DBL is a veteran-owned AV-Rated law frm repeatedly selected for inclusion in the best and brightest of law firms. Our patent practice summary follows and includes patent litigation and disputes in Federal District Court, the Federal Circuit, the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) and the International Trade commission. At Dunlap Bennett & Ludwig, we are on the cutting edge of major cases, including acting as lead amicus counsel in the recent TC Heartland decision, winning three preliminary injunctions in Federal District Court patent cases in the last two years, and prevailing on the appeal with the Federal Circuit, even when the PTAB had ruled against the underlying patent. Voted into the 2017 Law Firm 500’s, Leaders in the Law, and one of IP Watchdog’s, “Top 100” IP Firms in the United States, we will provide you with responsive, successful, experienced, and fiercely aggressive lawyers.

Many companies view their patent portfolios as absolutely essential to their ongoing business, both for exploiting the patented technologies as well as serving as a tool for settling infringement claims through cross-licensing agreements. Patents truly are the lifeblood of the biotechnology, computing, toy, electronics, manufacturing, pharmaceutical, and software industries, among many others.

Unique Approach to Costs & Management in Patent Infringement Litigation

Our patent infringement litigation team is constantly re-evaluating the client’s risks and benefits during the course of litigation, re-assessing settlement and litigation strategies on an ongoing basis as new facts are discovered. Our attorneys fully understand that, in many cases, putting a stop to the infringing conduct and preserving a client’s market share can be just as important or even more important than financial remedies, and we often seek restraining orders and preliminary injunctions early in an infringement case to accomplish precisely those goals.

Our Experience is Second to None:

Some of our recent highlighted cases include:

  • Tinnus Enterprises, LLC et al v. Telebrands Corporation et al.
    Successful in obtaining three preliminary injunctions as part of multi-district patent infringement litigation involving multiple courts and jurisdictions, resulting in massive client market place success.
  • Rescue Phone, Inc. v. Enforcement Technology Group Inc. et al.
    Patent infringement, antitrust, and business conspiracy claim litigated through motion to dismiss. Case settled favorably for client following this win.
  • Swimways Corporation et al v. Zuru, LLC
    Successful in defending infringement allegations in Federal District Court resulting in major win at summary judgment invalidating opposing party patent for robotic fish.
  • TQP Development, Inc. v. Enterprise Holdings, Inc.
    Represented defendant against patent infringement claims brought by patent assertion entity. The asserted patents involved encryption technology. Case settles favorably for client.

How We Are Cost-Efficient – A Flat Hierarchy:

Our firm does not carry the personnel baggage of others. In some practices, younger partners and associates must support a tier of lawyers that may bill on a case, but have little direct working insight, or lend little in the way of constructive value. Our law firm was founded by US Army veterans who apply an “in the trenches” flat hierarchy approach to the practice of law. Our firm contains no “dead-weight” attorneys as a result. Our clients pay for lawyers that produce real work product, and we leverage this flat hierarchy into more work product per hour across total hours billed.

Support:

We begin examining each intellectual property case with a detailed and professional analysis conducted by our patent and trademark prosecution team. Our litigators work closely with our clients, examining the details of each case through portfolio and economic analysis to determine the most economically advantageous course of action. DBL understands that if a favorable settlement or resolution presents itself, clients seek profitable outcomes rather than courtrooms.

Our patent infringement attorney litigation team has significant experience litigating and resolving patent disputes in a number of contexts and industries, and on behalf of both plaintiffs and defendants. We bring that experience to the table through all stages of the dispute resolution process, from the initial evaluation of the case through settlement efforts and ultimately trial.

Erica’s Story – A Short Anecdotal Overview of a Patent Infringement Case:

 

The Strong and Economically Sensible Solution

Dunlap Bennett & Ludwig advises, prosecutes, and defends clients in the most complex and daunting patent infringement litigation cases in an economically efficient and sensible way. If you need a team of sharp, skilled attorneys who will put their diverse backgrounds and decades of legal experience to work for you, Dunlap Bennett & Ludwig is here to serve and protect you and your business. Speak with a patent infringement attorney today.

Dunlap Bennett & Ludwig lawyers’ additional patent infringement matters of note include:

  • Haan Corporation V. De’longhi Appliances S.R.L. et al
  • Execware LLC v. Amazon.com Inc. et al
  • MIZ Engineering, LTD. v. Noble Enterprises, LTD et al
  • Smash, Llc V. Advance International, Inc et al
  • Advance, et al v. Smash, LLC
  • Network Managing Solutions, LLC v. T-Mobile USA, Inc.
  • Network Managing Solutions, LLC v. Cellco Partnership
  • Network Managing Solutions, LLC v. AT&T Mobility, LLC
  • Network Managing Solutions, LLC v. Sprint Corp. et al
  • LendingTree, LLC v. Zillow, Inc. et al
  • GeoTag Inc v. Frontier Communications Corp et al
  • LBS Innovations LLC v BP America Inc et al
  • CyberFone Systems LLC v. American Airlines Inc. et al
  • Cyberfone Systems LLC v. Pandigital Inc.
  • Variant, Inc. et al v. AMERCO et al
  • Variant Holdings LLC etal vs Z Resorts LLC
  • TQP Development, LLC v. Wells Fargo & Company
  • TQP Development, LLC v. Reed Elsevier Inc.
  • Beacon Navigation GmbH v. General Motors LLC
  • Research In Motion Limited v. Eastman Kodak Co.
  • MacroSolve, Inc. v. Marriott International, Inc.
  • Star Scientific v. R.J. Reynolds, et al
  • Elen IP LLC v. ArvinMeritor, Inc. et al.
  • Automotive Tech. Int’l, Inc. V. Onstar Global Services Corp. MacroSolve, Inc. v. Marriott International, Inc
  • BetaNet, LLC v. Adobe Systems, Inc et al Kimberly-Clark Worldwide Inc v. Valor Brands LLC
  • Lexmark International, Inc. v. Ink Tech. Printer Supplies