SINCE OUR FOUNDING 130 YEARS AGO, we have evolved to become one of the largest and most diversified firms in our field.

 

We have successfully represented both plaintiffs and defendants in a variety of recent jury and non-jury cases:

  • Samy Gharb v. Rockwell Automation et al.

    Working with local counsel who filed the papers, Kenyon won a motion to dismiss with prejudice a patent infringement suit brought against 62 defendants, including client Toyota Corporation. The case, filed in the Northern District of Illinois by inventor Samy Gharb, was dismissed by the Court in light of the plaintiff's complete lack of substantive allegations and repeated failure to heed the guidance of past Court Orders. Case number 11-cv-405 (2011).

  • Trans Video Electronics, Ltd. v. Sony Electronics Inc., et al.

    Kenyon won a motion for summary judgment on behalf of Sony in a patent infringement case filed in the Northern District of California. The patent in suit concerns a global digital video news distribution system. Trans Video contends that Sony infringes by distributing video content, including movies and games, through Sony's PlayStation Network to users of the PlayStation 3 and PlayStation Portable products, as well as other devices that connect to the Internet. Kenyon convinced the Court that the asserted claim of the patent was invalid following a favorable Markman Order issued in May 2011. Case number 09-civ-3304 (ongoing).

  • Eli Lilly and Co. v. Sicor Pharmaceuticals, Inc., Sicor, Inc., Teva Pharmaceutical Industries LTD., and Teva Pharmaceuticals USA, Inc.

    Kenyon successfully represented Teva on appeal to the US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit in a patent infringement litigation concerning Teva's generic equivalent to Eli Lilly's cancer drug Gemzar®. The Federal Circuit affirmed the Southern District of Indiana court's ruling in favor of Teva that Lilly was collaterally estopped from denying that its method-of-use patent was invalid. That decision provided Teva with an exclusive right to sell generic versions of Gemzar® for 180 days. Case number 06-238 (2011).

  • Robert Bosch LLC v. Pylon Manufacturing Corp.

    Kenyon won a Federal Circuit victory for client Robert Bosch LLC in a patent infringement case involving windshield-wiper technology. In April 2010, Bosch won an infringement jury trial in the District of Delaware, but the District Court declined Bosch's request to enter a permanent injunction against the infringer. The Court of Appeals reversed the District Court and, instead of remanding for the District Court to further consider the issue, ordered the District Court to enter an injunction. The decision is an important ruling helping to define the continued availability of injunctions after the Supreme Court's 2006 eBay decision. Case number 08-cv-00542 (2011).

  • Federal Treasury Enterprise Sojuzplodoimport, et al. v. Spirits International NV, et al.

    Kenyon won a motion to dismiss on behalf of the distributors of STOLICHNAYA brand vodka, in a long-running trademark infringement dispute filed in the Southern District of New York. Judge George B. Daniels ruled that a Russian organization, Federal Treasure Enterprise Sojuzplodoimport (FTE), lacked standing to challenge the distributors’ use of the marks in the US. Kenyon successfully represented Allied Domecq in 2006 when Judge Daniels first dismissed the suit, but the Second Circuit revived some of FTE's claims. Kenyon also began representing William Grant & Sons, the current distributor for STOLI, after it was added as a defendant in a third amended complaint filed in February 2011. The judge ruled that FTE did not have the right to sue over the trademarks because it was not a legal representative for the marks' owner the Russian Federation. In 2006, the Court had also dismissed a copyright infringement allegation contained in the lawsuit. Case number 1:04-cv-8510 (2011).

  • Sony Corporation v. LG Electronics U.S.A. Inc. et al.; LG Electronics, Inc. v. Sony Corporation et al. Kenyon was lead outside counsel to Sony in a series of high-profile, worldwide patent ligations against LG Electronics. Kenyon represented Sony on five US litigations (including three ITC cases) directed to telecommunications standards, cell phone features, Blu-ray DVD technology and televisions and computer monitors, as well as advising on multiple cases in Germany, the UK, the Netherlands, Spain and Korea, resulting in a favorable settlement on behalf of Sony. Case numbers 11-civ-1422; 11-civ-247; 10-civ-9967 (2011).
  • Jim Beam Brands Co. v. Tequila Cuervo La Rojeña S.A. de C.V.

    Kenyon was victorious in its representation of Jim Beam Brands in a breach of contract dispute against Tequila Cuervo (maker of Jose Cuervo tequila) in both the New York Civil Supreme Court and on appeal. Jim Beam claimed Tequila Cuervo breached a settlement agreement concerning Jim Beam's OLD CROW brand and crow design. The Honorable Richard B. Lowe III of the Supreme Court of the State of New York found liability and issued summary judgment in favor of Jim Beam Brands, based on Cuervo's use of a disputed crow design on tequila products, its web sites and in other advertising materials. Tequila Cuervo appealed the decision to the Appellate Division, First Department, which upheld the lower court's decision with costs. The damages phase will be tried later in 2011. New York Civil Supreme, number 600122 (ongoing).

  • Fishman Transducers, Inc. v. Stephen Paul D/B/A Esteban, Daystar Productions, and HSN Interactive LLC

    Kenyon successfully convinced a jury to find that its clients, Home Shopping Network, broadcaster of the well-known HSN television channel, Daystar Productions, and musician and on-air personality Stephen Paul (aka “Esteban”), did not willfully infringe the FISHMAN mark in a $25 million trademark suit brought by Fishman Transducers, Inc. in the District of Massachusetts.

    Fishman Transducers alleged that the defendants’ use of its FISHMAN mark in connection with the sale of ESTEBAN guitar packages on Home Shopping Network’s on-air broadcasts and website from May 2006 to January 2007 constituted willful violations of various state and federal laws, including trademark infringement, unfair competition, false advertising, counterfeiting, and consumer protection laws. Through a series of summary judgment motions and evidentiary motions, Kenyon obtained several extremely favorable pre-trial rulings which confined the trial issues to the core Lanham Act issues alleged in the complaint. This resulted in a deduction of over $10 million from Fishman’s damages claim. In addition, during the course of trial, Kenyon successfully moved to exclude the plaintiff's damages expert from offering any testimony on the subject of lost profits. Following the eight-day jury trial and two days of deliberations, the jury found that the defendants’ use of the plaintiff’s FISHMAN mark, though infringing under the Lanham Act, was not willful or intentionally false. As a result of the verdict, Honorable George O’Toole, Jr. entered judgment with no monetary award for Fishman other than leave to file a bill for court costs. Case number 07-civ-10071 (2011).

  • Sony Electronics, Inc. v. Mediostream, Inc.


    Kenyon won a motion to stay in the Northern District of California patent litigation action in which Sony was seeking declaratory relief that its products did not infringe on Mediostream's patent related to video recording systems. The Court granted Sony's motion, noting in the decision that it does not routinely grant stays based on the existence of reexamination proceedings or as a matter of course but "the particular facts and circumstances of this case render imposing such a stay appropriate." Case number C 10-5410 RS (2011).

  • Automotive Technologies International, Inc. v. Delphi Corporation, et al.

    Kenyon won four summary judgment motions on behalf of Delphi Automotive Systems, LLC in a declaratory judgment action filed by the company in the Eastern District of Michigan. After certain of its customers had been sued in Texas, Delphi filed this action against Automotive Technologies International, Inc. ("ATI"), seeking a declaratory judgment of the invalidity of certain ATI patents relating generally to occupant sensors for airbag control in automobiles. The infringement counterclaims filed by ATI centered around Delphi's Passive Occupant Detection System ("PODS") products.

    During the course of the litigation, ATI dropped allegations of infringement with respect to certain of its patents, and the case proceeded with respect to representative claims of four remaining patents. The court construed the claims of these patents in September 2009, and Delphi filed summary judgment motions of patent invalidity in July 2010. After hearing oral arguments on January 6, 2011, the Honorable Robert H. Cleland ruled in favor of Delphi, finding all four of the patents-in-suit invalid as either anticipated by or obvious over the prior art. Case number 08-11048 (2011).

  • Tequila Cuervo La Rojeña S.A. de C.V. v. Jim Beam Brands Co.

    Kenyon won dismissal of a declaratory judgment action filed by Tequila Cuervo La Rojena, makers of Jose Cuervo tequila, in the Southern District of New York. The Plaintiffs filed the action against our client, Jim Beam Brands Co., seeking declaration that certain uses of an image of a crow in the trade dress and marketing for its brands of tequila do not violate Jim Beam's federal trademark rights. Jim Beam stipulated to release Tequila Cuervo from any claims for trademark infringement other than a breach-of-contract claim pending in Supreme Court of the State of New York, which Kenyon argued mooted the declaratory action. Jim Beam recently won summary judgment on liability in the state action for breach of contract, with the damages phase set to be tried later in the year. The Court dismissed Tequila Cuervo's action for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. Case number 10-civ-0203 (2011).

  • Charles White v. Constellation Brands, Inc. et al

    Kenyon represents defendants Constellation Brands and its subsidiary, Spirits Marque One (Svedka vodka), in a copyright infringement and breach of contract case in the United States District Court for the Central District of California. This case involves copyright claims pertaining to a photograph taken by a well known Hollywood photographer. On December 17, 2010 Kenyon secured a lengthy reasoned opinion from the court denying Plaintiff's motion for preliminary injunction. Securing dismissal of the motion allowed the client to proceed with a multi-million dollar advertising campaign. Case Number CV 10-07175 ODW (ongoing).

  • Shared Memory Graphics v. Apple et al.

    Kenyon achieved a victory on behalf of Sony Corporation in a patent infringement case brought against Sony and others by Shared Memory Graphics (SMG), a subsidiary company of known non-practicing entity, Acacia. The case, which we successfully transferred from the Western District of Arkansas to the Northern District of California, involved the assertion of two patents against Sony’s PSP, PS2 and PS3 game consoles. Kenyon mounted aggressive defenses that resulted in victories on several motions which ultimately made SMG dismiss all its claims against Sony with prejudice. Using a creative strategy and deep knowledge of Local Patent Rules, Kenyon was able to achieve this victory while sparing Sony from the burden of engaging in discovery. The dismissal with prejudice brought to a close a nearly ten-years of infringement allegations against Sony with respect to the patents-in-suit. Case number 10-civ-2475 (2011).

  • Service Reminder, LLC v. Volkswagen Group of America, Inc.

    Kenyon won a motion for summary judgment and obtained a dismissal of the patent infringement case filed against Volkswagen by Service Reminder, LLC, a subsidiary of well-known non-practicing entity Acacia Patent Acquisition Corporation. The case involved infringement claims related to a patent on a device that notifies a driver to perform a vehicle maintenance task. Kenyon successfully convinced the Eastern District of Michigan court that Service Reminder's patent was invalid based on anticipation by prior art. Kenyon had previously won a motion to transfer the case from the District of New Jersey, where it was originally filed, to Michigan, which is one of the less favorable jurisdictions for patent holders litigating infringement issues. Case number 10-civ-12201 (2011).

  • Rebranding CitiFinancial to OneMain Financial

    Kenyon helped CitiFinancial, the largest consumer loan company in the US, change its name to distinguish itself with an identity that better fits who the company is and what it does. (2010).

  • Zimmer v. CooperNeff Advisors, Inc.

    Kenyon successfully resolved a long-standing dispute on behalf of its clients, CooperNeff Advisors and BNP Paribas, against a former CooperNeff employee. The dispute, which centered on ownership rights to a software program used for selecting securities held in a hedge fund, also involved a novel question regarding enforceability of an arbitration provision giving the employer unilateral rights to enforce its Intellectual Property rights in court. After the US District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania initially ruled that the arbitration clause was unconscionable and that CooperNeff had waived its rights to demand arbitration, Kenyon successfully appealed the ruling to the Third Circuit Court of Appeals, which ruled that the arbitration clause was not unconscionable. The Third Circuit also vacated the decision on waiver and remanded to the district court for further consideration. Upon reconsideration, the district court ultimately ruled that the arbitration clause was enforceable and ordered the case to be heard in arbitration. Previously, upon entry as counsel in the case, Kenyon successfully defeated a motion for preliminary injunction after the district court had already granted a temporary restraining order forcing CooperNeff to halt use of the stock selection program. Case number 2:04-cv-03816-RK (2010).

  • Veda GmbH v. Future Media Architects, Inc.

    Kenyon successfully represented client, Future Media Architects, Inc., a leading Internet domain name company, in a Uniform Dispute Resolution Policy domain name proceeding before the National Arbitration Forum. At issue in the dispute was the domain name veda.com. Complainant, Veda GmbH, claimed to own trademark rights in the VEDA designation, which it uses in connection with its business that specializes in software development for others.

    The three-member panel unanimously found that Future Media Architects did not register or use of the domain name in bad faith. Having reached this decision, the Panel ruled that the Complainant had not carried its burden of proof, thereby allowing Future Media Architects to retain possession of the veda.com domain name. Claim number FA1009001347931 (2010).

  • Laboratoires Thea v. Domain Spa, LLC

    Kenyon successfully represented client, Domain Spa, LLC, in a Uniform Dispute Resolution Policy domain name proceeding before the World Intellectual Property Organization. Domain Spa, LLC is a leading domain name developer that combines the acquisition of domain names incorporating generic words and the subsequent commercial development of those domain names.

    At issue were the domain names thea.com and thea.net, which Domain Spa, LLC uses for dating websites. A WIPO panel ruled unanimously in favor of Domain Spa, LLC. It found that Domain Spa LLC's use of the disputed domain names amounts to a bona fide offering of goods and services. Having reached this decision, the Panel determined that it was unnecessary to decide whether the disputed domain names were registered and used by Domain Spa, LLC in bad faith. Case number D2010-1138 (2010).

  • Univision Radio, Inc. v. Texas CBS Radio Broadcasting, L.P. v. Educational Media Foundation

    Kenyon secured a favorable resolution on behalf of Educational Media Foundation in a US Trademark Office concurrent use proceeding involving a three-way geographic split as to the right to use a disputed trademark in connection with radio broadcasting services. Concurrent Use No. 94002217 (2010).

  • Rebranding GMAC Financial Services, Inc. to Ally Financial

    Kenyon helped GMAC Financial re-establish goodwill by handling the searching and protection of the company’s new brand, Ally Financial, which has become one of the most successful banks in the country. (2010).

  • Flexsys America LP v. Kumho Tire USA, Inc., et al.

    Kenyon won summary judgment in favor of client Jiangsu Sinorgchem Technology Co. Ltd. in a patent infringement litigation case brought by Flexsys America LP. The patents-in-suit are directed to a process for making anti-degradants, used in almost every automobile tire. The case was originally filed in 2005, in the Northern District of Ohio, and had been stayed on multiple occasions due to two parallel International Trade Commission actions. Once the final ruling of non infringement was announced by the ITC, Flexsys chose not to appeal the adverse noninfringement finding and reopened this case. Judge Sara Lioi found that “Flexsys has failed to come forward with any genuine issues of material fact that would lead a reasonable juror to find in favor of Flexsys on the issue of literal infringement or infringement under the doctrine of equivalents” and granted summary judgment in favor of Sinorgchem. Case number 05-civ-156 (2010).

  • Maker's Mark v. Diageo

    Kenyon won a high-stakes battle in the US District Court for the Western District of Kentucky for Kentucky-based bourbon producer Maker’s Mark in a dispute with Jose Cuervo, the maker of Jose Cuervo Reserva Tequila, and Cuervo's distributor, Diageo North America, concerning the design of Maker’s Mark’s signature red dripping wax seal. This case is now on appeal. Case number 03-civ-93 (ongoing).

  • ITC Investigation Into Hybrid Electric Vehicles and Components

    Kenyon represented Toyota in a high-profile International Trade Commission investigation filed by Paice in September 2009. This patent infringement investigation related to hybrid vehicles manufactured by Toyota and imported to the USA. At stake was Toyota’s ability to continue importing and selling the Prius, as well as hybrid versions of the Camry and Lexus. Paice and Toyota had been engaged in an ongoing patent litigation relating to hybrid car technology since 2004. The case settled favorably for our client on the eve of trial in 2010. Case number 337-TA-688 (2010).

  • GFI Group, Inc. v. GFI Finance Ltd.

    Kenyon successfully represented GFI Group, Inc., a leading provider of wholesale brokerage services, in a Uniform Dispute Resolution Policy domain name proceeding before the World Intellectual Property Organization involving the domain name gfifinance.com. The WIPO panel ordered that the domain name be transferred to GFI Group, finding that the domain name registered by GFI Finance Ltd., a Hong Kong-based entity, was identical or confusingly similar to GFI Group’s trademarks and service marks. The Panel also found that GFI Finance Ltd. had no rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name, and that gfifinance.com had been registered and used in bad faith. Case number D2010-1624 (2010).

  • Summit Entertainment, LLC v. EPV Enterprises LLC

    After a three year dispute, Kenyon successfully resolved a copyright infringement litigation in the Southern District of New York and related contract disputes in NY State Supreme Court which threatened to derail Summit Entertainment's May 14, 2010 release of “Letters to Juliet,” a film starring Amanda Seyfried and Vanessa Redgrave. Case number 1:2010cv00193 (2010).

  • In re SPORTO

    Kenyon successfully represented Eastman Sporto Group, manufacturer and supplier of the SPORTO shoe brand, in a Uniform Dispute Resolution Policy domain name proceeding before the World Intellectual Property Organization involving the domain name sporto.com. The disputed domain name was registered in 1997 by Oregon-based Respondents, initially in connection with training classes. The content changed beginning in 2001, alternating between a generic pay-per-click site offering links to shoes and footwear and a site that automatically redirected users to another website that sold shoes and boots. The WIPO panel found that Respondents had registered and used the disputed domain name in bad faith, engaging in "textbook cybersquatting." As a result, the panel found in favor of Eastman Sporto Group and ordered the domain name, sporto.com, be transferred to the company. Case number D2009-1688 (2010).

  • West Corporation v. Mrs. Jello, LLC

    Kenyon successfully represented Mrs. Jello, LLC (“MJ”), a leading domain name developer, in a Uniform Dispute Resolution Policy proceeding against West Corporation pertaining to ownership of the domain name entrado.com. The National Arbitration Forum Panel held that West Corp. failed to prove that MJ's use of entrado.com in connection with pay-per-click advertising was not a legitimate use. The Panel ruled in favor of Mrs. Jello, stating that the domain was not registered and/or used in bad faith. Claim number FA1004001321540 (2010).

  • Boston Scientific Corp. and Boston Scientific Scimed v. Johnson & Johnson and Cordis Corp.

    Kenyon obtained a finding of summary judgment in favor of Boston Scientific in a case involving potentially several hundreds of millions of dollars in damages. The accused technology was drug-eluting stents and Judge Robinson held that Johnson & Johnson’s four patents were invalid. Case number Civ. No. 07-333-SLR; Civ. No. 07-348-SLR; Civ. No. 07-409-SLR; Civ No. 07-765-SLR (2010).

  • Eli Lilly and Co. v. Actavis Elizabeth, LLC et al.

    Kenyon represented Teva Pharmaceuticals USA, Inc. in a patent litigation involving Eli Lilly’s method-of-use patent covering Strattera®, a drug product known by its active ingredient atomoxetine used to treat ADHD. In August 2010, New Jersey federal district court judge Dennis Cavanaugh ruled that the patent covering Strattera® was invalid for lack of enablement/utility, clearing the way for generic competition prior to the scheduled expiration of the patent in 2016. In 2009, Strattera® generated US sales of $445.6 million. Lilly has appealed the district court’s decision to the Federal Circuit which is currently pending. Case number 07-civ-3770 (2010).

  • GFI Brokers LLC v. SCB & Associates, et al.

    Kenyon successfully represented client GFI Brokers LLC, part of the GFI Group, in a trademark infringement suit against SCB & Associates and Starsupply Renewables SA, in the US District Court for the Southern District of New York. The suit covered a broad range of trademark infringement and unfair competition claims over the mark STARSUPPLY for use in connection with commodity brokerage services. As a result of a successful and expedited pre-answer preliminary injunction hearing, Kenyon obtained a favorable settlement wherein defendants agreed to halt all use of the infringing mark and to rebrand all of their activities in all of the Americas, among other favorable terms. Case number 1:2010cv00528 (2010).

  • Mattel v. PIR Holding SP

    Kenyon won a copyright and trademark dispute against PIR Holding SP, a European company which was selling dolls which infringed Mattel's Barbie. The Polish circuit court conducted a full trial and declared all copyright and trademark rights in Barbie to be valid; ordered destruction of all infringing dolls and packaging; and awarded Mattel damages and attorney's fees in amounts to be determined. (2010).

  • Teva Pharmaceutical Industries LTD. v. Dworld LLC

    Kenyon successfully represented Teva Pharmaceutical Industries Ltd., the world's leading generic pharmaceutical company, in a Uniform Dispute Resolution Policy proceeding concerning the ownership of the domain name myteva.com. A World Intellectual Property Organization panel transferred the domain name to Teva from a domain name speculator based in Denver, Colorado, Dworld LLC. Case number D2010-0532 (2010).

  • Walmart Stores, Inc. v. Domains by Proxy, Inc.

    Kenyon successfully represented Walmart, one of the world's largest retailers, in a Uniform Dispute Resolution Policy domain name proceeding before the World Intellectual Property Organization concerning the domain names walmartrecruiting.com, wal-martrecruiting.com and walmart-recruiting.com. The complaint stated that email addresses associated with walmartrecruiting.com were created and used “as part of a scheme to divert [Walmart]’s consumers to Respondents’ web site and... by seeking “secret shoppers” to shop at [Walmart] stores on Respondents’ behalf.” It was believed that this scheme was created for the respondent’s own financial gain.

    The WIPO Panel found that the domain names were confusingly similar to Walmart’s trademark, that the respondents lacked “rights or legitimate interest” to the domains, and that the domains were registered in bad faith. Case number D2010-0168 (2010).

  • ALZA Corporation and McNeil-PPC v. Andrx Pharmaceuticals et al.

    Kenyon represented client Watson Pharmaceuticals, Inc. before the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit in a patent infringement litigation brought by ALZA Corporation and McNeil-PPC over generic versions of Concerta® developed by Watson’s subsidiaries, Andrx Corporation and Andrx Pharmaceuticals LLC. Kenyon represented Watson in the district court as well as on appeal. After a full trial in March 2009, Judge Joseph Farnan, Jr. of the US District Court for the District of Delaware ruled that the proposed generic versions of Concerta®, which treats Attention-Deficit/Hyperactivity Disorder (“ADHD”), would not infringe US Patent No. 6,919,373 (the '373 Patent) and that the '373 Patent is invalid. On April 26, 2010, the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit affirmed Judge Farnan’s ruling by concluding that the asserted claims of the ’373 patent are invalid for lack of enablement. Given the affirmance on grounds of invalidity, the Federal Circuit did not address Judge Farnan’s alternative finding of non-infringement of the asserted claims. Case number 2009- 1350 (2010).

  • Photocure ASA v. Kappos

    Kenyon represented Norwegian pharmaceutical company Photocure ASA before the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit. In a victory for Photocure, the court affirmed an Eastern District of Virginia decision granting a significant patent term extension to Photocure. The district court had overturned a Patent and Trademark Office decision denying the extension. Kenyon represented Photocure in the district court as well as on appeal. With the decision, Photocure’s patent on the Metvixia® drug product, which is used to treat skin cancer, will not expire until 2018. Under the earlier decision by the PTO, the patent would have expired in 2016. This extension is based on a provision in the patent statute that provides patent owners – like Photocure – with an extended patent term when they are delayed in commercializing their inventions by the lengthy and expensive FDA approval process. Case number 2009-1393, 603 F.3d 1372 (2010).

  • Osbourne v. Iommi

    Kenyon successfully represented Ozzy Osbourne ("Ozzy") against Black Sabbath band mate, Anthony Iommi, in defeating a 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss. The case concerned ownership of the BLACK SABBATH trademark. On May 26, 2009, Ozzy filed a complaint in the US District Court for the Southern District of New York for a declaratory judgment seeking a declaration that he is at least a joint owner of the BLACK SABBATH mark on the basis that Ozzy, and his wife and manager, Sharon Osbourne, acting on his behalf, have controlled the nature and quality of BLACK SABBATH goods and services (i.e., concert tours and merchandise) since 1997 when Ozzy rejoined the Black Sabbath band. Iommi argued that Ozzy’s claims relating to the BLACK SABBATH mark should be dismissed on the basis of an agreement from 1980 that allegedly transferred his rights to the BLACK SABBATH name to Iommi and other Black Sabbath band mates.

    Ozzy asked the court to deny Iommi’s motion to dismiss, as it was improper for the court to consider documents, such as the 1980 agreement, outside of the scope of the complaint. Judge Koeltl stated that in a Rule 12(b)(6) context, a court may only consider a document not referenced in the complaint, if the complaint relies heavily on the document so that it is integral to the complaint, citing Chambers v. Time Warner, 282 F.3d 147, 153 (2d Cir. 2002). Iommi unsuccessfully claimed that extrinsic materials should be considered by a court on a dismissal motion if they undermine plaintiff’s allegations. Judge Koeltl did not agree, and ruled that Iommi did not show that Ozzy's complaint relied on the 1980 agreement in any manner. After Iommi’s 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss was denied, this case settled favorably for our client in 2010. Iommi has assigned to Ozzy a fifty percent interest in the US trademark registration for BLACK SABBATH. Case number 1:09-cv-04947 (2010).

  • Banco Bradesco S.A. and Alvorada Cartões, Crédito Financiamento e Investimento v. Future Media Architects, Inc.

    Kenyon successfully defended client Future Media Architects, Inc., a leading Internet domain name company, in a Uniform Dispute Resolution Policy domain name proceeding before the World Intellectual Property Organization involving the domain name finaza.com . The WIPO panel found in favor of Future Media Architects, holding that the company had not acted in bad faith, and that it had a legitimate purpose for its domain name. Case number D2009-1780 (2010).

  • MHL Tek, LLC v. Nissan Motor Co.

    Kenyon obtained a summary judgment of non-infringement for Volkswagen AG, Audi AG, and Volkswagen Group of America, Inc. in the US District Court for the Eastern District of Texas. Plaintiff MHL Tek, LLC had accused nine automakers of infringing US Patent Nos. 5,663,496, 5,731,516, and 5,741,966, which relate to tire-pressure monitoring systems. In March 2009, the court granted motions to dismiss MHL’s claims for infringement of the ’496 and ’966 patents for lack of standing. The only patent that remained in suit was the ’516 patent, entitled "System and Method for Monitoring a Pneumatic Tire." According to the claims, the tire-pressure sensor must be contained within a housing that is “cylindraceous,” which the court construed to mean "generally cylindrical." Volkswagen and Audi argued that their tire-pressure sensors were not “generally cylindrical," and also argued that narrowing amendments made during prosecution prevented MHL from asserting infringement under the doctrine of equivalents. The district court agreed. Case number 2:07-cv-289-TJW (2010).

  • Symbol Technologies, Inc. v. Janam Technologies LLC

    Kenyon defeated a motion for preliminary injunction filed by Symbol Technologies, Inc., a subsidiary of Motorola, in a case based on allegations by Symbol that Janam's line of Windows-based handheld computers infringe three Symbol patents. Symbol sought a preliminary injunction that would bar Janam from further sales of these products pending the outcome of the litigation. Judge Joseph Farnan Jr. of the US District Court for the District of Delaware denied Symbol's motion for preliminary injunction, ruling that Symbol had failed to show a likelihood that it would ultimately succeed on the merits of its claim. Case number 08-340-JJF (2010).

  • Rebranding AIG to Chartis

    Kenyon helped AIG Insurance recreate itself in the eyes of the public by rebranding to Chartis. Kenyon conducted a trademark filing campaign of unmatched breadth, which involved clearance of the Chartis name in 180 countries around the world. (2009).

  • Intellectual Science & Technology, Inc. v. Sony Electronics Inc. et al

    Kenyon and client Sony Electronics Inc. prevailed at the US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, which affirmed a lower court grant of summary judgment of non-infringement in Sony's favor. Intellectual Science & Technology asserted five patents against Sony dual CD players/recorders in the Eastern District of Michigan. After the district court granted summary judgment of non-infringement, IS&T appealed the decision for one of the patents to the Federal Circuit. At issue in the appeal was the sufficiency of IS&T's expert declaration in showing a genuine issue of material fact. In its opinion, the Federal Circuit recognized the fundamental insufficiency of IS&T's expert declaration, and held that Sony's products did not infringe the patent as a matter of law. Case number 09-1142, (2009).

  • Sony Electronics Inc. v. Guardian Media Technologies, Ltd.

    Kenyon successfully represented Sony Electronics Inc. in a patent litigation suit against Guardian Media Technologies, Ltd. related to V-chip and parental control technology in televisions and DVD players. The US District Court for the Southern District of California ruled in favor of Sony and other consumer electronics companies granting summary judgment of non-infringement on one of two patents-in-suit in consolidated actions against Guardian. Guardian had asserted the now expired patents-in-suit, US Patent Nos. 4,930,158 and 4,930,160, against televisions and DVD players having the capability to block programs based on their ratings. The Court ruled that Sony and the other companies did not infringe the '158 patent literally or under the doctrine of equivalents based on two separate grounds.

    Sony initially filed its declaratory judgment action against Guardian in 2005 and, at the same time, requested that the Patent Office reexamine the patents. The district court case became active in mid-2008 after the Federal Circuit reversed the district court's previous dismissal of the case for lack of declaratory judgment jurisdiction, and after the district court's stay pending completion of the reexaminations by the Patent Office, where a majority of the claims were cancelled. Case number 05-cv-1777 (2009).

  • Illinois Computer Research LLC v. Harpo Productions Inc., et al.

    Kenyon obtained a voluntary dismissal for Sony Electronics Inc. of a patent infringement suit filed against it by Illinois Computer Research, LLC. ICR had alleged that Sony infringed several claims of US Patent No. 7,111,252. According to ICR's complaint, the patented invention allows reviewing of excerpts from a digital book for preview prior to purchase, but prevents the reader from obtaining and reviewing the entire book prior to purchase. With a motion by Sony for summary judgment of non-infringement pending, ICR dismissed its claims against Sony with prejudice. Case number 1:08-cv-7322 (2009).

  • DC Comics and Marvel Characters, Inc. v. Michael Craig Silver

    Kenyon, acting for our clients DC Comics and Marvel Characters, Inc., successfully opposed an application for registration of the mark SUPERHERO for skin care products by Michael Silver. The Trademark Trial and Appeal Board ruled that Silver lacked a bona fide intent to use the mark at the time he filed his application and entered summary judgment against him. Opposition No. 91176744 (2009).

  • Photocure ASA v. Dudas

    Kenyon successfully represented Photocure at the district court level in connection with Photocure's application for a patent term extension. Photocure applied for the extension on the basis of FDA approval of its Metvixia drug product, which is used to treat a precursor to skin cancer. The PTO denied the request for extension. Judge Liam O'Grady of the US District Court of the Eastern District of Virginia adopted Photocure's interpretation of the statute, granted summary judgment in Photocure's favor, and ordered the PTO to grant a patent term extension to Photocure. Case number 1:08-cv-00718-LO-JFA (2009).

  • Aventis Pharmaceuticals, Inc. and AMR Technology v. Teva Pharmaceuticals, USA, Inc. and Amino Chemicals

    Kenyon represented Teva Pharmaceuticals in these litigations brought by Sanofi-Aventis in the New Jersey District Court on Sanofi-Aventis's Allegra® antihistamine product. In early 2006, The Court denied Sanofi-Aventis's motion for a preliminary injunction, thereby allowing Teva to remain on the market with a generic version of Allegra®. The market for Allegra® was $1.5 billion at the time Teva launched its product. Teva, Aventis and AMR settled the ongoing litigations between them concerning Allegra® in late 2008. Case number 2:04-cv-01078 (2008).

  • Agere Systems Inc. v. Sony Corporation et al.

    Kenyon obtained a summary judgment of invalidity in the Eastern District of Texas on behalf of client Sony Corporation in a patent litigation brought by Agere Systems, Inc. The patent, US 5,448,585 patent, entitled "An Article Comprising a Quantum Well Laser" was alleged to read on the blue laser diode used in Sony's Blu-ray Disc players, PlayStation3, VAIO computers and other Sony products containing Blu-ray disc drives. The courts decision eliminated the vast bulk of the damages claim being asserted against Sony. Case number 2:06-cv-00079-TJW (2008).

  • Hebei Sukerui Sciences and Technology et al. v. Tate & Lyle PLC

    Kenyon obtained a favorable ruling for client Hebei Sukerui Science and Technology Co., Ltd. before an Administrative Law Judge at the US International Trade Commission. The ruling was in a closely watched patent infringement case brought in April 2007 by Tate & Lyle Technology Limited, the company that produces and sells sucralose, a sugar substitute, under the Splenda® brand. The ITC Administrative Law Judge rejected Tate & Lyle's patent infringement claims against Kenyon's client, a Chinese manufacturer of sucralose, as well as numerous other distributors. The Judge also found that the Tate & Lyle patent asserted against Sukerui was invalid. Case number 337-TA-604 (2008).

  • Ballet Tech Foundation, Inc. v. The Joyce Theater Foundation , Inc.

    Kenyon successfully represented Ballet Tech Foundation in a long, hard-fought Trademark Trial and Appeal Board cancellation proceeding against The Joyce Theater Foundation. The case went all the way to trial and the TTAB ruled, in a 38-page decision, that Ballet Tech is the rightful owner of all trademarks associated with the world famous JOYCE dance theater, located in New York City. Opposition No. 91180789 (2008).

  • In re Walmart Stores Inc.

    Kenyon successfully represented Walmart in an ICANN case concerning eight Domain Names. The complaint was filed with the World Intellectual Property Organization. The Administrative Panel ordered that all of the disputed Doman Names be transferred to Walmart and found that the Domain Names registered by the Respondent were identical or confusingly similar to several Walmart trademarks and service marks. The Panel also found that the Respondent had no rights or legitimate interests in the disputed Domain Names, and that the disputed Domain Names had both been registered and used in bad faith. Claim Number: FA0805001195133 (2008).

  • Future Media Architects v. Equifax, Inc.

    Kenyon announced a favorable arbitration decision for its client, Future Media Architects, Inc., a leading Internet domain name company, in what it considered to be a reverse domain name hijacking dispute with credit reporting company Equifax, Inc. At issue was the domain name, EFX.com, which Future Media Architects had purchased and registered in 2004. Equifax claimed to own trademark rights in the name EFX as its stock symbol. The National Arbitration Forum Panel held that Equifax failed to prove that Future Media Architects registered and was using the domain in bad faith. The Panel refused to transfer the domain name to Equifax. Case number D2008-1243 (2008).

  • Lottotron, Inc. v. GTECH Corp.

    Kenyon received a favorable summary judgment decision for its client, GTECH Corp., in a patent litigation brought by Lottotron. Lottotron had alleged that GTECH's E-Scratch system infringes Lottotron's patent, which is directed to a computerized remote lottery wagering system. The District Court agreed with Kenyon's arguments and granted GTECH summary judgment of noninfringement of all of the asserted claims of Lottotron's patent. Case number 3:05-cv-0462-FLW-JJH (2008).

  • International Flora Technologies, Ltd., v. Clarins U.S.A., Inc.

    Kenyon successfully obtained a dismissal of the patent infringement case filed against Clarins, the famous French cosmetics company, by International Flora Technology ("Floratech"). Floratech had brought claims of patent infringement relating to certain Clarins facial creams. Kenyon convinced the court that Floratech had failed to provide adequate notice of the patent claims it was asserting, and the court granted Clarins's motion for summary judgment, dismissing the case in its entirety without reaching the merits. Case number 2:06-cv-01371 (2008).

  • Calmedica, LLC v. Best Vascular, Inc.

    Kenyon represented Best Vascular, Inc. in a patent infringement litigation brought by Calmedica, LLC. After a Markman hearing, Judge Richard Story issued a Claim Construction Order that established that Best Vascular's brachytherapy device did not infringe Calmedica's patent, which directly led to Calmedica dropping the case. Case number 1:04-cv-02646-RWS (2008).

  • Ottis v. Fisher-Price, et al.

    Kenyon obtained a dismissal of all claims against Dwayne "The Rock" Johnson and his charitable organization, The Rock Foundation, in a copyright infringement and breach of contract case. Case number 07CV379, 2008 WL 2276938 (2008).