber of Commerce patent dispute involving automobile components, rocker arms, and finger followers. The matter was favorably settled on behalf of the client.

Arent Fox has extensive experience in Section 337 International Trade Commission (ITC) litigation. Arent Fox has well over a dozen seasoned attorneys who have hands-on experience in Section 337 cases. The firm has among its attorneys a former chief of the Patent Branch of the ITC’s Office of Unfair Import Investigations, current and former officers and members of the ITC Trial Lawyers Association, and current and former officers and members of the American Intellectual Property Law Association.

Strong Technical and Litigation Support: Most Section 337 cases arise out of patent disputes and involve technical issues. Arent Fox’s attorneys have in-depth knowledge across a wide spectrum of technologies. They have gained this experience through formal academic training (each member of our litigation team has undergraduate or advanced degrees in technical subjects), industry experience, and technical litigation. Each member of the core litigation team is a Registered Patent Attorney and Agent. Our professional litigation support staff is experienced in all areas of document production, handling, screening, and analysis, and in the use of up-to-date litigation support software and technology.

Cost-effective Litigation: The importance of Section 337 litigation means that the least expensive attorneys are often not the most cost-effective attorneys. Arent Fox offers effective representation before the ITC at reasonable cost for many reasons, including the following:

• Sensitivity to Cost: Because our attorneys know that these cases are expensive, they strive to accomplish their objectives in the most economical way possible. Cases are not overstaffed, and individual tasks are handled by professionals at the appropriate level.
• No Need to Co-counsel: Many companies in ITC cases end up paying for two law firms - one to handle technical and other substantive issues and another to handle issues unique to Section 337. This can be inefficient and costly. Arent Fox professionals are able to handle all aspects of any Section 337 case.
• Reasonable Billing Rates: Our rates are competitive with, and in most instances less than, the rates of most other top-tier law firms.
• Washington, DC, Location: Our main office is in Washington, DC, close to the ITC. As a result, our attorneys do not have to incur travel expenses to participate in proceedings at the ITC. Moreover, we can draw upon attorneys on an as-needed basis without causing large out-of-pocket travel and other expenses for our clients.
• Staffing Flexibility: When evidence is located overseas, we may work with foreign attorneys in whom we have confidence based on our relationships. When possible, and under the supervision of an Arent Fox professional, we use attorneys from the country in which documents are being produced, because they typically speak the language in which documents are written as well as English, do not have to travel to the production site, and almost invariably have lower billing rates.