Patent Litigation

Overview

A broad spectrum of clients turn to Parker Poe’s patent litigation attorneys to resolve patent infringement litigation nationwide. Based in South Carolina, North Carolina, and Georgia, our registered patent lawyers have litigated dozens of complex cases in federal district courts and represented both patentees and challengers in myriad post-grant proceedings at the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) of the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO). We have experience across numerous industries and technologies, including the mechanical, chemical, and pharmaceutical arts.

Across the board, clients rely on us for our strategic, pragmatic approach. We make the investment to understand each client’s business goals. We then apply hard-earned experience and technical knowledge to pursue the best result as defined by each client — whether in the courtroom, before the PTAB, or in negotiations. Value and effectiveness come first and are essential components of our scalable patent litigation solutions.

Because of our purposeful approach, we are frequently retained by other lawyers in patent disputes, including serving as local counsel in South Carolina, North Carolina, and Georgia. Clients and other lawyers have praised our collaborative approach informed by our robust understanding of the commercial practicalities and the legal nuances of patent litigation.

Our Approach

Client expectations are evolving, technology is reshaping legal practice, and patent disputes are growing more complex. Traditional patent litigators have been slow to adapt. At Parker Poe, we combine the resources, technical knowledge, and strategic insight of a large firm with agility, personalized service, and an innovative approach that sets us apart.

Parker Poe’s patent litigation practice might best be described in terms of what we aren’t in comparison to what we are. Experience and observation show that patent infringement attorneys take one of two approaches.

What we’re not: The first approach can be characterized as "warfare by attrition." A rigid template is followed for every case, regardless of the particulars of an individual case or client. These lawyers delight in camping out for days in document review (and billing for every minute). They file lots of motions (and bill for every minute). They fight about every little detail (and bill for every minute). They tell themselves that their Rambo approach confirms that they are, indeed, hard-charging warriors. Multiple lawyers robotically attend every deposition, every hearing, and the trial, regardless of whether they have anything of value to add. Every issue is contested, whether valuable or not. Every stone is overturned and every bridge is burned, whether useful or not. Judges and juries are presented with mind-numbing minutiae, and oral advocacy lacks spirit.

What we are: The second approach requires judgment and experience. Each effort is measured for its impact on the client and on the case, so not every "law school exam issue" is pursued, only those that matter for a particular client, its business, and the larger strategic goals we are pursuing together. Staffing is focused on efficiency. Each case is pursued with unquestionable vigor — but only as to those aspects that realistically affect the outcome or the client. The efforts in one case may look very different than the efforts in another case, because each case and each client is different.

Parker Poe’s patent litigators take the second approach, which ensures that our efforts are customized to the unique needs of each client and case. We have found that our experience with patent applications (putting patents together) also informs our judgment with patent litigation. We know from experience to be judicious — only fight the battles that make a difference. We know to aim our efforts toward the courtroom — because we have been there. And we view each case through a business lens because clients are in business for business, not for lawsuits.

Representative Experience

Federal Courts Where We Have Litigated Patent Cases

Our team has litigated over 100 patent cases across the U.S., including in top venues known for high-stakes intellectual property litigation. We have represented clients in federal district courts such as the:

Eastern District of Texas
District of Delaware
Southern District of New York
District of New Jersey
Northern District of California
Central District of California
Southern District of California
Eastern District of Virginia
Western District of Virginia
District of South Carolina
Northern District of Georgia
Middle District of Georgia
Eastern District of North Carolina
Middle District of North Carolina
Western District of North Carolina
Northern District of Illinois
Eastern District of Pennsylvania

We also have significant experience representing clients before the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit.

Selected Patent Litigation Experience

District Court & Federal Circuit Patent Litigation

Defended power tool distributor in patent infringement cases in the Eastern District of Texas, achieving favorable settlement after bringing patentee to the table via a strategic motion for summary judgment.
Represented a global auto manufacturer in a patent dispute before the Eastern District of Virginia involving GPS devices.
Defended a packaged foods company in the Southern District of California and on appeal before the Federal Circuit, which ultimately found no patent infringement.
Secured a motion to dismiss claims involving a guitar video game before the Eastern District of North Carolina based on patent eligibility; ruling was upheld on appeal before the Federal Circuit.
Represented recreation equipment manufacturer in patent and trademark case; secured a consent injunction for willful patent infringements and other remedies on the eve of trial after two years of litigation.
Secured summary judgment of patent infringement and patent claim validity against a copycat competitor.
Represented a multinational company accused of patent infringement and secured a positive resolution after discovery uncovered flaws in the plaintiffs' case.
Defended an innovative client accused of patent infringement in which the plaintiff voluntarily dismissed the case after two years of litigation to avoid risking a ruling on summary judgment.
Represented power tool manufacturer in patent case; successfully negotiated advantageous settlement after discovering patent marking failure by patent owner.
Represented a plaintiff against a patent infringer and achieved beneficial settlement terms despite claims of patent invalidity.
Defended an office equipment manufacturer in the Central District of California and Eastern District of Pennsylvania as part of a dual strategy before the USPTO that involved invalidating patent claims and wiping out millions of dollars in damages through ex parte reexaminations.
Represented a fence manufacturer in the Northern District of Georgia in a patent design-around strategy that resulted in a favorable settlement.
Defended a furniture manufacturer in the District of South Carolina against patent, trademark, and copyright claims; invalidated one of the plaintiff’s patents and settled on favorable terms.

PTAB & Post-Grant Proceedings

Represented a Fortune 100 software-industrial company in an inter partes review (IPR) proceeding before the PTAB involving patents related to an energy management system and method.
Represented defendants in an action for patent infringement, where the court found that our client did not infringe the asserted claims of the patent-in-suit and, as part of a two-part strategy, obtained a ruling before the PTAB that the claims of the patent-in-suit were unpatentable. The Federal Circuit affirmed the PTAB’s finding of unpatentability.

ANDA & Pharmaceutical Patent Litigation

Represented generic pharmaceutical company in multiple Abbreviated New Drug Application (ANDA) cases in federal district courts in Delaware, New York, New Jersey, West Virginia, and South Carolina; negotiated settlement terms cutting off the exclusivity period of the holder of a New Drug Application (NDA).
Prevailed before the Federal Circuit on motion for judgment on the pleadings demonstrating that our client’s generic pharmaceutical drug did not infringe on the sole remaining asserted patent covering a branded product with annual U.S. sales exceeding $3 billion. The case involved a successful defense of our client’s 505(b)(2) application.
Represented and filed an amicus brief for a generic pharmaceutical manufacturers’ association before the Federal Circuit. This case principally involved issues concerning alleged inducement of infringement in a dispute about patents on a drug used to treat epilepsy and neurodegenerative diseases. The Court of Appeals decided the case on terms favorable to our client.