Patent litigation on behalf of operating companies, and related matters (such as antitrust litigation, corporate IP counseling, and post-grant proceedings) are what we do. Our firm’s origins lie in Dr. Upshaw’s experiences as in-house counsel with a docket dominated by patent litigation of every size and description. And patent litigation on behalf of operating entities remains our focus to this day.

Our lawyers have experience, as in-house and outside counsel, handling all aspects of patent litigation in a variety of forums worldwide and in the U.S. (including the Federal Circuit, the International Trade Commission, and numerous District Courts).

Because two of the key concerns clients have in patent litigation are unpredictability of outcomes and the related phenomenon of high litigation costs, we place particular emphasis on combating them by focusing on realistic early-case assessment, directing resources to high-value objectives, and ruthlessly streamlining litigation processes.

Our steady focus on narrow, closely-interrelated areas of law allows us to use tried-and-true processes and templates case after case, implemented by engineers and paralegals in response to attorney instructions, to control quality, manage costs, and promote cross-case consistency; while directing attorney time and research to the distinctive aspects of each case that require their closest attention.

To learn more about how we improve quality while cutting costs, please contact us.

Antitrust litigation is one of the most complex areas of American law. Exacting legal standards and advanced economic and statistical methods are required to define markets, measure market power, and evaluate anti-competitive effects. Difficult issues are often further complicated by considerations of jurisdiction over global markets, conflicts of law, class certification, intellectual property rights, standard-setting organizations, and interaction with administrative enforcement agencies.

Our team is well-positioned to plan, manage, and execute antitrust litigation on behalf of clients as a result of the combination of areas of expertise our lawyers bring to bear. Dr. Upshaw is a former professor and recognized economics expert who has both studied and taught statistics and industrial organization. He has advised clients on cross-national deals and disputes with private parties and administrative enforcement agencies. Our attorneys have a great depth of experience handling complex commercial cases, class action matters, conflicts of substantive and procedural laws, standards-setting processes, and all aspects of intellectual property disputes and enforcement. And no firm is better-equipped to anticipate and manage the potential impact of antitrust litigation on its clients than one comprised of attorneys and former in-house counsel who are experienced in business themselves.

Please contact us if you believe you may have been financially affected by an antitrust conspiracy, monopolist, or other unfair trade practice.

For many companies today, from Internet start-ups to large multinationals, intellectual property (“IP”) is a critical business asset. IP is unique, having the characteristics of both a tangible property asset, and of an intangible legal right realized through enforcement. Consequently, a company’s IP is an integral part of its operating business, and an integral part of its legal strategy.

Corporate IP counseling is thus an inseparable part of our deep experience with patent litigation; and the interplay between operations, IP, and litigation are a fundamental component of our attorneys’ experiences in-house and as entrepreneurs. We recognize, as a matter of course, business realities that attorneys who only know private practice as litigators or corporate counsel may not even be aware of. We understand that litigation, licensing, patenting, and settlement decisions affect not only particular IP rights at issue, but have business ramifications for operating profit margins, freedom to operate, the company’s comparative advantages, return on investment in R&D and other sectors of the company, the company’s ability to attract capital and collateralize loans, and public companies’ reporting requirements.

Contact us to learn more about our focus on providing comprehensive IP counseling to operating companies of every size with an eye to enforcement and development strategies to maximize the total value of tangible and intangible assets and revenue.

The America Invents Act (“AIA”) introduced several new post-grant procedures and made changes to existing procedures at the US. Patent and Trademark Office which add several new weapons to the arsenal of potential patent defendants. In particular, they offer cost-competitive routes to raise technically-complex validity challenges without the complications of effectively communicating such arguments to laypersons, or the presumption of validity that are present in district court litigation. Whether post-grant review makes sense is a fact-specific analysis depending on many factors including the patent in issue, how it is being read, the accused products, and the forum in which any district court litigation is pending.

Our firm routinely evaluates the suitability of litigated patents for post-grant review as a part of assessing and handling district court cases, and advises clients regarding the advantages and disadvantages of post-grant procedures with respect to particular patents. Our team members have been especially successful drafting Inter Partes Review petitions in such cases. For example, one patentee offered to drop the asserted patent against the firm’s client, with prejudice, soon after seeing the IPR filed by the firm.

Contact us to learn more about these proceedings, and how we have been able to use them to our clients’ advantage.