Patent Infringement Litigation
Related ProfessionalsOverview
Kirkland & Ellis LLP impresses with its successful track record before all major patent litigation venues in the US, including the PTAB and the ITC. The practice stands out through its commitment to preparing every case for trial, drawing on its excellent bench of senior and junior litigators with experience in a wide spread of technologies... - The Legal 500 United States, 2020
We are trial lawyers who try patent infringement cases before juries, judges and arbitrators. We represent clients in end-to-end, strategic disputes with their keenest and most aggressive competitors, and our lawyers are often called upon to right the ship in high-stakes cases. We have extensive experience trying cases in venues across the country where patent infringement cases are most often litigated, including district courts, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, the International Trade Commission (ITC) and the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB).
Trial readiness is a cornerstone of all litigation disciplines practiced at Kirkland, and we believe that the best litigation results — whether achieved in court or across the bargaining table — occur where Kirkland and the client act on the assumption that the case will go to trial. We focus on trial strategy and themes from the beginning of a case. While most cases settle before trial, strong trial-based case development optimizes the chance of favorable settlements by yielding pre-trial victories and signaling to the adversary that our client is unafraid to try the case if necessary to protect its interests. Kirkland’s trial-oriented approach is possible due to our deep bench of experienced trial lawyers and our uncommon commitment to training our junior lawyers.
In addition, our premier appellate attorneys brief and argue high-stakes cases in the Federal Circuit and the U.S. Supreme Court, protecting our clients’ IP interests at the appellate level.
Experience
Syngenta
Represented Syngenta in litigation against Willowood alleging patent infringement with respect to patents covering Syngenta’s azoxystrobin fungicide and processes to make it. In 2017, the court granted summary judgment in favor of Syngenta, finding three of the four patents-in-suit valid and finding infringement with respect to two of the four patents. The court also agreed with Syngenta that, with respect to one of the process patents, the standards for shifting the burden of proof on infringement under 35 U.S.C. § 295 had been met. In September 2017, a jury found that Willowood infringed that process patent and awarded Syngenta nearly $1 million in damages. In November 2017, the court granted Syngenta’s motion for a permanent injunction against Willowood, and denied Willowood’s motion to sell certain products it had imported but not yet sold prior to the jury verdict. Appeals are pending in the Federal Circuit.
C.R. Bard
Achieved a victory for C.R. Bard in March 2017, when a Delaware jury delivered a verdict that Bard’s longtime business competitor and litigation adversary W.L. Gore’s patent claims were not infringed by either of Bard’s Fluency Plus and Flair stent graft products and were also invalid on three separate grounds (anticipation, obviousness and incorrect inventorship). This complete win came after six years of hard-fought litigation, during which Kirkland succeeded in knocking out another patent on summary judgment and more than $100 million of damages exposure prior to trial.
10 Former USPTO Patent Examiners
78% of Our Patent Litigation Attorneys
Have technical backgrounds
Named an IP Powerhouse
BTI Litigation Outlook, 2020