Camtek v. Rudolph, Nos. 2012-1681, 2013-1023 (Fed. Cir. 2013) (obtained favorable result for client Rudolph; court dismissed Camtek’s appeal of civil contempt sanctions)
Phil-Insul Corp. v. Reward Wall Systems, Inc., No. 14-1078 (Fed. Cir.) – obtained favorable claim construction and summary judgment of non-infringement for accused infringer; obtained affirmance of claim construction and non-infringement decision on appeal
Rudolph v. Integrated Technology, Nos. 2012-1593, -1618 (Fed. Cir. 2013) (obtained favorable result for client Rudolph; court affirmed jury’s finding that Rudolph did not literally infringe, reversed doctrine of equivalents infringement and willfulness findings, and vacated more than $20 million in damages)
Camtek v. Rudolph, Nos. 2012-1681, 2013-1023 (Fed. Cir. 2013) (obtained favorable result for client Rudolph; court dismissed Camtek’s appeal of civil contempt sanctions)
Phil-Insul Corp. v. Reward Wall Systems, Inc., No. 14-1078 (Fed. Cir.) – obtained favorable claim construction and summary judgment of non-infringement for accused infringer; obtained affirmance of claim construction and non-infringement decision on appeal
Rudolph v. Integrated Technology, Nos. 2012-1593, -1618 (Fed. Cir. 2013) (obtained favorable result for client Rudolph; court affirmed jury’s finding that Rudolph did not literally infringe, reversed doctrine of equivalents infringement and willfulness findings, and vacated more than $20 million in damages)
W.L. Gore & Associates, Inc., v. Medtronic, Inc., Medtronic USA, Inc., and Medtronic Vascular, Inc., No. 2012-1538 (Fed. Cir. Sept. 12, 2013) (obtained Rule 36 affirmance of non-infringement decision in favor of client Medtronic)
Cooper Notification v. Twitter et al., No. 12-1615 (Fed. Cir. Aug. 30, 2013) (obtained affirmance of summary judgment of non-infringement in favor of client Federal Signal)
Metso Minerals, Inc. v. Powerscreen Int'l Distrib., Nos. 11-1572, 12-1168, -1169, 2013 U.S. App. LEXIS 9645 (Fed. Cir. May 14, 2013) (obtained reversal of validity on obviousness grounds in favor of client Powerscreen; willfulness and infringement also vacated in favor of client Powerscreen).
AstraZeneca Pharms. LP v. Apotex Corp., 669 F.3d 1370 (Fed. Cir. 2012) (in highly important case on the issues of pharmaceutical method patents and Section viii statements under the Hatch-Waxman Act, obtained affirmance of dismissal of patent infringement case involving patents covering methods of treatment with Crestor®).
Integrated Tech. Corp. v. Rudolph Techs., Inc., Nos. 12-1593, -1618, -1665, 2012 U.S. App. LEXIS 21086 (Fed. Cir. Oct. 10, 2012) (obtained a stay of the district court’s permanent injunction order).
August Tech. Corp. v. Camtek, Ltd., 655 F.3d 1278 (Fed. Cir. 2011) (obtained affirmance of patent validity and no inequitable conduct in favor of client August).
Alfred E. Mann Found. for Sci. Research v. Cochlear Corp., 604 F.3d 1354 (Fed. Cir. 2010) (obtained reversal of a dismissal for lack of standing based on the finding that the terms of an exclusive license did not qualify as a virtual assignment of the patents-in-suit, preserving client AMF’s standing to sue accused infringers).
Bowling v. Hasbro, Inc., No. 09-1039, 2009 U.S. App. LEXIS 20408 (Fed. Cir. Sept. 15, 2009) (obtained affirmance without an opinion of infringement, validity, marking, and damages in favor of client Bowling).
For Your Ease Only, Inc. v. Calgon Carbon Corp., 560 F.3d 717 (7th Cir. 2009) (obtained reversal of a denial of recovery of judgment under a fraudulent conveyance theory).
Mostly Memories, Inc. v. For Your Ease Only, Inc., 526 F.3d 1093 (7th Cir. 2008) (obtained reversal of a denial of attorney’s fees in copyright case; attorney’s fees awarded under 17 U.S.C. § 505).