INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY LITIGATION
Dowd Scheffel has extensive litigation expertise, and it complements all other aspects of intellectual property (IP) representation. We have technical backgrounds and broad experience across various technologies, from chemicals and pharmaceuticals to software or mechanical inventions. We have the technical and legal experience to comprehensively address all phases of intellectual property litigation including counseling, trial, discovery, Markman hearings, pretrial proceedings, mediation, and appeals. And when necessary, we have the horsepower and skill to try cases all the way through appeal. The Firm’s unique blend of technical skill and courtroom experience yields proven, cost effective results. We provide services to businesses both large and small. We are familiar with Judges and the procedures and requirements in jurisdictions throughout the country.
A core competency of Dowd Scheffel is trying complex cases to judges and juries. We are skilled at courtroom presentation, using the appropriate mix of witness preparation, demonstrations, exhibits, video, computer animation and other courtroom technology to distill complex factual and legal matters.
We also litigate matters at the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office, including post-grant review proceedings under the America Invents Act (such as inter partes reviews), patent reexaminations, trademark oppositions and cancellation proceedings, and patent and trademark appeals. If appeal from the Patent and Trademark Office is necessary, we have a wealth of experience before the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit. (Read about our appellate experience here.)
We understand that IP disputes have associated business consequences. So whether the dispute is relatively simple or highly complex, we handle the challenge in a manner that maximizes our clients' investment and furthers our clients’’ business objectives. With these goals in mind, we are at our best when we work with sophisticated clients, with the belief that a clientʼs best interests are served by a business-centric focus. We are also experienced in utilizing the pretrial discovery process to position cases for victory within appropriate budgetary constraints, and are well versed in the complexities of electronic discovery, and have experience working with in-house counsel and consultants to minimize cost and disruption. We are polished brief writers, zealous advocates and excel under pressure – particularly at hearings or at trial.
IMAPizza, LLC v. At Pizza Ltd., No. 17-cv-02327 (D.D.C). Representing U.K. defendants in intellectual property case involving claims under the U.S. Copyright Act, the Lanham Act, D.C. trespass law, and U.K. law. Currently pending.
Cadence Pharms., Inc. v. Exela Pharma Scis., LLC, No. 11-733 LPS (D. Del. Nov. 14, 2013). Hatch-Waxman patent litigation. As key members of the trial team, Matt and Robert argued various critical motions, including claim construction issues, and conducted direct examination and cross-examination of key witnesses.
In re Cyclobenzaprine Hydrochloride Extended-Release Capsule Patent Litig., 794 F. Supp. 2d 517 (D. Del. 2011), rev’d 676 F.3d 1063 (Fed. Cir. 2012). Represented Mylan in an infringement action brought by Eurand, Cephalon, and Anesta AG in the District of Delaware and before the Federal Circuit on appeal. The case involved the drug Amrix® (an extended-release dosage form of the skeletal muscle relaxant cyclobenzaprine HCl).
Warner Chilcott, et al. v. Impax Laboratories, et al. Represented Impax in a two-week trial in the District of New Jersey involving Doryx® (sustained release doxycycline) obtaining a ruling of non-infringement as well as securing a rare victory in a Daubert motion in which the Court ruled that Plaintiffs’ evidence did not meet the required standards. The rulings were upheld on appeal before the Federal Circuit.
OSI Pharmaceuticals, Inc. v. Mylan Pharmaceuticals Inc., 858 F. Supp. 2d 341 (D. Del. 2012). Hatch-Waxman patent litigation concerning anticancer drug Tarceva with sales over $1 billion per year. The case was settled favorably on appeal for generic drug client.
Fidelity Nat’l Information Servs. v. Plano Encryption Techs., LLC, No. 15-777-LPS-CJB, 2016 WL 1650763 (D. Del. Apr. 4, 2016). Represented plaintiff in patent infringement action concerning encryption technology, seeking a declaratory judgment of non-infringement. Briefed and argued opposition to defendant's motion to dismiss. The court's decision is available here.
eComSystems, Inc. v. Shared Marketing Services, Inc.: No. 8:10-cv-01531-VMC-MAP (M.D. Fla.). Represented patent owner eComSystems, Inc. in action asserting multiple patents covering systems for and methods of preparing computer-generated advertising in the Middle District of Florida. Successfully settled litigation for plaintiff against defendants Ace Hardware and Shared Marketing Services.
In the Matter of Certain Printing and Imaging Devices and Components Thereof, No. 337-TA-690 (U.S.I.T.C.). Represented Oki Data Corp. in an ITC 337 action concerning alleged patent infringement and unfair importation of multifunction printers. Successfully briefed opposition to patent owner's motion to disqualify co-counsel.
Alza Corp. v. Mylan Labs., Inc., Alza Corp. v. Mylan Labs., Inc., 388 F. Supp. 2d (N.D. W. Va. 2005), aff'd 464 F.3d 1286 (Fed. Cir. 2006). Represented Mylan through appeal in a patent infringement action brought by Alza, a division of Johnson & Johnson, in the Northern District of West Virginia. The case involved the urinary incontinence drug Ditropan XL® (sustained-release oxybutynin chloride). After a two-week bench trial the asserted patent was held invalid. The ruling was affirmed by the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit.
Ortho-McNeil Pharm., Inc. v. Mylan Labs. Inc.: Represented Mylan in an infringement action brought in the Northern District of West Virginia involving the antibiotic drug Levaquin® (levofloxacin). After a more than five-week bench trial, the court found in favor of plaintiffs, ruling that Mylan had not proven by clear and convincing evidence that the patent covering the active pharmaceutical ingredient was invalid, which was upheld on appeal.
Carl Zeiss Vision Int'l GmbH v. Signet Armorlite, Inc.: Represented Carl Zeiss in multiple jury trials directed to multifocal eyeglass lenses commonly referred to as progressive lenses. The jury ultimately returned a verdict that the claims of the patent were valid and that Signet willfully infringed the patent. The case settled post-trial, prior to appeal.
Bayer CropScience v. Nufarm Americas, Ltd.: Represented Nufarm in patent litigation relating to imidacloprid formulations. Robert was responsible for of the defenses, all depositions development and expert discovery. Case settled on favorable terms after the claim construction hearing.
* N.B. - Some of the above matters were handled by the attorneys of Dowd Scheffel when the attorneys were at prior law firms.