Intellectual Property Litigation

When your intellectual property assets are under attack — the patents, copyrights, trademarks and trade secrets at the core of your business — choose experienced trial lawyers who believe in your ideas and understand the complexities of your innovations.

Armstrong Teasdale’s intellectual property litigation practice group consists of trial attorneys with a proven track record in this unique area that combines evolving scientific technologies with law.

Using a team approach, our trial attorneys join forces with our patent lawyers and other intellectual property specialists, who have degrees in chemistry and biochemistry, biological sciences, electrical and mechanical engineering, information systems and other technical fields.

We also urge our clients to become members of this team. When they take an active role, it improves communications and helps us do a better job.

We’ve found that this team approach is the most thorough and efficient way to analyze the often changing strengths and weaknesses of each case. The best results in intellectual property disputes come when the opposition understands that litigators are fully prepared to try the case to verdict.

Although most cases are resolved before trial, having a well-prepared team is an important factor in obtaining the best settlement. We pride ourselves not only in the cases that we have tried to verdict, but also in those matters that ended before trial, either though settlement, licensing, summary judgment or dismissal.

Practice Highlights

• On November 18, 2009, firm client Vi-Jon Laboratories obtained a favorable settlement in a patent infringement case involving nail polish remover compositions. The settlement, which included a consent judgment and permanent injunction against the defendant, followed the defeat of the defendant’s motion to stay pending inter-partes reexamination in the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office against it.

• On September 18, 2009, U.S. District Judge Terry Means of the Northern District of Texas granted firm client Synergetics, Inc.’s motion for a stay of pending reexamination in the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office, staying all claims (including patent, trademark, and unfair competition claims) in the case involving surgical instruments for laser eye surgery.

• On August 31, 2009, U.S. District Judge Catherine Perry of the Eastern District of Missouri granted summary judgment of noninfringement for firm client Fiserv, Inc. in a patent infringement case involving encryption methods for negotiable financial instruments.

• On July 1, 2009, the U.S. District Court in the Western District of Washington granted firm client Regal Beloit’s motion to dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction in a declaratory judgment action involving automotive differential patents.

• On December 12, 2008, U.S. District Judge Jean Hamilton of the Eastern District of Missouri granted firm clients Live Nation and Tickemaster’s motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim in a patent infringement case involving a business method patent.

• On May 2, 2008, following a bench trial two months after the lawsuit was filed, U.S. District Judge Donald Stohr of the Eastern District of Missouri denied plaintiff’s motion for preliminary injunction against firm client Greenstreak Group, Inc. in a patent infringement action involving concrete slab technology.

• On January 17, 2006, U.S. District Judge Rodney Sippel entered an order granting summary judgment to defendants (including firm client EON Labs), based on obviousness double patenting and unenforceability due to inequitable conduct. These consolidated patent infringement cases were filed under the Hatch-Waxman Act against numerous defendants and involved patents relating to metoprolol succinate.

• On December 18, 2006, following a jury verdict for the defendant in a one week trial, U.S. District Judge John Lungstrum of the District of Kansas entered a judgment of noninfringement and invalidity for firm client Gerber Products in a case involving spill-proof beverage containers.

Members of the Intellectual Property Litigation Practice Group

Beulick, John	Nelson, Dan
Campbell, Richard	Quinn, Jack
Chatman, Darryl	Rasche, Pat
Clifford, Nicholas	Sakaguchi, Daniel
Goff, Christopher	Schultz, Jeffrey
Kazmierski, Steven	Schuth, Richard
Longmeyer, Michael	Sophir, Mark
Mayfield, Andy	Summerville, Jay
Munsell, Michael