In the News

World Trademark Review Once Again Applauds Haynes and Boone’s Coast to Coast Trademark Practice

World Trademark Review (WTR) 1000 has for the third consecutive year awarded the firm a gold ranking - the highest possible - in Texas, and a silver ranking nationally. >>

Haynes and Boone Expands IP Talent with Arrival of Dennis Gallagher

COSTA MESA, CALIF. – Haynes and Boone, LLP has bolstered its intellectual property talent with the arrival of Dennis Gallagher as counsel in the firm’s Intellectual Property Transactional Practice Group. >>

Recent Publications

Supreme Court Favors Juries over Judges in Deciding Consumer Perspective Trademark Issue

The U.S. Supreme Court on Wednesday unanimously decreed that the jury, not the judge, should decide whether two trademarks used by a brand owner may be tacked (considered to impart the same impression) in a priority dispute. >>

A “Crumby” Decision Confuses Trademark Law for Rejected Licenses in Chapter 11 Cases

A recent decision by a New Jersey bankruptcy court scrambles the law regarding rejected trademark licenses. >>

Finally, the Post-Alice Federal Circuit Finds a Computer-Implemented Business Method Patent-Eligible

As noted in our previous client update, judicial rulings on the patent-eligibility of software and business method patents under section 101 of the U.S. Patent Act have run heavily against patent owners since Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank International, 573 U.S. ___, 134 S. Ct. 2347 (2014). >>

INTA Conducts Second Annual Training Seminar at IMPI

Report by Jeff Becker, the Team Leader for INTA’s Government Officials Education and Training Committee.   >>

Federal Circuit Strikes Down Business Method Patent Based on Early-Stage Motion to Dismiss

Judicial rulings on the patent-eligibility of software and business method patents under section 101 of the U.S. Patent Act have run heavily against patent owners since the U.S. Supreme Court’s June 19, 2014 ruling in Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank International, 573 U.S. ___, 134 S. Ct. 2347 (2014). >>

FDA Throws the (Purple) Book at Biosimilars - Purple v. Orange

On September 9, 2014, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) published the inaugural “Purple Book,” a list of approved or “licensed” biological products, including all biosimilar and interchangeable biological products. >>

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.