The court also found Child was a victim of severe child abuse. Child was found to be dependent and neglected because of Mother’s drug abuse while pregnant. Grandfather petitioned the juvenile court to find Child dependent and neglected in Mother’s care and received temporary custody.Īfter passing a drug test, Mother was awarded eight hours of unsupervised visitation per week.īy the time of the adjudicatory hearing, Mother had stopped exercising visitation and paying child support. Maternal Grandfather moved to Tennessee to care for Child. Several of Mother’s relatives were concerned for Child’s well-being. Aunt agreed to take Child, and Mother left. Co-counsel included a team of lawyers from Simpson Thacher and Bartlett LLP.Facts: Child was born to an unmarried Mother.Īfter living with her Aunt, Mother eventually told Aunt she could no longer care for Child. The WilmerHale team included Bill Lee, Seth Waxman, Bill McElwain, Mark Fleming, Felicia Ellsworth and Eric Fletcher. The Supreme Court did not disturb the Federal Circuit's ruling that the jury had been given an erroneous instruction on inducement.Īfter WilmerHale, on behalf of Cisco, requested that the Federal Circuit address the noninfringement arguments that it had declined to address in the original appeal, the Federal Circuit issued its decision in favor of Cisco reversing the $74 million judgment against it. The Supreme Court reaffirmed that a good-faith belief of noninfringement was a valid defense to inducement, but held that a good-faith belief of invalidity was not. Partner Seth Waxman presented argument for Cisco at the Supreme Court in March 2015. Commil then successfully petitioned for certiorari to the Supreme Court.
Commil sought rehearing by the en banc Federal Circuit, which was denied over the dissent of five judges who thought that a good-faith belief of invalidity could not serve as a defense to inducement.
Judgment reversed trial#
The original panel unanimously agreed that Cisco was entitled to a new trial on induced infringement because of an error in the jury instructions. WilmerHale was lead counsel for Cisco on its appeal, which Partner Bill Lee argued to a panel of the Federal Circuit in December 2012. The second jury awarded Commil nearly $64 million in damages for inducement, and the district court entered a final judgment of $74 million in 2011 after adding costs and interest. Cisco was found liable for direct infringement in the first trial, and Cisco was found liable for induced infringement at the second trial. The case was twice tried to juries in the Eastern District of Texas, where Cisco was represented by other counsel. In 2007, Commil sued Cisco for direct and induced infringement less than five months after acquiring the patent-in-suit from a venture capital fund. The case was on remand to the Federal Circuit after the Supreme Court's decision in Commil USA, LLC v. On December 28, 2015, WilmerHale achieved a significant victory for Cisco Systems, when a panel of the Federal Circuit unanimously reversed a $74 million judgment against Cisco after concluding that plaintiff Commil USA, LLC had failed to prove at trial that Cisco's products actually infringe Commil's patent.
Our experience extends to appeals, interferences and opposition proceedings within the US Patent and Trademark Office, the US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit and the European Patent Office. We also prepare and prosecute patent applications internationally under the Patent Cooperative Treaty and by working with a network of seasoned patent lawyers around the world. We help clients obtain more than 750 US and foreign patents each year, covering innovations that span the technological spectrum, including aerospace, biochemistry, biotechnology, business methods, chemistry, computer science, fuel cells, genetics, high-speed data communication, integrated circuits, materials science, medical devices, nanotechnology, pharmaceuticals, semiconductor devices and processes, and software. Drawing on our experience with patent litigation, corporate financings and technology transactions, we implement IP strategies that conserve resources, add measurable value and give our clients a cost-effective and commercially practical competitive edge. And we don’t just file patent applications. We work with laboratory and research teams and R&D and product development groups to determine whether, when and where it is in our clients’ business and technical interests to seek patent protection. By patenting their innovations, our clients increase the value of their intellectual property and enhance their ability to compete in the marketplace.
0 kommentar(er)
