McAndrews, Held & Malloy

McAndrews, Held & Malloy's $166 million patent litigation award on behalf of client Advanced Cardiovascular Systems, Inc., is recognized as one of the top 10 largest intellectual property damages awards in U.S. history. Additional significant successes on behalf of our clients include:

American Medical Systems, Inc. and Laserscope v. Biolitec, Inc.
[07-CV-30109]
McAndrews, Held & Malloy secured a victory for its clients American Medical Systems, Inc. (AMS) and Laserscope, a subsidiary of AMS, in a case involving a patent for a method and system for photoselective vaporization of the prostate. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit reversed a grant of summary judgment of noninfringement to defendant Biolitec, Inc., and remanded for further proceedings. The Federal Circuit found that the U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts erred in construing the term “photoselective vaporization of tissue” as a claim limitation where, in the claims of Laserscope’s U.S. Patent No. 6,986,764, the term appears only in the claim preambles.

Thomas A. Simonian v. Global Instruments, Inc. and Global Concepts Limited, Inc.
[1:10-cv-01293]
The U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois granted Global Instruments, Inc. (GI) and Global Concepts Limited, Inc.’s motion to dismiss the complaint brought by Thomas A. Simonian in a false marking case. Simonian had accused GI and Global Concepts Limited, doing business as Global TV Concepts, Ltd. (GTVC), of falsely marking certain Riddex®-branded electronic pest control products with the number of an expired patent, U.S. Patent No. 4,802,057. GI and GTVC moved to dismiss due to Simonian’s failure to sufficiently plead that the defendants intended to deceive the public. In granting the motion to dismiss, Judge Elaine E. Bucklo found that Simonian’s complaint “does not sufficiently state facts from which I can infer intent.”

Hako-Med USA, Inc., et al. v. Axiom Worldwide, Inc., et al.
[8:06-cv-1790-T33-EAJ]
The U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Florida, Tampa Division, granted Tampa-based Axiom Worldwide, Inc.’s motion for judgment as a matter of law of no infringement under the doctrine of equivalents. In the case involving electrical nerve stimulation medical devices used to treat patients with various medical disorders, the action vacated a jury verdict of infringement that was entered in September 2009 in the lawsuit against McAndrews client Axiom. Honolulu, Hawaii-based Hako-Med USA, Inc. had accused Axiom of infringing its U.S. Patent No. 5,573,552 relating to its technology for an electrotherapeutic machine. The Court found that Hako-Med failed to clearly demonstrate how Axiom’s device met the strict test for infringement under the doctrine of equivalents.

Osteotech v. RTI Biologics
[3:06-cv-4249-FLW]
McAndrews, Held & Malloy secured a favorable settlement of a patent infringement lawsuit for its client Alachua, Fla.-based RTI Biologics Inc., the leading provider of sterile biological implants for surgeries around the world. Claims by Eatontown, N.J.-based plaintiff Osteotech, Inc., and counterclaims by RTI were dismissed with prejudice in the case that related to the cleaning and sterilization of bone implants. Osteotech filed suit in 2006 alleging that RTI’s BioCleanse process infringed U.S. Patent No. 5,333,626. Osteotech later added a second patent, No. 5,513,662, to the case. Both patents relate to methods for preparing bone for transplantation. During the litigation, McAndrews secured a summary judgment ruling that barred Osteotech from recovering any pre-suit damages (six years of alleged damages).

INEOS v. Sinochem
[337-TA-623]
McAndrews, Held & Malloy secured another victory for its client Sinochem Environmental Protection Chemicals (Taicang) Co., Ltd. in a U.S. International Trade Commission investigation. The ITC decided not to review the earlier decision of its chief administrative law judge, affirming that Sinochem did not violate a consent order in the patent case. The consent order was entered into after Sinochem had designed around two of the complainants’ patents in a case involving a process for making a refrigerant that replaces an ozone-depleting coolant. The complainants were INEOS Fluor Holdings Ltd., INEOS Fluor Ltd. and INEOS Fluor Americas LLC. In the case in which it alleged that Sinochem infringed its U.S. Patent No. 5,559,276, INEOS had sought civil fines of up to $100,000 per day, which could have totaled about $36 million.

INEOS v. Sinochem
[337-TA-623]
McAndrews, Held & Malloy secured a victory for its client Sinochem Environmental Protection Chemicals (Taicang) Co., Ltd. in a case involving a process for making a refrigerant. The presiding administrative law judge of the U.S. International Trade Commission (ITC) ruled that Sinochem did not violate a consent order. The judge also ruled that “no enforcement measures are appropriate should the Commission find a violation of said consent order.” The consent order involved an agreement to stop U.S. importation activity with respect to a certain process used to produce a refrigerant that is a widely used alternative to ozone-depleting CFC (chlorofluorocarbon) refrigerant. The consent order was entered into after Sinochem had designed around two of the complainants’ patents. The complainants were INEOS Fluor Holdings Ltd., INEOS Fluor Ltd. and INEOS Fluor Americas LLC.

INEOS v. Sinochem
[337-TA-623]
McAndrews, Held & Malloy secured a victory for its client Sinochem Modern Environmental Protection Chemicals (Xi’an) Co., Ltd.; Sinochem Ningbo Ltd.; Sinochem Environmental Protection Chemicals (Taicang) Co., Ltd.; and Sinochem (USA), Inc. in a U.S. International Trade Commission (ITC) investigation. The case involved a patent claim on a process for making a refrigerant that replaces an ozone-depleting coolant. INEOS Fluor Holdings Ltd., INEOS Fluor Ltd. and INEOS Fluor Americas LLC had filed a complaint alleging that Sinochem infringed its U.S. Patent No. 5,559,276. The ITC terminated the investigation with a finding of no violation, thus reversing a conclusion reached in a Remand Determination issued previously by an administrative law judge.

Aspheric Lens Company v. Bausch & Lomb Incorporated
[1:07-CV-4098]
The U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, Eastern Division, entered an order dismissing with prejudice the patent infringement lawsuit brought by Aspheric Lens Company against McAndrews, Held & Malloy client Bausch & Lomb Incorporated. Aspheric had alleged that Bausch & Lomb’s SofLens® Multi-Focal and PureVision® Multi-Focal contact lenses infringe Aspheric’s U.S. Patent No. 4,909,621. The patent pertains to contact lenses with aspheric-shaped front surfaces that allow for correction of the wearer’s vision at both near and far distances. The parties filed a stipulated notice of dismissal following an earlier claim construction ruling that was favorable to Bausch & Lomb. After the earlier ruling, Aspheric moved for reconsideration, but its motion was denied.

CryoCor, Inc. v. CryoCath Technologies Inc.
McAndrews, Held & Malloy secured a favorable settlement for its clients CryoCor, Inc. and Boston Scientific Corporation, which acquired CryoCor in 2008. This patent litigation involved consoles and catheters used in cardiac electrophysiology mapping and ablation devices, and centered on CryoCath Technologies Inc.’s alleged infringement of one or more claims of patents exclusively licensed to CryoCor. The settlement ends court actions before the U.S. International Trade Commission, and in the U.S. Federal District Court and Canadian Federal Court.

Walgreen Co. v. ABP Patent Holdings, LLC
[08-CV-1726]
McAndrews, Held & Malloy filed a voluntary dismissal of a patent case involving pharmacy labels that its client Walgreens uses in all of its stores. In December 2007, ABP Patent Holdings, LLC sent a letter to Walgreens asserting that Walgreens and/or its supplier needed a license to ABP’s patents for Walgreens’ new pharmacy label. In the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, Eastern Division, Walgreens filed an action for declaratory judgment of non-infringement, invalidity and unenforceability relating to ABP’s patents. Less than three months later, McAndrews secured a covenant not to sue from ABP by demonstrating that Walgreens’ pharmacy label did not infringe any valid claim of the ABP patents.

Luma Corporation v. Stryker Corporation
[02-CV-1132]
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit has affirmed the grant of summary judgment of noninfringement and invalidity by the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of West Virginia to McAndrews, Held & Malloy client Stryker Corporation. In the case involving medical image capture equipment, the District Court ruled in the summer of 2006 that Stryker, one of the world's leading medical device companies, did not infringe eight asserted claims of the patent-in-suit. The District Court further ruled that two other claims of the patent-in-suit were invalid. Luma Corporation filed the suit in September 2002, alleging that Stryker infringed ten claims of Luma’s U.S. Patent No. 5,740,801.

Mark Moore v. Broadcom Corporation, ET AL
[C06-05647 MJJ]
McAndrews, Held & Malloy secured a victory for its clients Broadcom Corporation and inventor Paul Beard in a case concerning personal video recorder technology that allows the viewer to pause and/or “rewind” a television program while the hard drive continues to record the program. The U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California entered an order granting summary judgment on behalf of Broadcom and Beard. The order is dispositive of all issues in the case, which was brought by software engineer Mark Moore. In 2006, Moore brought suit seeking to be declared co-inventor on U.S. Patent No. 6,172,712, as well as an award of damages for unjust enrichment.

Michael J. Cooney, M.D., v. SurModics, Inc.
[07-0373-WS-B]
McAndrews, Held & Malloy secured a victory for its client SurModics, Inc., in a case concerning a claim against SurModics for tortious interference with prospective economic advantage. Judge William H. Steele of the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Alabama, Southern Division, dismissed the claim of the plaintiff, Dr. Michael J. Cooney, against SurModics for Cooney’s failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted because it does not comply with state law pleading requirements for such claims. The case involved U.S. Patent No. 6,719,750, which covers technology embodied in SurModics’ I-vation™ - its lead product in the field of ophthalmic drug delivery.

Grundfos Pumps Manufacturing Corporation v. Laing Thermotech, Inc.
[C-07-4033 JSW]
McAndrews, Held & Malloy secured a victory for its client Grundfos Pumps Manufacturing Corporation (GPMC) in a patent infringement case against Laing Thermotech, Inc. Just five months after the suit was filed, Judge Jeffrey S. White of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California entered a consent judgment and permanent injunction against Laing. Laing acknowledged and admitted that its manufacture, use, sale and offer for sale in the United States of its Autocirc2 System infringed claims of two patents that protect GPMC’s “Comfort System” domestic hot water technology involving water control valves.

American Technology Components, Inc. v. Hamsar Diversco Inc.
McAndrews, Held & Malloy secured a victory for its client Hamsar Diversco Inc. (HDI) against American Technology Components, Inc. (ATC). Filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Indiana, South Bend Division, the case concerned an alleged patent infringement involving an LED brake light that is attached to a pickup truck cap. After less than two months of litigation, ATC dismissed the case against HDI with prejudice after it was confronted with evidence that ATC had been selling an embodiment of the LED brake light invention more than a year before filing the related patent application. ATC also agreed to pay a substantial portion of HDI’s attorneys’ fees.

The Jane A. Sassaman Co. v. Wynn Resorts Holdings
McAndrews, Held & Malloy has secured a favorable settlement for The Jane A. Sassaman Co., LLC (“JAS”) design firm in a copyright infringement dispute against Wynn Resorts Holdings, LLC, and its parent company, Wynn Resorts Limited (NASDAQ: WYNN). The dispute concerned JAS' copyrighted fabric pattern “Color Garden” (U.S. Copyright Registration No. VA 1354487). Prior to its grand opening, the Wynn Las Vegas hotel, owned and operated by Wynn Resorts, ordered and subsequently installed in its “Parasol Up Lounge” carpeting similar to JAS' copyrighted “Color Garden” fabric pattern.

Alaris Medical Systems, Inc. v. ICU Medical, Inc.
[SA CV 04-00689 MRP (VBKx)]
McAndrews, Held & Malloy secured $4.75 million in attorney's fees and costs for Alaris Medical Systems, Inc., a business unit of the firm’s client Cardinal Health, Inc. that provides leading-edge intravenous infusion systems. More than $1.5 billion in Alaris products had been wrongly accused of infringement. Previously, the Court granted two summary judgment motions dismissing all of ICU's patents. The $4.75 million award stems from an April 2007 Court order in which the Court ruled that ICU asserted frivolous claims and that the case was "exceptional" under the patent laws.

TriMed, Inc. v. Styker Corporation
[CV-06-1918 (SHx)]
The U.S. District Court for the Central District of California, Western Division, entered an order granting summary judgment of noninfringement on behalf of firm client Stryker and dismissing with prejudice the patent infringement lawsuit brought by TriMed, Inc. In a case involving surgical plates used to fix broken wrist bones, TriMed had alleged that Stryker’s Universal Distal Radius and VariAx Distal Radius plate systems infringe U.S. Patent No. 5,931,839. The Court found that there was no infringement of any of the asserted claims of the patent.

Alaris Medical Systems, Inc. v. ICU Medical, Inc.
[CV-04-00689 MRP (VBKx)]
In April 2007, in a complex patent infringement case, McAndrews, Held & Malloy secured further victories for Alaris Medical Systems, Inc., a business unit of the firm’s client Cardinal Health, Inc. that provides leading-edge intravenous infusion systems. On Alaris’ motion, a federal district court sanctioned plaintiff ICU Medical and its lawyers for violating Fed. R. Civ. P. 11, and ruled the case “exceptional” under the patent laws. The Court found that ICU asserted frivolous claims, failed to conduct a reasonable pre-filing investigation, and sought emergency injunctive relief in bad faith. The Court also awarded Alaris attorney’s fees and costs. The case involved four patents, all of which were previously dismissed on summary judgment. ICU had wrongly accused over $1.5B in Alaris products of infringement.

Boston Scientific v. Johnson & Johnson, Inc., Advanced Cardiovascular Systems, Inc., Cordis et al.
[03-1138-SLR]
McAndrews, Held & Malloy secured a victory for its client Advanced Cardiovascular Systems, Inc. (ACS), a subsidiary of Abbott Laboratories, in a case involving the Cypher drug-eluting stent, a product that had been co-promoted by ACS. The U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware entered an order granting summary judgment of noninfringement on behalf of ACS and co-defendants Cordis Corporation, Johnson & Johnson, Inc., Guidant Corporation and Guidant Sales Corporation.

Thomas F. Winters v. Stryker Corporation
[6:06-cv-794-Ori-19JGG]
Plaintiff, Dr. Thomas F. Winters, alleged that Stryker’s PainPump™ line of products infringed his U.S. Patent Nos. 6,193,704 and 6,565,534, which describe postoperative pain relief systems. Shortly after Stryker filed noninfringement and invalidity summary judgment motions, Dr. Winters agreed to dismiss his case with prejudice.

Plymouth Industries LLC v. Sioux Steel Company
[8:05CV196]
McAndrews, Held & Malloy secured a favorable settlement for its client Sioux Steel Company, a Sioux Falls, S.D.-based leading manufacturer of steel grain bins, buildings and other livestock equipment. The case involved two patent infringement lawsuits brought by Plymouth, Neb.-based livestock equipment manufacturer Plymouth Industries LLC pertaining to an insert for use in combination with a conventional round or cylindrical bale feeder designed to prevent the waste of hay fed to livestock. The Court granted in part Sioux Steel’s motion for summary judgment of unenforceability for inequitable conduct. The cases were settled shortly thereafter.

Acumed LLC v. Stryker Corporation, Stryker Sales Corporation, Stryker Orthopaedics and Howmedica Osteonics Corporation
[06-CV-642-BR]
The U.S. District Court for the District of Oregon dismissed a suit against firm client Stryker, ruling that Acumed LLC’s patent infringement claim against Stryker was barred by res judicata. The district court found that Acumed’s failure to litigate the T2 Long in an earlier lawsuit, despite being offered the opportunity to do so, barred the subsequent claim.

Chicago’s Pizza Inc. v. Chicago’s Pizza Franchise, Ltd., USA and Irfanullah Muhammad
[No. 03 CH 2044]
McAndrews, Held & Malloy secured a victory on all counts for its client Chicago’s Pizza Franchise, Ltd., USA against claims of deceiving the public into believing that it was affiliated with a restaurant operated by Chicago’s Pizza Inc. First, Judge Sophia Hall of the Circuit Court of Cook County, Illinois, ruled that the phrase “Chicago’s Pizza” is generic and descriptive, thereby making that name available for use by any restaurant. Chicago’s Pizza Inc. pleaded additional claims against the defendants for tortious interference, Uniform Deceptive Trade Practices Act violations, and consumer fraud. After a trial, Judge Barbara J. Disko of the Circuit Court of Cook County, Illinois, in an order released Nov. 29, 2006, rejected the claims by Chicago’s Pizza Inc., ruling for Chicago’s Pizza Franchise, Ltd., on all counts.

Paxar Americas Inc. v. Zebra Technologies
[C-3-03-142]
McAndrews, Held & Malloy secured a $63.75 million settlement for its client Paxar Americas Inc., a Miamisburg, Ohio-based division of Paxar Corporation (NYSE: PXR), from Vernon Hills, Ill.-based Zebra Technologies Corporation (NASDAQ: ZBRA). The lawsuit involved eight Paxar patents that Paxar claimed were infringed by approximately 50 Zebra products. The case involved the software, electronics and mechanics of barcode printers. The settlement followed extensive Markman hearings and motions for summary judgment.

CSP Technologies Inc. v. Sud-Chemie Inc.
[4:03-CV-003-SEB-WGH]
McAndrews, Held & Malloy secured a victory for its client CSP Technologies Inc. (CSP), in a case involving custom plastic products. The U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Indiana ruled that CSP’s U.S. Patent Nos. 5,911,937 and 6,214,255 are valid and that Sud-Chemie Inc. (SCI) infringed the two patents involving desiccant entrained polymers, which are used inside containers to absorb moisture.

ICU Medical, Inc., v. Alaris Medical Systems, Inc.
[SA CV 04-0689 MRP]
The U.S. District Court for the Central District of California granted partial summary judgment of noninfringement on behalf of the firm's client Alaris Medical Systems Inc., a business unit of Cardinal Health, Inc., in a case involving four patents relating to a needle-free valve that can transfer drugs, blood and other fluids to and from a patient through intravenous tubing. Later, the Court dismissed all remaining patent claims for invalidity and awarded the firm's client $4.5 million in attorney fees based on the exceptional nature of the case.

Intercat, Inc., v. W. R. Grace & Co.-Conn., Nol-Tec Systems, Inc.
[Case No. 03-CV-4886 (D. Minn. 2005)]
MH&M secured a favorable settlement in a patent infringement case pitting its client, Intercat, Inc., against defendants W. R. Grace & Co.-Conn. and Nol-Tec Systems, Inc. As a result of the settlement, Nol-Tec is permanently enjoined from the unauthorized manufacture of any infringing systems. In addition, W.R. Grace was required to make payments of $9 million to Intercat, as well as future royalties for any new systems covered by Intercat’s patented technology.

ZIH Corporation, v. Paxar Corporation
[C.A. No.: 1:03-cv-12358-DPW]
On behalf of its client, Paxar Corporation, McAndrews, Held & Malloy obtained dismissal with prejudice of a patent lawsuit filed by ZIH Corp. relating to portable printers. In the case, McAndrews, Held & Malloy amended its Answer and alleged that the ZIH patents were unenforceable due to inequitable conduct, invalid and not infringed. Shortly after these amendments and after McAndrews, Held & Malloy raised certain alleged prior art references, ZIH Corp. dismissed its Complaint with prejudice.

Musket Research Associates, Inc., v. Ovion, Inc., William S. Tremulis, and Jeffrey P. Callister
[05-CV-10416-MEL]
The U.S. District Court of Massachusetts granted summary judgment on behalf of McAndrews, Held & Malloy client Ovion against all nine causes of action asserted by plaintiff Musket Research Associates (MRA). MRA specializes in securing venture capital financing for emerging healthcare companies. Ovion had retained MRA in July 2004 as a “nonexclusive finder/adviser in connection with a proposed private placement” of Ovion’s stock. MRA alleged that Ovion, a company focused on minimally invasive alternatives to surgical sterilization, had misled MRA about its pursuit of corporate partners in addition to venture capital investors.

C.R. Bard, Inc., and Davol, Inc., v. Stryker Corporation
[C.A. No. 02-515ML ]
The U.S. District Court of Rhode Island granted summary judgment of noninfringement to McAndrews, Held & Malloy client Stryker Corporation, bringing a four-year legal battle to a close. Plaintiffs C.R. Bard, Inc. and Davol, Inc. had accused Stryker of infringing on a patent pertaining to pulsed lavage technology for wound care management.

Synvasive Corporation, v. Stryker Corporation
[CIV. S-05-1515 (E.D. Cal. 2006)]
The U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of California granted summary judgment of noninfringement in favor of McAndrews, Held & Malloy client Stryker. McAndrews proved that Stryker’s Dual-Cut surgical blades (representing 95% of accused products) did not infringe on Synvasive’s patents. The case settled favorably thereafter.

Zohar Waterworks, LLC and Elkay Mfg. Co. v. General Electric Co., et al.
[04 C 2328]
McAndrews, Held & Malloy obtained a favorable settlement and dismissal of patent litigation for the firm's clients General Electric Co, Home Depot U.S.A., Inc., and The Home Depot, Inc. after being retained in the matter for only eight months. The infringement lawsuit filed in March 2004 involved bottled water dispensers manufactured for GE and sold by Home Depot.

Norian Corporation v. Stryker Corporation
[01 0016 ]
The U.S. District Court in the Northern District of California granted summary judgment of non-infringement in favor of McAndrews, Held & Malloy's client. This swift and decisive victory ended an ongoing litigation between Stryker and Norian regarding certain bone cement patents.

Norian Corporation v. Stryker Corporation
[02-1490, 02-1506, 02-1507 (Fed. Cir. April 6, 2004) ]
The Federal Circuit affirmed the jury's verdict of obviousness in favor of McAndrews, Held & Malloy's client Stryker. The decision invalidated Norian's patent relating to methods of making bone cement, and remanded for further proceedings on other issues.

Genlyte Thomas Group, LLC v. NSI
[3:00-CV-174 (2003)]
Following favorable summary judgment rulings for McAndrews, Held & Malloy's client Genlyte, defendant agreed to pay $8 million in damages and cease selling the infringing Insta-Lite recessed light fixtures.

Ovion, Inc. v. Conceptus, Inc.
[C 02-1968 (2003)]
McAndrews, Held & Malloy obtained a settlement of patent litigation for the firm's client Ovion, where Conceptus agreed to pay $4 million and a running royalty for a non-incisional, permanent birth control system.

Pedicraft v. Stryker
[Case No. 3:02-CV-334 (M.D. Fla. 2003)]
Following a favorable claim construction ruling for client Stryker, Pedicraft voluntarily dismissed its patent infringement case with prejudice. The technology at issue was pediatric hospital beds.

Bretford Manufacturing v. Smith System Mfg.
[98 C 0287 (2003)]
McAndrews, Held & Malloy won a landmark Lanham Act decision for client Smith that reversed prior awards of damages, fees and costs, and awarded costs to Smith. The firm took over this case after client Smith was found in violation of the Lanham Act.

XOMA, Ltd. v. Biosite Inc.
[C 01-2580 (2003)]
McAndrews, Held & Malloy obtained a settlement for client XOMA, a leading developer of biopharmaceuticals, that includes an assignment of Biosites's antibody expression technology and a royalty-free, irrevocable and perpetual license to Biosite's "Dower" patents.

Castrol Ltd. v. George H. Nunes, Inc., et al
[CV-F-01-6206 (2003)]
McAndrews, Held & Malloy secured a consent injunction in a Lanham Act case and an award to client Castrol of three times the defendants' profits on the offending sales, as well as an award of attorneys' fees.

Arachnid, Inc. v. Merit Industries, Inc.
[99 C 5699 (2003)]
McAndrews, Held & Malloy enforced client Arachnid's position as the technical and innovative leader in the electronic dart market through a favorable settlement of patent litigation including assignments of patents and other intellectual property from Merit.

Acuity Brands, Inc. v. Genlyte Thomas Group, LLC
[C.A. No. 1 02-CV-2458 (2003)]
In less than six months, McAndrews, Held & Malloy obtained dismissal with prejudice of Acuity's claims that client Genlyte infringed four Acuity patents relating to lighting fixtures.

Rockwood Pigments NA, Inc. v. Axel J., et al.
[53 Fed. Appx. 917 (Fed. Cir. Dec. 16, 2002)]
The Federal Circuit affirmed the district court's grant of preliminary injunction in favor of our client, Rockwood, prohibiting the infringer from importing pigment granules used in coloring concrete. The Federal Circuit previously affirmed the district court's infringement findings, permanent injunction and the six-figure damages award in favor of our client.

Advanced Cardiovascular Sys., Inc. v. Medtronic AVE, Inc.
[C99-5393 (N.D. Cal. April 25, 2002]
Awarding $166 million in damages to our client, ACS, an arbitration panel found that several Medtronic angioplasty catheters and stent systems infringe upon ACS's patent without license. The court entered a permanent injunction against Medtronic, prohibiting sales of the infringing products.

Brasseler U.S.A., L.P. v. Stryker Sales Corp.
[267 F.3d 1370 (Fed. Cir. 2001)]
The Federal Circuit affirmed an award of attorneys' fees to our client, Stryker, after finding that the patentee's prosecuting attorneys failed to cite potentially material information to the Patent Office, thereby breaching the duty of disclosure. The court previously affirmed the district court's grant of summary judgment of invalidity in favor of our client Stryker.

Jaswant S. Pannu et al. v. Storz Inst. Inc.
[258 F.3d 1366 (Fed. Cir. 2001)]
The Federal Circuit affirmed the district court's grant of summary judgment of invalidity in favor of our client, Storz, now wholly owned by Bausch and Lomb, Inc. Storz successfully argued that the patentee improperly broadened the scope of the patent during the reissue to include claims given up in the original issued patent. The technology related to plastic lenses used in cataract surgery.

SciMed Life Systems, Inc. v. Advanced Cardiovascular Sys., Inc.
[242 F.3d 1337 (Fed. Cir. 2001)]
McAndrews, Held & Malloy obtained a Federal Circuit affirmance of a summary judgment of non-infringement in favor of client ACS, a world leading medical device manufacturer, in a case involving angioplasty catheters and stents with sales exceeding $1 billion.

Amsted Indus. v. ABC-NACO, Inc.
[2001 WL 969045 (N.D. Ill. Aug. 24, 2001) and 2001 WL 826904 (N.D. Ill July 18, 2001)]
The court granted our client, Amsted's, motion for summary judgment of infringement in a revolutionary patent related to methods of manufacturing side-frames and bolsters for rail cars, and denied two ABC-NACO, Inc. motions for summary judgment of invalidity. The court's infringement finding has resulted in the entire industry recognizing the validity and value of Amsted's patents.

Stryker Corp. v. Davol, Inc.
[234 F.3d 1252 (Fed. Cir 2000)]
In December 2000, the Federal Circuit affirmed, in favor of our client, Stryker, the district court's (1) grant of summary judgment of noninfringement, (2) denial of Davol's motion for judgment as a matter of law contesting the jury verdict of willful infringement, (3) award of enhanced damages and costs to Stryker for pre-verdict infringement, (4) award of supplemental damages to Stryker for infringement from the date of the jury's verdict to the entry of permanent injunction and (5) finding of Davol in contempt for continuing infringement of Stryker's patent rights after issuance of the permanent injunction.

University of Washington v. Optiva Corp.
[Arbitration, Seattle, Washington]
In April 2000, an Arbitration Panel awarded our client, the University of Washington, damages in the amount of $10 million. The technology at issue involved a sonic oral care product developed at the University.

In re Spalding Sports Worldwide, Inc.
[203 F.3d 800 (Fed. Cir. 2000)]
The Federal Circuit granted a petition for a writ of mandamus - one of the "extraordinary" legal remedies - in favor of firm client Spalding. In a precedent setting opinion, the Federal Circuit ruled that the attorney-client privilege extends to communications between patent attorneys and their inventor clients if those communications occur primarily for the purpose of aiding an attorney in rendering legal opinions on patentability or involve the rendering of legal services in preparing a patent application(s). The ruling reversed a district court order that compelled Spalding to produce to its opponent, Wilson Sporting Goods, a confidential invention record that Spalding's inventors had submitted to Spalding's legal department to aid in the determination of patentability and the preparation of a patent application.

Brasseler U.S.A., L.P. v. Stryker Sales Corp.
[S.D. Ga.; Civil Action No. 97-CV-184]
In December 1999, the Federal Circuit affirmed the district court's grant of summary judgment for our client Stryker of invalidity and remanded the case for consideration of exceptional case status [182 F.3d 888 (Fed. Cir.)]. The technology at issue involved surgical saws. On remand, in April 2000, the district court found the case exceptional and awarded attorneys fees and costs to Stryker.

Advanced Cardiovascular Systems, Inc. v. Medtronic, Inc.
[N.D. Cal.; Civil Action No. C-95-3577 DLJ]
In August 1999, the Court granted summary judgment for our client ACS of infringement, validity, and enforceability of U.S. Patent No. 5,451,233 relating to rapid exchange angioplasty catheters [81 F. Supp. 2d 978 (N.D. Cal.)]. In November 1999, a jury in the United States District Court in Oakland, California returned a verdict for ACS in the amount of $5.4 million. The jury also found that Medtronic willfully infringed ACS's patent. In March 2000, the Court increased the jury's award by 30%. Judgment was entered on May 17, 2000 in the amount of $8.4 million, which included an award of prejudgment interest and costs. As part of its Judgment, the Court entered a permanent injunction against Medtronic.

Advanced Cardiovascular Systems, Inc. v. SciMed Life Systems, Inc.
[N.D. Cal.; Civil Action No. C-96-00946 CW]
In June 1999, the Court granted summary judgment for our client ACS of infringement and validity of U.S. Patent No. 5,496,275 relating to an elliptically-shaped angioplasty catheter [63 F. Supp. 2d 1064 (N.D. Cal.)]. In April 2000, the Court granted summary judgment for ACS of enforceability and non-indefiniteness of the same patent [96 F. Supp. 2d 1006 (N.D. Cal.)]. Trial was scheduled to begin on May 15, 2000 on ACS's claims of willful infringement and damages in excess of $100 million. The parties reached a confidential settlement just prior to trial.

Systems Technology, Inc. v. R.R. Donnelly & Sons Co.
[Civil Action No. 01-2224 (C.D. Ill. 2002)]
McAndrews, Held & Malloy today announced that the U.S. District Court for the Central District of Illinois, Urbana Division, granted partial summary judgment in favor of client Systems Technology, Inc. (STI). The case involved a patent license agreement in which R. R. Donnelley & Sons Co. granted STI exclusive rights to manufacture and sell hopper loader equipment used in bindery lines.