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

• Ottis v. Fisher-Price, et al., case no. 07CV379, 2008 WL 2276938  (D. Neb. May 30, 2008).  In a copyright infringement and breach of contract case, Kenyon & Kenyon obtained a dismissal of all claims against Dwayne "The Rock" Johnson and his charitable organization The Rock Foundation, for failure to state a claim and lack of jurisdiction. 
  
  
• ITC Ltd. and ITC Hotels Ltd. v. Punchgini Inc. et al.,482 F.3d 135 (2d Cir. 2007).  Kenyon & Kenyon and clients, the proprietors of the BUKHARA GRILL restaurant chain, prevailed on all state and federal claims of trademark and trade dress infringement, and unfair competition, at the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit in a series of decisions regarding the availability of the “Famous Marks Exception” for owners of foreign trademarks with no use of the marks in the United States.  In March 28, 2007, the Second Circuit affirmed that Plaintiffs ITC Limited and ITC Hotels Limited (collectively “ITC”), the owners of a restaurant in India, had abandoned any rights they had to the name Bukhara in the United States, and rejected their argument that the decision should be overturned because it owned a foreign mark that it alleged to be “famous” in the United States.  The Court’s rejection of the “famous marks” doctrine as a basis for federal unfair competition claims by foreign trademark owners under the Lanham Act creates a split between the Second and Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals on the same issue of law. On February 26, 2008, the Second Circuit separately affirmed the dismissal of all state claims after referring two questions of state law to the New York Court of Appeals. The Supreme Court denied Plaintiffs' Petition for Certiorari. 
  
  
• JetBlue Airways Corporation  v.  Pacific Blue Holdings Pty Ltd., TTAB opposition no. 91176517 (November 2007).  Kenyon & Kenyon LLP, acting for our client, JetBlue Airways, successfully opposed an application for registration of the mark PACIFIC BLUE filed by Pacific Blue Holdings Pty. Ltd., an affiliate of the Virgin Group.  After considerable motion practice and discovery, Pacific Blue withdrew its application, resulting in a Dismissal with Prejudice in favor of JetBlue.
  
  
• Wellnx Life Sciences Inc. v. Iovate Health Sciences Research Inc. et al., Case no. 1:06-cv-07785 SDNY (September 2007). Kenyon & Kenyon LLP successfully represented Iovate Health Sciences Research, Inc. (“Iovate”), a leading nutritional supplement company, in a false advertising and antitrust lawsuit brought by a competitor, Wellnx Life Sciences, Inc. The suit, filed in September 2006 by Wellnx (formerly known as NxCare, Inc.) against Iovate, alleged that the Iovate had violated § 43(a) of the Lanham Act by engaging in false and misleading advertising practices. Judge Kevin Castel of the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York, dismissed the entire lawsuit under Rule 12(b)(6) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.
  
  
• Pilot Corporation of America v. Fisher-Price, Inc. and Mattel, Inc.,Case No. 04CV977 Dist Ct CT. (July 24, 2007).  Kenyon & Kenyon successfully obtained for our clients, Mattel and Fisher-Price, summary judgment on all trademark, trade dress and federal unfair competition claims in July 2007.  Fisher-Price had for many years sold a very successful toy called MAGNADOODLE, a trademark licensed to Fisher-Price by Pilot.  After the license expired, Fisher-Price commenced sale of a virtually identical toy, but under the trademark DOODLE PRO.  Pilot claimed both that it owned all of the trade dress in the toy and its packaging, and that use of DOODLE PRO was likely to cause confusion among consumers with the products of its new licensee for MAGNADOODLE, Ohio Art.  Following extensive briefing and argument over the course of over six months, in July of this year, the Court granted Kenyon’s motion on behalf of the defendants and dismissed the claims.
  
  
• Leapfrog Enterprises v. Fisher-Price, Inc.,(Fed. Cir. May 9, 2007). Kenyon & Kenyon and clients Fisher-Price, Inc. and Mattel, Inc. prevailed at the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit in that court's first application of the obviousness standard since the Supreme Court's April 30, 2007 decision in KSR Int'l Co. v.Teleflex Inc.  The Federal Circuit affirmed a district court ruling that Fisher-Price’s PowerTouch System – which helps children  learn to read through phonics -- does not infringe a patent owned by LeapFrog Enterprises, Inc., and that the  asserted claim of the patent is invalid for obviousness.
• 
   
• MuscleTech Research & Development, Inc. v. East Coast Ingredients LLC,Case No. 00cv753 WDNY (2007).  Kenyon & Kenyon successfully represented MuscleTech and obtained, on summary judgment, an award of $5.7 million, plus attorneys fees, in a trademark and copyright counterfeiting case in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of New York. Plaintiff MuscleTech is a producer of sports nutrition supplements whose products were counterfeited and sold under the MuscleTech label. Two former employees played integral roles in the counterfeiting scheme, which took place in 2000, using the company's copyrighted labels and creating packaging virtually indistinguishable from MuscleTech's products. They also provided product formulations to Sho Me Natural Products, a Florida company which manufactured the counterfeit products. Four of the defendants pleaded guilty to criminal counterfeiting charges, which the US Attorney in Connecticut brought as a direct result of the investigation Kenyon & Kenyon initially launched through a private investigator.
  
  
• OnLine Technologies v. Perkin-Elmer Corporation, et al., Case No. 99cv2146 D.Conn. (January 2007).  Kenyon successfully represented defendants Applera, Inc. (formerly Perkin-Elmer Corp.) in obtaining summary judgment of invalidity on the only asserted independent claim in the action, which along with other pending motions brought Kenyon, led to a favorable settlement of all remaining claims in the action.  The suit involved both patent infringement counts and state law claims for breach of contract, misappropriation of trade secrets, and unfair trade practices, among others.  Dismissal of all but the patent claims was affirmed by the CAFC in October 2005, leaving only the patent claims.  Following Markman briefing, the motion for summary judgment of invalidity was filed and a decision rendered in October 2006.  Rather than go to trial solely on the remaining claims, the plaintiff elected to settle all claims on what was considered to be favorable terms to avoid the cost of trial. 
  
  
• Wireless Agents, LLC v. Amoi Electronics, Inc. et al.,Case No. 1:06-cv-00492-SS (2006).  Kenyon & Kenyon successfully represented Sony Electronics Inc. in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Texas, dismissing the patent claims by Wireless Agents, LLC against our client with prejudice.  While other defendants still remain in the case or paid to settle the case, our dismissal was granted without any payment to plaintiff.   The technology involved in the case is related to handheld electronic communication devices.
  
  
• Impax Laboratories, Inc. v. Aventis Pharmaceutical, Inc.,Case No. 05-1313  (November 29, 2006).  Kenyon & Kenyon LLP client Impax Laboratories, Inc. announced that the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit ruled that the district court had erred in deciding, after trial, that the patent relating to the use of riluzole in treating ALS (Pat. No. 5,527,814) was valid.  Thus, the Federal Circuit vacated that decision and remanded it back to the district court for further proceedings related to the validity issue of anticipation. Rilutek®, marketed by Aventis for the treatment of amyotrophic lateral sclerosis (ALS), also known as Lou Gehrig's disease, had U.S. sales of approximately $37 million for the 12 months ended August 31, 2006, according to Wolters Kluwer Health.
  
  
• American Girl, Inc v. Battat, Inc.,Case No. 1:06cv566 (November 2006). Kenyon & Kenyon obtained a preliminary injunction for its client American Girl, requiring that Battat not only cease offering for sale or distributing an infringing doll product, but also that Battat be required to recall and remove existing product from the market.  American Girl is the source of the well-known American Girl® doll, doll accessories, and children’s clothing products.  Among its marks, is one of its very first doll products – Molly, which was the subject of a made for television movie released in November 2006.   In late August or early September 2006, Battat began offering its own doll marked as Molly, refused to cease doing so voluntarily, and American Girl then sought and obtained the preliminary injunction.   In May 2007, Battat settled with American Girl, agreeing to a permanent injunction against use of Molly or other American Girl trademarks.  Battat was ordered to make sure that all Battat "Molly" dolls are off the shelves at Target by October 22, 2006.
  
  
• Harold G. Abbey v. Bill Ussery Motors, Inc. et al.,Case No. 04-80136 (October 19, 2006).  In 1999, the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida granted Kenyon & Kenyon clients Robert Bosch GMBH, Mercedes-Benz of North America, Inc., Mercedes-Benz A.G. and a Mercedes-Benz dealership summary judgment of non-infringement of the plaintiff's patent. Kenyon & Kenyon represented Bosch and the Mercedes-Benz companies in two appeals by the plaintiff before the Federal Circuit, which ultimately affirmed the lower court decision per curiam. In subsequent related litigation, Harold G. Abbey v. Mercedes-Benz of North America, Inc., a patent infringement suit in which Kenyon represented Robert Bosch Corp., Mercedes-Benz of North America, Inc., Volvo Cars North America Corp. and Jaguar Cars North America; we obtained summary judgment of res judicata.
  
  In 2005, Kenyon & Kenyon represented Robert Bosch, Volvo and Jaguar in an appeal by the plaintiff before the Federal Circuit, which ultimately affirmed the lower court dismissal of two of three claims asserted by the plaintiff.  In October 2006, the court granted our motion to dismiss, with prejudice the remaining claims of the plaintiff in the litigation.
  
  
• Paice LLP v. Toyota Motors Corp et al.,Case No. 2:04cv211 (August 16, 2006).  The U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Texas denied plaintiff, Paice LLC’s request for a permanent injunction in a patent infringement suit against the hybrid cars of Kenyon & Kenyon client, Toyota Motor Corporation.  Plaintiff claimed that Toyota’s hybrid cars infringed ten claims in three of Plaintiff’s patents, U.S. Patent Nos. 5,343,970 (the “’970 patent”), 6,209,672 (the “’672 patent”) and 6,554,088 (the “’088 patent”).  The jury found that none of the ten claims were literally or willfully infringed, and that only two of the claims in one patent, claims 11 and 39 of the ’970 patent, were infringed under the doctrine of equivalents.  The jury also found that Paice was only entitled to a small fraction of the damages it sought for the two claims found infringed by equivalents.  Toyota has appealed from the judgment finding two claims infringed, and plaintiff is expected to appeal the denial of its request for an injunction.
  
  
• Goss International Americas, Inc. v. MAN Roland, Inc. and MAN Roland Druckmaschinen AG, Case No. 03-CV-513, D. N.H. (2006).  Kenyon & Kenyon obtained a favorable claim construction ruling and summary judgment of infringement for plaintiff Goss International in this patent infringement litigation.  In addition, Kenyon & Kenyon obtained summary judgments dismissing MAN antitrust defenses and successfully opposed seven motions for summary judgment brought by MAN Roland seeking rulings from the court of non-infringement, invalidity and unenforceability of Goss's patents.  The patent technology in this case is offset lithographic printing presses.
  
  
• AbbottLabs v. Andrx Pharamaceutical,Case No. 05APP1433 (June 22, 2006). In a 31-page opinion, the Federal Circuit vacated the Northern District of Illinois's preliminary injunction against Kenyon & Kenyon client Teva USA's marketing of its generic equivalents of Abbott's Biaxin XL tablets, which have annual sales of more than $250 million.  The court rejected the district court's conclusion with respect to the validity of two Abbott patents that cover the drug, holding that Teva USA had raised a "substantial question" with respect to the whether the patented inventions "would have been obvious." 
  
  
• In re Marigny Corporation,Serial No. 76294975 (June 22, 2006). The Trademark Trial and Appeal Board (TTAB) reversed a decision by the Trademark Examiner who had refused Kenyon & Kenyon client Marigny Corporation's  registration of the mark WORLD CLASS GOURMET COFFEES and design, on the grounds that it resembled the mark WORLD CLASS COFFEES FOR WORLD CLASS PEOPLE. The Trademark Examiner had earlier refused the registration pursuant to Section 2(d), based on Registration No. 1486303 for WORLD CLASS and No. 1506184 for WORLD CLASSICS for coffee.  Only one out of ten decisions pursuant to Section 2(d) is reversed by the TTAB.
  
  
• Boston Scientific Scimed v. Cordis Corporation, Case No. 03cv1138 (June 2006) In a significant victory for Kenyon & Kenyon client Boston Scientific Corporation, the U.S. District Court in Delaware issued a ruling upholding a July 2005 jury verdict in a patent case against Johnson & Johnson. The ruling denies J&J's motion to overturn the verdict, in which the jury had found Boston Scientific's U.S. Patent 6,120,536 valid and infringed by J&J's Cypher stent. The ruling also denied J&J’s request for a new trial. Stents are metallic scaffolding used to hold open coronary arteries of patients after they have been cleared of blockages through angioplasty. The patented stent is coated to deliver a drug to the coronary arteries to prevent reclosing of the arteries.
  
  
• Medtronic Vascular, Inc., et al. v. Boston Scientific Corporation,  Fed Cir 05APP1281 (May 26, 2006).  In a major victory for Kenyon & Kenyon LLP and client Boston Scientific Corporation, the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit upheld a lower court ruling that the company does not infringe four Medtronic patents relating to coronary stents.  In the suit, Medtronic asserted infringement by the NIR® stent sold by Boston Scientific.  Medtronic was seeking hundreds of millions of dollars in damages based on U.S. sales of the NIR® stent.  In 2005, Judge Robinson of the U.S. District Court in Delaware granted summary judgment of non-infringement, finding that the NIR® stent does not infringe the Medtronic patents.  Medtronic appealed that decision.  In May 2006, the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit upheld Judge Robinson’s ruling in all respects, agreeing that Boston Scientific's product was not within the scope of the Medtronic patents.
  
  
• Aventis Pharmaceuticals, Inc. and AMR Technology v. Teva Pharmaceuticals, USA, Inc. and Amino Chemicals,  Case No. 04CV1078 (May 2006). Kenyon & Kenyon represented Teva Pharmaceuticals in these litigations brought by Sanofi-Aventis in the New Jersey District Court on Sanofi-Aventis's ALLEGRA antihistamine product.  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.
  
  
• Leapfrog Enterprises v. Fisher-Price, Inc.,Case No. 03cv927 (April 3, 2006). Kenyon & Kenyon LLP client Mattel, Inc. prevailed in a patent infringement lawsuit brought against it by LeapFrog Enterprises, Inc.  In the suit, LeapFrog alleged that one of its patents was infringed by the PowerTouch Learning System sold by Mattel's wholly-owned subsidiary, Fisher-Price, Inc.  The U.S. District Court in Wilmington, Delaware, found that Mattel and Fisher-Price did not infringe the patent and that the asserted patent claim was invalid.  The case, filed in October of 2003, was tried before a jury in May of 2005.  The Court made several rulings during trial in favor of Mattel and Fisher-Price, including the exclusion of infringement under the Doctrine of Equivalents and certain damages theories.  After seven days of testimony before the Honorable Gregory M. Sleet and three days of deliberation, the jury was unable to reach a unanimous decision and the case was submitted to Judge Sleet for decision.
  
  
• Federal Treasury Enterprise Sojuzplodoimport et al v. Spirits International NV et al.,  Case No. 1:04cv8510 (March 31, 2006).  In the Southern District of New York, Judge George B. Daniels granted a motion by Kenyon & Kenyon and dismissed a trademark infringement lawsuit against the owner of the STOLICHNAYA brand vodka, ruling that Kenyon’s client Allied Domecq has incontestable rights to the STOLICHNAYA trademark.  In issuing the order, the Court turned away claims by  a Russian organization,  Federal Treasure Enterprise Sojuzplodoimport (FTE)  that the trademark rights belong to FTE, holding that FTE had raised no basis to challenge Allied Domecq’s ownership.   The Court also dismissed a copyright infringement allegation contained in the lawsuit.  FTE claimed to have obtained rights from the Russian government, and was joined in the case by a would-be competitor of Allied Domecq. 
  
  
• In re Metoprolol Succinate Patent Litigation,   MDL-1620-RWS E.D. Mo. (Jan. 17, 2006).  AstraZeneca accused our client KV Pharmaceutical Company of infringing two patents by filing an ANDA seeking approval to market a generic version of the blockbuster drug Toprol-XL (metoprolol succinate extended-release tablets), which in 2005 had U.S. sales of almost $1.3 billion.  The district court ruled on summary judgment that both AstraZeneca patents were invalid for non-statutory (obviousness-type) double patenting, the one of the patents was further invalid as anticipated, and that both patents were unenforceable for inequitable conduct committed by AstraZeneca in failing to disclose to the P.T.O. an inventorship dispute in which, among other things, AstraZeneca told the Swedish Patent Office that metoprolol succinate had been invented by someone other than the named inventors.
  
  
• Sicom Systems, Ltd. v. Agilent Technologies Case No. 05APP1066 (October 18, 2005) The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit affirmed the district court's decision in Sicom Systems, Ltd. v. Agilent Technologies. The court held that Sicom did not have standing to maintain the action because it did not have "all substantial rights" in the patent. In an unusual aspect of the decision, the court held that the district court was correct to dismiss the action "with prejudice."
  
  
• Institut Pasteur v. Simon, Case No. 98cv727 (October 2005) The U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania granted summary judgment in favor of Kenyon & Kenyon clients, Institut Pasteur and the Centre National de la Recherche Scientifique on the ownership of a portfolio of 13 patents related to “molecular combing” technology. The Court also granted summary judgment on the damages, finding that the defendant and counter-claim plaintiff, Dr. Adam J. Simon, failed to prove that he had suffered damages by any actions of our clients.
  
  
• Novo Nordisk  v. BTG/Teva Case No. 04APP1581 (October 2005) The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit affirmed a judgment by the U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware holding Novo Nordisk's U.S. Patent No. 5,633,352 relating to recombinant human growth hormone unenforceable, and holding the sole asserted claim invalid.
  
  
• Maria V. Lawrence v. Olympus America Inc. Case No. 02cv3716 (September 8, 2005) The U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California granted summary judgment in favor of our client, Olympus America, Inc. on its counterclaims against Maria V. Lawrence, who was doing business as Olympus Financial Services, affirming the right of a trademark owner to control the use of its trademark as a domain name.
  
  
• Boston Scientific  Scimed v. Cordis Corporation Case No. 03cv0283 (July 1, 2005) A jury in the U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware found that Johnson & Johnson's CYPHER® drug-eluting stent infringes Boston Scientific's U.S. Patent 6,120,536. The jury also upheld the validity of the patent.
  
  
• Telcordia Tech., Inc. v. Alcatel S.A. et.al Case No. 04cv874 (May 27, 2005) The U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware granted Kenyon & Kenyon’s motion to dismiss the patent infringement claims against our client, Alcatel S.A., for lack of personal jurisdiction, finding that the French parent company did not have sufficient contacts with Delaware or the United States to warrant a finding of jurisdiction.
  
  
• Merck & Co., Inc. v. Teva Pharmaceuticals, Inc. Case No. 04-1005 (January 28, 2005) The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit reversed the claim construction of the district court and, therefore, vacated the lower court's holding that the patent was not invalid as obvious.   The Federal Circuit found that the claims were indeed invalid for obviousness and were not infringed by our client Teva Pharmaceuticals.
  
  
• Medtronic Vascular, Inc., et al. v. Boston Scientific Corporation, Medinol Ltd., et al. Case No. 98-478 (January 5, 2005) The U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware granted summary judgment of non-infringement in favor of Boston Scientific Corporation and Medinol Ltd., finding that the NIR® stent sold by Boston Scientific and manufactured by Medinol does not infringe four Medtronic patents. Medtronic was seeking hundreds of millions of dollars in damages in the suit based on the sales of the NIR® stent.
  
  
• Enzo Life Sciences v. Digene Corp.Case No. 02-212 (October 13, 2004) A  settlement of this case was reached  shortly before trial was to commence and soon after a favorable Markman decision was obtained from the Court on behalf of Enzo regarding the claims at issue in Enzo's U.S. Patent 6,221,581.  The settlement requires minimum guaranteed payments by Digene to Enzo of $30.5 million during the next five years, and also grants to Digene a royalty-bearing worldwide license under the patents in the '581 patent family; $16 million of that guaranteed amount was due immediately on execution of the settlement agreement, and the remaining $14.5 million will be paid in additional guaranteed payments through 2009.
  
  
• Soundview Technologies, Inc. v. Sony Electronics Inc. Case No. 04-1057 (August 11, 2004) Sony, along with other consumer electrical manufacturers, prevailed as the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit affirmed a lower court’s ruling that cleared them of infringing a patent for V-chip technology, held by Soundview Technologies.
  
  
• Teva Pharmaceutical U.S.A. Inc. and Savient Pharmaceuticals, Inc. v. Novo Nordisk, Case No. 02-332 (August 5, 2004) The U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware found invalid and unenforceable due to inequitable conduct, Novo Nordisk's U.S. Patent No. 5,633,352 relating to recombinant human growth hormone.
  
  
• Keith H. Taylor v. DaimlerChrysler AG Case No.295 F. Supp. 2d 729 (March 12, 2004) The U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan entered final judgment and dismissal of the case in favor of our client, DaimlerChrysler AG, involving a patent on automotive mirror assemblies.
  
  
• Sightsound.com, Inc. v. N2K, Inc., CDNow, Inc. & CDnow Online, Inc., No. 98-0118 (W.D. Pa. February 20, 2004) CDnow and N2K acknowledged that the U.S. Patents 5,191,573; 5,675,734; and 5,966,440, which are directed to downloading digital audio and/or video over telecommunications lines, are valid and enforceable, and paid SightSound Technologies US$3.3 million to settle the matter.
  
  
• FCI USA, Inc. et al. v. Hon Hai Precision Industry Co., Ltd., et al. Case No. 01-1192 (N.D. Cal.) (February 13, 2004) After a two-week trial, jury returned unanimous verdict in favor of FCI, finding that defendants had induced infringement of FCI’s patents relating to ball grid array electrical connectors (BGA) utilized in conjunction with Intel Pentium microprocessors and that defendants’ infringement was willful.  The jury awarded FCI $8 million in damages.
  
  
• Purdue Research Foundation v. Sanofi-Synthelabo Case No. 332 F.Supp. 2d 63 (2004) The U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia dismissed Purdue Research Foundation's case against our client Sanofi-Synthelabo, for lack of personal jurisdiction. The case involved a claim by Purdue for compensation for a cold remedy called pleconaril, which is patented by Sanofi. The decision follows an earlier victory for Sanofi in a related case in Indiana. The D.C. case becomes one of the few decisions addressing jurisdiction over non-resident patentees (35 U.S.C. § 293).
  
  
• Glaxo Wellcome, Inc. v. Impax Laboratories, Inc. Case No. 03-1013 (2004) The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, affirmed decision of non-infringement in favor of our client Impax Laboratories.
  
  
• Sicom System Ltd. v. Agilent Technologies, Inc. et al, CA No. 03-040 JJF (D. Del.) (November 20, 2003) Motion to dismiss by firm client Agilent, joined by co-defendants, was granted for plaintiff’s lack of standing in an infringement action relating to eye pattern mask testing with digital communications analyzers, logic analyzers, and oscilloscopes.
  
  
• Geneva Pharmaceuticals, Inc., Novartis AG, Biochemie GmbH, Ranbaxy Pharmaceuticals, Inc. and Teva Pharmaceuticals USA, Inc. v. GlaxoSmithkline PLC and Smithkline Beecham Corporation, No. 02-1439 (Fed. Cir. 2003) The Federal Circuit affirmed the invalidity of seven Glaxo patents, all on the grounds of double-patenting -- that Glaxo had been granted multiple patents that claimed substantially the same subject matter.
  
  
• DC Comics and Marvel Characters, Inc. v. Philip Frederick Margo and Noah Margo, Opp. No. 151,940 (TTAB August 26, 2003) Our clients, DC Comics and Marvel Characters, Inc., successfully defeated applicants’ motion to reopen the discovery period in a trademark opposition proceeding.  The TTAB ruled that applicants had failed to demonstrate “excusable neglect” in permitting the discovery period to lapse without propounding any discovery.
  
  
• Purdue Research Foundation v. Sanofi Syntholabo, S.A. et. al,  No. 02-2655 (U.S. Court of Appeals, 7th Cir. August 4, 2003) The Seventh Circuit affirmed the district court decision and dismissed the case, involving a patented anti-viral compound, against our client, Sanofi Syntholabo, S.A. (headquartered in Paris, France) for lack of personal jurisdiction in Indiana.
  
  
• Bio-Technology General Corp. v. Duramed Pharmaceuticals, Inc., 325 F.3d 1356 (Fed. Cir. 2003) Reversing summary judgment of non-infringement of method and product claims directed to oral contraceptives.
  
  
• Medinol Ltd. v. Neuro Vasx, Inc., __USPQ2d __, Canc. No. 40,535 (TTAB May 13, 2003)  In this precedent-setting decision, the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board clarifies the test for fraud, making clear that it includes what a party or its attorney "should have known" about the facts stated in an application, not merely what the party did know or intended to do.
  
  
• Moba, B.V. et al. v. Diamond Automation, Inc., 325 F.3d 1306 (Fed. Cir. 2003) Reversing-in-part a jury finding of non-infringement with respect to patents related to egg processing machinery, affirming the jury finding of validity, and remanding for a determination of damages.
  
  
• Applera Corp. v. Micromass UK, Ltd., No. 02-1434, -1459 (Fed. Cir. March 11, 2003) The court affirmed district court judgment holding client’s patent in suit valid and infringed, awarding damages of $52.6M and enjoining the sale or importation into the U.S. of Micromass Quattro Ultima^TM mass spectrometer systems.
  
  
• Plastpro, Inc. v. Therma-Tru Corp.,97CIV1222 (D.N.J. 2003) Our clients, Plastpro and Nan Ya Plastics, were granted summary judgment of non-infringement relating to fiberglass entry door technology as to more than 95% of the products at issue.
  
  
• Syngenta Seeds, Inc. v. Nicholas W. Eigsti, Terry Wingate and Seedless Enterprise, Inc., 02CIV223 (M.D. Fla. 2003) Judgment in favor of client, Syngenta Seeds, awarding rescission of a settlement agreement from an earlier trademark and unfair competition litigation, and $2,064,288 in restitution damages.
  
  
• Building Materials Corp. of Am. d/b/a GAF Materials Corp. v. CertainTeed Corp. and Air Vent, Inc., 99CIV1806 (D.N.J. 2003) Kenyon protected its client's market position by prevailing on a motion to bar the defendants from making claims that were disparaging of its client's product.
  
  
• Rose Art Industries, Inc. v. Creative Platypus Limited, 02CIV6260 (D. Or. 2003) Motion for preliminary injunction granted to enjoin the defendant from further production, marketing, and sale of flocked poster designs in packaging that was designed to be, and is, confusingly similar to plaintiffs’ packaging, in violation of plaintiffs’ trade dress rights.
  
  
• Sony Electronics Inc. v. Soundview Technologies, Inc., 225 F. Supp. 2d 164 (D. Conn. 2002) Kenyon successfully obtained a summary judgment on behalf of our client, Sony, eliminating all infringement issues from the case.
  
  
• Robert Bosch GmbH v. Japan Battery Storage Company, Ltd., 2002 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 19068 (C.D. Cal. 2002) The granting Bosch’s motion for summary judgment of noninfringement, applying the U.S. Supreme Court’s recent Festo decision.
  
  
• Cordis Corp. v. Boston Scientific Corp., 194 F. Supp. 2d 323 and 2002 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 9083 (D. Del. 2002) Kenyon secured jury verdict finding that five out of six asserted claims in four different Johnson & Johnson patents were invalid or not infringed by the accused products of clients Boston Scientific and Medinol; secured a Court determination that two of those four patents were unenforceable due to inequitable conduct; and subsequently secured Court decision that not only confirmed those portions of the verdict in clients' favor, but also overturned the unfavorable portion of the verdict and ordered a new trial on the single claim previously found by the jury to be valid and infringed by the client under the doctrine of equivalents.
  
  
• Applera Corp. v. Micromass UK Ltd., 204 F. Supp. 2d 724 (D. Del. 2002) The jury found client’s patent in suit to be valid and infringed and awarded lost profits of $47.5M.  The court also entered a permanent injunction that prevents the sale or importation into the U.S. of Micromass Quattro Ultima™ mass spectrometer systems), aff’d, 2003 U.S. App. LEXIS 6690 (Fed. Cir. 2003) (This case was listed in National Law Journal’s “Top Verdicts of 2002”.
  
  
• Enzo Biochem, Inc. v. Gen-Probe, Inc., 323 F.3d 956 (Fed. Cir. 2002) The court granted Enzo’s petition for rehearing, vacated its prior decision, and reversed the district court’s grant of summary judgment that Enzo’s claims are invalid for lack of written description, holding that deposits of biological materials with the ATCC may be used to satisfy the written-description requirement.  
  
  
• Berman v. Housey, 291 F.3d 1345 (Fed. Cir. 2002) In a precedential opinion, a panel of the Federal Circuit unanimously affirmed a decision of the United States Patent and Trademark Office's Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences rejecting an attempt by Genentech to bring an Interference to challenge patents owned by Housey Pharmaceuticals claiming methods of screening for new drugs.
  
  
• Datapoint Corporation v. Standard Microsystems Corporation, 31 Fed. Appx. 685 (Fed. Cir. 2002) (non-precedential) The court affirmed summary of judgment of non-infringement based on finding that district court correctly construed claims of patents-in-suit. Kenyon & Kenyon represented Intel Corporation and led the defense team for the 16 defendants/appellees, both in the district court and on appeal.
  
  
• Smithkline Beecham Corporation v. Copley Pharmaceutical, Inc. and Teva Pharmaceuticals USA, Inc., 2002 U.S. App. LEXIS 16594 (Fed. Cir. 2002) Affirmed the invalidity of SmithKline Beecham's patent on nabumetone.
  
  
• Bionx Implants, Inc. v. Linvatec Corporation, 299 F.3d 1378 (Fed. Cir. 2002) The court vacated district court order granting summary judgment of non-infringement involving orthopedic device patent and remanded case back to district court for further proceedings.
  
  
• Teva Pharmaceuticals USA, Inc. v. GlaxoSmithKline PLC, 213 F. Supp. 2d 597 (E.D. Va. 2002) The judgment invalidating three GSK patents covering Augmentin®. This decision follows up on a March 2002 decision invalidating three other GSK patents and a December 2001 decision invalidating a seventh patent.
  
  
• Novo Nordisk A/S v. Bio-Technology General Corp. and Teva Pharmaceuticals USA, Inc., 2002 U.S. App. LEXIS 25389 (Fed. Cir. 2002) Vacated preliminary injunction on sale of recombinant human growth hormone.
  
  
• Super Natural Distributors, Inc. v. MuscleTech Research and Development, 196 F. Supp. 2d 761 (E.D. Wisc. 2002) Summary judgment in favor of our client dismissing claim under Wisconsin Fair Dealership Law on the ground that plaintiff was not a "dealer" and was not "situated" in Wisconsin for purposes of the statute.
  
  
• Michael Tracy v. The Coca-Cola Company, Pow Wow Productions, Charlie Ahearn and Burrell Communications Group, (N.Y. Supreme Court, Bronx 2002) Summary judgment dismissing plaintiff’s complaint for unfair competition and related claims granted in its entirety. (Appellate Division, First Department 2003, decision unanimously upheld)
  
  
• Twentieth Century Fox v. Marvel, 155 F. Supp. 2d 1 (S.D.N.Y. 2001) Our client, Marvel Enterprises, successfully defeated Fox's motion for a preliminary injunction seeking to deny the broadcast of the syndicated television series "Mutant X", aff’d, 277 F.3d 253 (2d Cir. 2002) (upholding denial of preliminary injunction)
  
  
• Freudenberg-Nok General Partnership v. BASF Corp., (E.D. Mich. 2001) BASF’s motion for summary judgment of non-infringement of patent granted.
  
  
• SmithKline Beecham v. Teva Pharmaceuticals, (D. Mass. 2001) SKB patent found invalid and unenforceable.
  
  
• Mark Nutritionals, Inc. v. Momax, Inc., (W.D. Texas 2001) Kenyon temporary restrained the order issued against defendant’s use of infringing trademark and trade dress.
  
  
• Dow Chemical Co. v. Astro-Valcour, Inc., 267 F.3d 1334 (Fed. Cir. 2001), cert. denied, 535 U.S. 989 (2002) The court affirmed district court’s decision in favor of our client invalidating certain claims of three patents assigned to plaintiff.
  
  
• Medtronic, Inc. v. Boston Scientific Corp., 61 U.S.P.Q.2d 1447 (Fed. Cir 2001) The court affirmed a judgment of non-infringement in our client’s favor.
  
  
• Ecolab, Inc. v. Envirochem, Inc., 264 F.3d 1358 (Fed. Cir. 2001) The court vacated judgment of infringement against firm client.
  
  
• Feuling Advanced Techs., Inc. v. DaimlerChrysler AG, 99CIV374 (S.D. Cal. 2000-2001) Kenyon obtained dismissal for lack of standing, as well as an award of attorneys' fees against plaintiff.
  
  
• Purdue Pharma L.P. v. Faulding, Inc., 230 F.3d 1320 (Fed. Cir. 2000) The court affirmed district court’s holding in favor of our client that plaintiff’s patent was invalid.
  
  
• Dow Chemical Co. v. Astro Valcour, Inc., 110 F. Supp. 2d 104 (N.D.N.Y 2000), aff’d, 267 F.3d 1334 (Fed. Cir. 2001) The court invalidated the asserted claims of three Dow patents relating to isobutane blown polyethylene foam and the method of making that foam based on the prior invention of our client, Astro-Valcour.
  
  
• Heidelberg Harris Inc. v. Mitsubishi Heavy Industries Ltd., 56 U.S.P.Q.2d 1714 (Fed. Cir. 2000) The court affirmed entry of judgment in client’s favor on jury’s patent infringement damage award.
  

Appellate Practice

• Novo Nordisk   v. BTG/Teva, Case No. 04APP1581 (October 2005) The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit affirmed a judgment by the U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware holding Novo Nordisk's U.S. Patent No. 5,633,352 relating to recombinant human growth hormone unenforceable, and holding the sole asserted claim invalid.

• Glaxo Wellcome, Inc. v. Impax Laboratories, Inc., No. 03-1013 (Fed. Cir. 2004) (affirming decision of non-infringement in favor of our client Impax Laboratories)

• Geneva Pharmaceuticals, Inc., Novartis AG, Biochemie GmbH, Ranbaxy Pharmaceuticals, Inc. and Teva Pharmaceuticals USA, Inc. v. GlaxoSmithkline PLC and Smithkline Beecham Corporation, No. 02-1439 (Fed. Cir. 2003)   (The Federal Circuit affirmed the invalidity of seven Glaxo patents, all on the grounds of double-patenting -- that Glaxo had been granted multiple patents that claimed substantially the same subject matter)

• Purdue Research Foundation v. Sanofi Syntholabo, S.A. et. al,  No. 02-2655 (U.S. Court of Appeals, 7th Cir. August 4, 2003) (The Seventh Circuit affirmed the district court decision and dismissed the case, involving a patented anti-viral compound, against our client, Sanofi Syntholabo, S.A. (headquartered in Paris, France) for lack of personal jurisdiction in Indiana)

• Bio-Technology General Corp. v. Duramed Pharmaceuticals, Inc., 325 F.3d 1356 (Fed. Cir. 2003) ( reversing summary judgment of noninfringement of method and product claims directed to oral contraceptives)

• Moba, B.V. et al. v. Diamond Automation, Inc., 325 F.3d 1306 (Fed. Cir. 2003) (reversing-in-part a jury finding of non-infringement with respect to patents related to egg processing machinery, affirming the jury finding of validity, and remanding for a determination of damages)

• Applera Corp. v. Micromass UK, Ltd., No. 02-1434, -1459 (Fed. Cir. March 11, 2003) (court affirmed district court judgment holding client’s patent in suit valid and infringed, awarding damages of $52.6M and enjoining the sale or importation into the U.S. of Micromass Quattro UltimaÔmass spectrometer systems)

• Michael Tracy v. The Coca-Cola Company, Pow Wow Productions, Charlie Ahearn and Burrell Communications Group, (N.Y. Supreme Court, Bronx 2002) (summary judgment dismissing plaintiff’s complaint for unfair competition and related claims granted in its entirety) (Appellate Division, First Department 2003) (decision unanimously upheld)

• Novo Nordisk A/S v. Bio-Technology General Corp. and Teva Pharmaceuticals USA, Inc., 2002 U.S. App. LEXIS 25389 (Fed. Cir. 2002) (vacating preliminary injunction on sale of recombinant human growth hormone)

• Bionx Implants, Inc. v. Linvatec Corporation, 299 F.3d 1378 (Fed. Cir. 2002) (court vacated district court order granting summary judgment of non-infringement involving orthopedic device patent and remanded case back to district court for further proceedings)

• Smithkline Beecham Corporation v. Copley Pharmaceutical, Inc. and Teva Pharmaceuticals USA, Inc., 2002 U.S. App. LEXIS 16594 (Fed. Cir. 2002) (affirming the invalidity of SmithKline Beecham's patent on nabumetone)

• Enzo Biochem, Inc. v. Gen-Probe, Inc., 323 F.3d 956 (Fed. Cir. 2002) (court granted Enzo’s petition for rehearing, vacated its prior decision, and reversed the district court’s grant of summary judgment that Enzo’s claims are invalid for lack of written description, holding that deposits of biological materials with the ATCC may be used to satisfy the written-description requirement)   

• Berman v. Housey, 291 F.3d 1345 (Fed. Cir. 2002) (in a precedential opinion, a panel of the Federal Circuit unanimously affirmed a decision of the United States Patent and Trademark Office's Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences rejecting an attempt by Genentech to bring an Interference to challenge patents owned by Housey Pharmaceuticals claiming methods of screening for new drugs)

• Datapoint Corporation v. Standard Microsystems Corporation, 31 Fed. Appx. 685 (Fed. Cir. 2002) (non-precedential) (court affirmed summary of judgment of non-infringement based on finding that district court correctly construed claims of patents-in-suit) (Kenyon & Kenyon represented Intel Corporation and led the defense team for the 16 defendants/appellees, both in the district court and on appeal)

• Dow Chemical Co. v. Astro-Valcour, Inc., 267 F.3d 1334 (Fed. Cir. 2001), cert. denied, 535 U.S. 989 (2002) (court affirmed district court’s decision in favor of our client invalidating certain claims of three patents assigned to plaintiff)

• Medtronic, Inc. v. Boston Scientific Corp., 61 U.S.P.Q.2d 1447 (Fed. Cir 2001) (court affirmed a judgment of non-infringement in our client’s favor)

• Ecolab, Inc. v. Envirochem, Inc., 264 F.3d 1358 (Fed. Cir. 2001) (court vacated judgment of infringement against firm client)

• Purdue Pharma L.P. v. Faulding, Inc., 230 F.3d 1320 (Fed. Cir. 2000) (court affirmed district court’s holding in favor of our client that plaintiff’s patent was invalid)

• Heidelberg Harris Inc. v. Mitsubishi Heavy Industries Ltd., 56 U.S.P.Q.2d 1714 (Fed. Cir. 2000) (court affirmed entry of judgment in client’s favor on jury’s patent infringement damage award)

Trademark Trial and Appeal Board

• DC Comics and Marvel Characters, Inc. v. Philip Frederick Margo and Noah Margo, Opp. No. 151,940 (TTAB August 26, 2003) (our clients, DC Comics and Marvel Characters, Inc., successfully defeated applicants’ motion to reopen the discovery period in a trademark opposition proceeding.  The TTAB ruled that applicants had failed to demonstrate “excusable neglect” in permitting the discovery period to lapse without propounding any discovery)

• Medinol Ltd. v. Neuro Vasx, Inc., __USPQ2d __, Canc. No. 40,535 (TTAB May 13, 2003)  (In this precedent-setting decision, the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board clarifies the test for fraud, making clear that it includes what a party or its attorney "should have known" about the facts stated in an application, not merely what the party did know or intended to do)