Our litigators have successfully asserted and defended patent cases in federal courts throughout the country, including jurisdictions with heavy patent dockets (e.g., California, Delaware, Massachusetts, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, Texas, and Virginia), the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, and before the International Trade Commission. Foremost, we are trial lawyers, and our diverse IP litigation practice enables us to excel across a wide range of technologies. Our approach is to pair lawyers who have strong technical backgrounds in the relevant technology with experienced trial lawyers, thereby giving our clients the best of both worlds: a litigation and trial team which can construct the strongest possible technical arguments in support of our position and can also explain our case to a judge and jury in language which is simple and persuasive.
From individual inventors to Fortune 500 companies, our lawyers have represented a wide range of clients in patent matters and have successfully litigated against some of the largest law firms in the U.S. The firm’s patent practice has been recognized in the Chambers USA guide, and the firm has been ranked as a recommended firm for patent litigation by Managing Intellectual Property magazine’s IP Stars guide. Patent Litigation group members have also been recognized individually by Chambers, as IP stars by Managing Intellectual Property, and as part of IAM’s Patent 1000 list.
Our patent attorneys are also skillful and experienced negotiators, able to assist our clients in maximizing the value of an IP asset sale. We draft infringement and validity opinions, conduct detailed intellectual property due diligence and freedom-to-operate analyses, and counsel clients on monetizing strategies for patent portfolios.
Represent an institutional patent holder in multiple litigations against large telecommunications companies concerning VoIP and various landline connectivity services.
Represented an Israeli technology and software company in patent infringement litigation against a major computer device and platform designer and manufacturer over client’s live streaming technology.
Defended multiple wireless providers and media streaming software developers in patent infringement litigation concerning music delivery to mobile devices.Read More
Represented a large computer chip manufacturer in a multi-defendant patent litigation regarding the design of computer chips relating to wireless communication involving Temporal Key Integrity Protocol (TKIP).
Represented an international manufacturer of commercial ink jet printers against patent infringement claims regarding direct-to-garment printing.
Defended Israeli company against patent litigation brought by a non-practicing entity involving wireless security systems technology.Read More
Represent fire suppression manufacturer against leading aircraft manufacturers and a major industrial supply manufacturer in a patent infringement action concerning the use of nitrogen to prevent and extinguish fires on board large commercial airplanes.
Obtained summary judgment of non-infringement on behalf of international manufacturer in patent litigation concerning a gear system for use in industrial equipment.Read More
Defended gaming machine manufacturer against three software patents concerning multiplayer gaming and technology. Obtained multiple jury verdicts of invalidity despite the patents having been confirmed multiple times in reexamination before the Patent Office.
Defended a major Korean computer company in patent infringement action by international Fortune 500 consumer electronics company involving computer video graphics technology.
Represent an institutional patent holder in multiple litigations against large gaming companies and platforms concerning distributed multi-player tournament game technology.Read More
Defended major clothing retailer in a patent dispute concerning debit and gift card transaction technology.
Defended big three automobile manufacturer against a patent licensing entity in a case involving online sales methods.
Defended an automobile parts retailer against a patent licensing entity in patent dispute concerning online electronic catalogs.
Design Patents & Consumer Products
Represented patentee in series of patent litigations against major shoe manufacturers concerning the use of a polymer for improved comfort and stability in shoes.
Represent Israeli manufacturer of natural quartz surfaces in patent and copyright strategy in connection with a dispute raised by a competitor company.
Represented an international consumer products company in successfully asserting its patent against an infringing company, resulting in the infringing company agreeing to cease production of the product.
Represented medical device company in patent jury trial concerning cardiac stents resulting in an $8.3 million jury verdict.
Represented major medical device manufacturer in multiple licensing disputes and patent litigations against competitors relating to coronary stent technology. Resulted in several of the largest verdicts and settlements in history.
Represented medical device manufacturer in litigation concerning cancer radiation therapy.
Represented plaintiff medical device company in litigation concerning imaging systems for cardiac surgery.Read More
Chambers has recognized Cohen & Gresser in its 2020 USA guide for its achievements in General Commercial Litigation and White Collar Crime & Government Investigations. Chambers commentary highlights the firm's "thoroughness, quality, responsiveness, client care and availability,” noting that "the level of service is stellar, the work product is uniformly superb,” and that C&G is "a great firm with high quality across the board."
Chambers also recognized the following individuals: Jonathan S Abernethy for White Collar Crime & Government Investigations; Karen H Bromberg for Intellectual Property: Patent; Mark S Cohen for Securities Litigation and White Collar Crime & Government Investigations; and Lawrence T Gresser for Commercial Litigation.
Managing Intellectual Property has named Karen H Bromberg as a Patent Star and as a Trademark Star in its 2019 IP Stars rankings. IP Stars are private practice IP professionals who have been highly recommended by their peers and clients.
Chambers has again recognized C&G for its excellence in General Commercial Litigation, Securities Litigation, and White Collar Crime & Government Investigations. Chambers notes C&G’s “strong commitment to client service” and “top-quality advice,” labeling the firm as “outstanding.”
Chambers also recognized the following individuals: Jonathan S Abernethy for White Collar Crime & Government Investigations; Karen H Bromberg for Intellectual Property: Patent; and Mark S Cohen for General Commercial Litigation, Securities Litigation, and White Collar Crime & Government Investigations.
Managing Intellectual Property has named Karen H Bromberg as a Patent Star and as a Trademark Star in its 2018 IP Stars rankings. IP Stars are private practice IP professionals who have been highly recommended by their peers and clients.
Chambers has recognized Cohen & Gresser in its 2018 USA guide. The firm is recognized for its excellence in General Commercial Litigation, Securities Litigation, and White-Collar Crime & Government Investigations.
Chambers notes that C&G is "a very high-quality firm" with "very smart, very capable people who are very dedicated to their clients," and that C&G attorneys "have great judgment and are excellent lawyers."
Chambers also recognized the following individuals:
Jonathan S Abernethy for White-Collar Crime & Government Investigations, Karen H Bromberg for Intellectual Property: Patent, and Mark S Cohen for Securities Litigation and for White-Collar Crime & Government Investigations.
Managing Intellectual Property has named Karen H Bromberg, Damir Cefo, and Gurpreet (Ray) Walia as Patent Stars in its 2017 IP Stars ranking. Karen was also selected as a 2017 Trademark Star. IP Stars are private practice intellectual professionals who have been highly recommended by their peers and clients.
Amazon is looking into moving to patent technology that would allow shoppers to use live selfies to complete purchases. Privacy attorneys, including C&G's Karen Bromberg, weigh in on this issue in a recent Law360 article.
Each year, Managing Intellectual Property magazine ranks top IP firms and lawyers in its annual IP Stars ranking guide. For the second year in a row, the guide ranked Cohen & Gresser as being recommended in the Patent Contentious category, and Karen Bromberg, partner and chair of the firm’s Intellectual Property and Technology group, was named an IP Star for Counselling, Licensing, and Patent Litigation. Additionally, Dr. Gurpreet (Ray) Walia has been recognized as an IP Star in Patent Litigation, Patent Opinion, and Patent Strategy and Counseling category.
On Monday, the U.S. Supreme Court issued a ruling in Kimble v. Marvel Enterprises that leaves intact a 50-year-old rule barring royalty agreements that continue after a patent expires. C&G's Damir Cefo and other attorneys weigh in on why the decision is significant.
Cohen & Gresser has been ranked as a "Recommended" New York law firm in the 2015 edition of Benchmark Litigation. In addition to the firm’s ranking, partners Mark S Cohen, Lawrence T Gresser, C Evan Stewart, and Karen H Bromberg were all individually recognized by the publication. Benchmark Litigation is a leading guide to top litigation firms and attorneys in the United States and bases its rankings on extensive face-to-face interviews around the country over a six-month period with the nation's leading private practice attorneys and in-house counsel.
Each year, Managing Intellectual Property magazine ranks top IP firms and lawyers in its annual IP Stars ranking guide. This year, the guide ranked Cohen & Gresser as being recommended in the Patent Contentious category, and Karen Bromberg, partner and chair of the firm’s Intellectual Property and Technology group, was named an IP Star for 2014.
The U.S. Supreme Court recently ruled that users of generic drugs cannot bring state-law design defect claims against generics makers because the manufacturers cannot change a drug's design under federal law. Walia notes, "The decision reaffirms the fundamental principle of the Hatch-Waxman Act: Generic manufacturers must follow FDA requirements for pharmaceutical compositions and labels. A manufacturer of generic drugs cannot change a generic drug's design or labeling under federal law, and therefore should not be penalized for following federal law."
Originally appeared in the Intellectual Property ALM Special Supplement
The past few months have shed some light on the Patent Trial and Appeal Board’s approach to estoppel in post-grant proceedings, which applies to final written decisions on a claim-by-claim basis. Moreover, estoppel applies not only when a petitioner, or a real party in interest or privy of the petitioner, raised the arguments in a prior IPR or PGR proceeding, but also when he/she “reasonably could have raised” them.
In this article, Dr. Walia suggests that the Federal Circuit appears to be leaning toword a more flexible approach in terms of pharmaceutical patens, as evidenced in recent decisions.
Obviousness type double patenting (ODP), or non-statutory double patenting, is a judicially created doctrine meant to prevent a party from extending an earlier commonly owned patent’s term by claiming patentably indistinct subject matter through claims in a later patent. An ODP rejection of the second patent application with indistinct patentable claims can be overcome by filing a terminal disclaimer as long as both patents are commonly owned or a joint research agreement exists for both patents.
Inter Partes Review (IPR) is conducted at the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) to review the patentability of claims only on the basis of anticipation and obviousness based only on patents or printed publications. So far, more than 70 percent of petitions have resulted in instituting of an IPR. This article discusses best practices for petitioning for an IPR and how it can be a very attractive route for potentially invalidating patent claims for generics which do not have the 180-day market exclusivity incentive
In Actavis, the Supreme Court declined to hold these agreements presumptively anticompetitive as advocated by the FTC or apply the scope-of-the-patent test, but held that such agreements should be reviewed by the rule-of-reason antitrust standard. This article discusses the implications of this decision.
In Hatch-Waxman litigation, the filing of an ANDA seeking approval to market a pharmaceutical product before the expiration of patents covering that product is a technical act of infringement sufficient to establish jurisdiction to resolve the issues of patent infringement and validity in litigation. This article examines the litigation that follows the ANDA filing by considering whether the product that is likely to be sold would infringe the patent.
In affirming the district court’s award of attorneys’ fees, the Federal Circuit agreed with the district court that the patent holder’s failure to “produce admissible evidence of infringement” rendered the case exceptional, historically a very high bar for prevailing defendants to meet. However, in reaching this decision, the Federal Circuit relied upon two recent U.S. Supreme Court decisions, Octane Fitness, LLC v. ICON Health & Fitness, Inc. and Highmark, Inc. v. Allcare Health Mgmt. Sys., Inc., both of which significantly relaxed the standard for what is deemed an “exceptional case” under § 285.
The article provides an analysis of recent remarks by Assistant Attorney General Stuart Delery, in which the AAG described the government’s approach to enforcement actions targeting off-label promotion of drugs and devices. Considering the AAG’s remarks along with recent FDA draft guidance on the distribution of scientific literature, the article focuses on the effect that First Amendment concerns, intensified by recent case law developments, may have had on the way in which the government investigates cases, evaluates evidence, and develops and presents its theories of liability in off-label cases.
A patent on cloning human stem cells was issued recently by the U.S. Patent Office to a disgraced scientist who had admitted to fabricating his results. Despite appearances, however, the issuance of this patent is not a glaring mistake on the part of the USPTO, nor is it certain that the patent was obtained by fraud or should be held invalid. As long as the inventor was scrupulously honest in his dealings with the USPTO, he may be entitled to the monopoly rights granted to him.
In March of 2016, C&G's Damir Cefo spoke at the annual AIPPI Conference in Tel Aviv about building a powerful U.S. portfolio.
- What factors of patent eligibility does the Alice ruling not address
- Applying Alice from the perspective of the patent defendant