$44.1 Million Verdict
Quarles & Brady obtained a $44.1 million patent infringement jury verdict on behalf of its clients Ultratec, Inc. and CapTel, Inc. against Sorenson Communications, Inc. and CaptionCall, LLC. after a seven day trial. In addition, the Q&B team invalidated CaptionCall LLC's U.S. Patent No. 8,379,801, which was asserted against Ultratec and CapTel. The case involved life-changing captioned telephone technology patented by Ultratec and CapTel that permits the deaf and hard-of-hearing to more effectively communicate with others. "Ultratec Wins $44.1M In IP Suit Over Close-Captioned Phones," IP Law360, November 3, 2014
Closing the Door on Extreme Demands
One of Quarles & Brady’s clients was initially sued for $80 million because of alleged patent infringement—and on the face of the matter, the plaintiff thought it had a pretty good case. Quarles & Brady, however, had other ideas. First, the firm was able to show that the infringement claim was questionable, then the firm proceeded to “knock out” the plaintiff’s damage expert. Through those maneuvers and more, the requested damages went from $80 million to $40 million, then dropped to $20 million, then $15 million, then $12.5 million, and so on until the plaintiff's compensatory damages were at most $1 million, at which point the case promptly settled. Thus, the outcome represented a financial defeat for the plaintiff, as the legal fees it had incurred in pursuit of Quarles & Brady’s client far exceeded its maximum compensatory damages.
Beating the Spread
When a university client and its exclusive licensee discovered that their patented invention was being used to make numerous retail food products, Quarles & Brady undertook a successful enforcement and licensing program on their behalf against over a dozen companies. The patented invention dealt with healthy, balanced blends of fatty acids used in retail baked goods and margarines. Quarles & Brady developed a program of testing potentially infringing products, then either approaching infringers with a license offer or filing suit for patent infringement. The targets included several multi-national corporations and direct competitors of our clients. In the litigations, the Quarles & Brady team obtained a favorable claim construction order, leading to favorable resolutions for our clients.
Making Sure the Rules Are Properly Applied
Quarles & Brady successfully argued Rexnord v. Kappos, an important 2013 Federal Circuit decision that has gained national attention for clarifying the procedural rules for Patent Office appeals and for the application of the obviousness defense. “Federal Circuit Finds Patent Obvious,” IP Law360, January 23, 2013; “Federal Circuit: Appeals Board Should Consider Any Argument Supported by Record,” The National Law Journal, January 24, 2013; “Federal Circuit: Appeals Board Should Consider Any Argument Supported by Record,” The American Lawyer, January 25, 2013.
Protecting Client Trademarks on the Internet
When a nationally known non-profit organization discovered that third parties were using its trademarks in domain names for monetary gain, Quarles & Brady intellectual property litigators successfully represented the organization in numerous domain name matters. The organization was able to stop the misuse of its trademarks and prevailed in several Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (UDRP) proceedings before the World Intellectual Property Organization. These successful domain takedowns helped to maintain the trustworthy reputation of the organization and to prevent bad actors from profiting off our client's intellectual property rights.
Successful Stick Licensing of Patented Affinity Program
On behalf of one of the nation's leading dining rewards programs, we successfully enforced our client's patented rewards program against infringement by numerous competitors, in each case winning recognition of the patent.
Breaking the Mold
Quarles & Brady successfully defended an injection mold manufacturer, and its owners, in a lawsuit involving claims of patent infringement, violations of the RICO Act, violations of the CFAA, misappropriation of trade secrets, and various other intentional torts. Defendants won summary judgment on the patent, RICO, and CFAA claims. Defendants won at trial on the intentional tort claims and twelve asserted trade secret claims.
Keeping Secrets Safe
Quarles & Brady served as lead trial counsel for Metso Minerals in its trade secret theft, patent infringement, computer hacking, and Lanham Act case against FLSmidth-Excel. The case settled shortly before trial in June 2010 with a $25 million payment to Metso, the largest reported settlement or judgment in Wisconsin in 2010. “Patent Settlement Largest Reported Outcome,” Wisconsin Law Journal, January 18, 2011.
Freedom to Operate
We were lead counsel representing a drug development company sued by multiple entities in a patent dispute over the client’s most important drug discovery. After a weeklong arbitration, we obtained a judgment of no liability and invalidating all asserted patent claims. The client subsequently sold for $11 billion, based on the drug discovery.
Crushing Patent Claims
Quarles & Brady successfully defended Metso Minerals, which had been accused by a competitor, Astec Industries, of patent infringement. The Quarles team obtained a judgment that the Astec patent was invalid. “Astec Rock Crushers Patent Claims Invalid, Judge Rules,” IP Law360, December 6, 2012.
We were lead counsel representing a major international seller of wireless computer networking products that was sued in federal court by three corporate members of a patent pool, each of which claimed having patents essential to the IEEE 802.11 Standard. The plaintiffs accused hundreds of the client's products of infringement, seeking tens of millions in past damages alone. We obtained summary judgment of non-infringement on all asserted claims on behalf of client.
Defining the Law
Quarles & Brady successfully argued Valu Engineering, Inc. v. Rexnord Corporation, 278 F.3d 1268 (Fed. Cir.), an important Federal Circuit decision that clarified the functionality boundary between patent and trademark law.
Antitrust and IP Law
Occasionally, Quarles & Brady is called on to help with antitrust matters, especially as they pertain to intellectual properties and patents. Two significant examples of the firm's successes in these areas are American Medical Transport v. Curtis-Universal, Inc., 154 Wis. 2d 135, 1990-1 T.C. ¶ 68, 962 (Wis. 1990) and JPM, Inc. v. John Deere Indus. Equip. Co., 934 F.Supp. 1043, aff’d 94 F.3d 270 (7th Cir. 1996). These two cases created new law under the Wisconsin “Little Sherman Act” and Fair Dealership Law, respectively.
Quarles & Brady successfully enforced the patent rights of its client, Monroe Truck Equipment, Inc., against one of its primary regional competitors in the snow and ice equipment industry. In a complete victory in the Western District of Wisconsin, the Q&B team obtained favorable summary judgment rulings on both validity and infringement of Monroe's patent on its innovative wing plow support posts, which offer a host of benefits to Monroe's municipal customers, including increasing the safety of their plow operators. Before proceeding to a jury trial on the amount of damages owed by the infringer, the parties reached a confidential settlement agreement. Click here to read more.