In the News

Ken Parker in the American Lawyer: IP Partisans React to Obama Patent Troll Directives

With opposition to "patent trolls" running at an all-time high, the Obama Administration pressed ahead Tuesday with reforms that could help to undermine the troll business model. Many tech companies hailed the proposals as longoverdue, saying they'll let businesses spend less time litigating and more time innovating. But some patent-holders warned that the reforms could hurt the economy in the long run. >>



Recent Publications

Not a Biotech Company? What Myriad Might Mean For You

You’ve seen all the articles about the Supreme Court’s decision in Assoc. for Molecular Pathology v. Myriad Genetics Inc. and the end of DNA patents, but what does this mean outside the biotech world? >>

What Elephant? Supreme Court Downplays Inquiry into Patent Strength in Hatch-Waxman Settlements

The Supreme Court held today in FTC v. Actavis that so-called “reverse payment” settlement agreements are subject to antitrust law’s “rule of reason” analysis. >>

Law360 Guest Article: Infringement Liability May Exist For Foreign Manufacturers

Many foreign manufacturers ignore U.S. patents because they wrongly assume they have no real economic risk and are not liable for infringing a patent in another country. But when products are being shipped to the U.S from another country, infringement liability may exist. >>

Monsanto Rounds Up Big Win for Self-Replicating Tech

The Supreme Court’s recent decision has seeded another patent protection feather in Monsanto’s increasingly large cap, in addition to providing guidance on application of the patent exhaustion doctrine in the case of self-replicating technology. >>




Winning a High-Stakes Patent Infringement Case

The Client
A medical technology company focused on the diagnosis and treatment of congestive heart failure

The Challenge
In 2004, our client secured two patents for a unique method of surgically repairing human hearts after a severe heart attack, using a device to resize, reshape and reorient the heart’s left ventricle.  However, two California-based firms introduced their own product that infringed on our client’s patents, claiming that their product was justified by prior art.  Haynes and Boone sued the infringers in U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Texas.

The Haynes and Boone Solution
We faced a major challenge showing to a jury the complex technical issues involved, and relied on a variety of physical exhibits – from videos and complex models of the human heart, to simple demonstrations involving a water balloon. 

Our basic contention was that the prior art involved only size, while our client’s patent involved both size and shape.  The trial team conveyed the importance of shape in dealing with the structure of the heart, the key attribute of our client’s product. 

The Outcome
Following a three-week trial the jury unanimously agreed that the defendants had improperly and willfully infringed our client’s product and should pay lost profits and damages that totaled more than $2.3 million.  The jury found willful infringement on every claim that we asserted for the two patents, and in addition to the monetary award issued a permanent injunction against making or selling the infringing product and ordered all testing of that product to cease immediately. 

This ruling was crucial because our client’s product is still in its infancy, and the defendants had hundreds of infringing products undergoing clinical trials at the time of the decision.  The court’s ruling provided a solid foundation for significant future demand for our client’s product rather than the infringing one. 

By affirming the validity of our client’s patent, the future protection and position that we secured in a highly competitive market of approximately 200 cardiothoracic surgeons ultimately should prove more important than the immediate infringement damages.