LL&A’s litigators have achieved a number of remarkable successes, including handling the following matters:

Color Kinetics v. Super Vision.  Super Vision filed a declaratory judgment action against Color Kinetics in Florida and Color Kinetics responded with a direct patent infringement action in Massachusetts.  After having all matters between the parties transferred to Massachusetts and engaging in two years of discovery, LL&A secured for Color Kinetics summary judgment on all liability issues in the case, including summary judgment that all of the claims of all five patents-in-suit are valid and enforceable, each of the five accused Super Vision product lines infringe each of the asserted claims of the five patents, and rejecting Super Vision’s claims of tortious interference with business relations and product disparagement.  An injunction, damages, and request for attorneys fees are to be addressed next.

Zipwall.  After securing judgment and an injunction against further infringement by Zipwall’s competitor, KwikPole, LL&A filed a patent action against C&S Manufacturing.  After several months of litigation, LL&A secured for Zipwall a final judgment of patent infringement, an injunction against further infringement, an order to destroy all inventory and marketing collateral, and an award of attorney fees.

Hasbro v. RadGames.  When RadGames sought to launch its Super Add-Ons™ board game, for use with an the existing Monopoly® game board, Hasbro filed a lawsuit alleging copyright and trademark infringement and secured an ex parte restraining order.  After extensive briefing and an evidentiary hearing, the Judge lifted the restraining order and denied Hasbro’s motion for a preliminary injunction on the ground that Hasbro was not likely to succeed in its claims, while noting that it “seems unlikely that further factual development will lead to a different outcome.” 

Akamai v. Speedera.  In this complicated lawsuit involving cross-claims of infringement of multiple patents directed to Internet routing technology, Judge Zobel of the United States District Court of Massachusetts appointed Mr. Lowrie of LL&A as the special master to handle all discovery disputes.

LL&A’s litigators' previous intellectual property litigation experience includes assisting clients in the following ways:

Belden v. CDT.  Mr. Lowrie served as lead counsel in defending this patent lawsuit, which asserted damages in excess of $11 million.  After discovery closed, the Court adopted CDT’s proposed claim constructions and Belden agreed that it could not succeed given that ruling and appealed.  After Mr. Lowrie argued the appeal, the Federal Circuit affirmed.  Since then, the companies merged and the general counsel of the former adversary has selected LL&A to handle patent litigation on behalf of the combined company.

V-Formation v. Benetton.  Mr. Silverman argued before the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit to secure affirmance of summary judgment (that he also helped his client obtain) that thirty models of Rollerblade brand in-line roller skates did not infringe the Plaintiff’s patents. The Court affirmed in a unanimous precedential opinion, in which it discussed the crucial role of a patent’s cited prior art in construing the patent claims. 

AW Chesterton v. Durametallic.  Just before trial, Durametallic selected Mr. Lowrie to serve as lead trial counsel in defense of this patent infringement case.  After a few weeks of intensive preparation and a last minute deposition of the inventor taken by Mr. Lowrie, Mr. Lowrie presented an opening argument to the Court and jury that offered both new arguments and which formulated the previously articulated theories in a more persuasive way.  After the first week of trial, the parties settled on a sum substantially lower than previously had been recommended to Durametallic by both the trial judge and a senior judge sitting as a mediator and, at the suggestion of Mr. Lowrie, the settlement was structured to permit an accounting treatment that made the settlement more favorable yet.

Eisenberg v. Alimed.  After insurance counsel successfully defended this patent lawsuit at trial, insurance counsel, the insurance company and Alimed all agreed that Mr. Lowrie should take the lead in defending the decision on appeal.  The Federal Circuit accepted the arguments Mr. Lowrie presented in briefing and at oral argument, and affirmed the conclusion that Alimed was not liable.

Ottawa Heart Institute v. Abiomed.  Ottawa Heart Institute asserted claims of patent and trade secret infringement against the device used to power Abiomed’s total artificial heart; as a result of the suit, the fund-raising necessary for clinical trials was delayed.  After Mr. Lowrie deposed OHI’s expert, OHI unilaterally withdrew its claims of patent infringement, without concession from Abiomed.  The trade secret claims proceeded to trial.  On cross examination, Mr. Lowrie managed to get OHI’s expert to testify that he could not opine that any trade secrets were taken and to get OHI’s chief technical officer to confess that virtually all of the asserted trade secrets were not actually secret.  After three hours of deliberation, the jury found for Abiomed with respect to all 26 asserted trade secrets and Abiomed began its successful fund-raising effort the following business day.

Cognex v. Matrox.  When Matrox was sued for patent infringement, it selected Mr. Lowrie and Mr. Moore to handle defense of the claim.  After aggressive development of its defensive position and aggressive pursuit of discovery, Mr. Lowrie and Mr. Moore succeeded in getting Cognex to withdraw its claims, without any concession or form of payment by Matrox.