Patent Litigation

Neal Gerber Eisenberg’s Patent Litigation group provides clients with trial-tested litigation teams tailored to meet the needs of any patent case. We represent a variety of clients, from Fortune 500 corporations to high-tech start-ups, spanning a broad range of industries. We have achieved outstanding results in the federal trial courts across the country, the Federal Circuit Court of Appeals, the International Trade Commission, and the newly emerging USPTO Patent Trial and Appeal Board. 

Our Patent Litigation group draws strength from its position within Neal Gerber Eisenberg’s full-service, nationally recognized Intellectual Property practice. Our patent litigation teams are supported by the technical expertise of 25 registered patent attorneys and a patent agent, all with technical degrees in biology, chemistry, chemical engineering, mechanical engineering, electrical engineering, and computer science, including several advanced degrees in the critical electrical engineering and life sciences disciplines. Our patent litigation teams are also augmented by 50 additional litigators throughout the firm who have vast experience trying a wide array of cases before both judges and juries.

Our patent litigators know that for our clients, patent litigation is as much a business issue as a legal issue. With our clients’ business objectives at the forefront, we carefully adjust our staffing, budgeting, and litigation strategy to meet the circumstances of each case. We also know that patent litigation can be protracted and expensive, so we work aggressively to maximize leverage and advantage as early as possible in every case. Whether that leads to a victory at trial or a favorable settlement, we always put our clients in the best possible position to succeed in a cost-effective manner.  

For these reasons, we have received significant national recognition. In addition to ranking us nationally, the U.S. News-Best Lawyers’ “Best Law Firms” survey ranks Neal Gerber Eisenberg as a “first-tier” Chicago law firm for IP law. Chambers USA also recognizes the firm’s IP practice and its co-chair as among the best IP counsel in Illinois.

CTE Global, Inc. v. Novozymes A/S et al (N.D. Ill.) 
We secured a significant victory for our client in an alleged patent infringement case related to glucoamylase enzyme products. 

Sedecal USA, Inc. v. Blue Ridge X-Ray Co., Inc. (W.D.N.C.) 
Secured a jury verdict enforcing the patent rights of the plaintiff, Sedecal, a worldwide leader in the design and manufacturing of high frequency X-Ray generators and X-Ray systems, in a case relating to high voltage X-Ray equipment. 

EOS GmbH - Electro Optical Systems v. Phenix Systems, and Additive Manufacturing Technologies, Inc. (N.D. Ill.) 
We defended our clients and received a favorable settlement in an alleged patent infringement case relating to laser sintering equipment. 

Lifefactory, Inc. v. Leapfrog Product Development (N.D. Cal.) 
We received a favorable settlement in an alleged patent infringement case relating to silicone coated containers. 

Tri-Star Electronics, LLC v. Preci-Dip SA (C.D. Cal.) 
We won a decisive claim construction ruling leading to a stipulation of non-infringement in favor of our client in a case involving military-grade electrical components. 

PPS Data, LLC v. The SSI Group, Inc. (D.Utah) 
We forced a favorable settlement for our client on the eve of the Markman hearing in a case involving health care billing software. 

In re Certain Products Containing Sintered Rare Earth Magnets,(337-TA-855) 
Three days before trial, we forced the complainant, Hitachi, to withdraw all infringement allegations against our client, Beats Electronics, in an investigation involving sintered rare earth magnets. 

In re Products Having Laminated Packaging, Laminated Packaging, and Components Thereof, (337-TA-874) 
We obtained a final determination of no domestic industry in favor of our client, Beats Electronics, in an investigation involving laminated packaging composites. 

Fontaine Engineered Products v. Raildecks, Inc. 
We successfully defended two client patents involving collapsible containers against Inter Partes Review petitions. 

Search America, Inc v. TransUnion Intelligence LLC 
We are representing TransUnion Intelligence in two Covered Business Method Review proceedings concerning patents for health care financing software. 

Mirada Controls, Inc. v. Amcast Industrial Corporation (U.S. Dist. Court, Minn.) 
Successfully defended a manufacturer of industrial gas valves in patent ownership and infringement dispute. 

TransAuction LLC v., Inc.; eBay, Inc.;, Inc.; Holdings, Inc. and, LLC (U.S. Dist. Court, E.D. Texas) 
Represented in defending against “patent troll” lawsuit and obtaining favorable settlement and license agreement. 

Fort James Corp v. Solo Cup Company, (E.D. Wi.) 
Served as Trial Counsel for the patent infringement defendant, Solo Cup Company. The trial resulted in a jury verdict of non-infringement in Solo Cup’s favor, thus denying the alleged liability in the excess of $100 million.