Patent Litigation

Federal Circuit affirms judgment that CleanTech’s patents are unenforceable due to inequitable conduct.

March 2, 2020

GS CleanTech Corp. v. Adkins Energy LLC, No. 16-2231 (Fed. Cir. 2020)

Woodard Emhardt attorney, Spiro Bereveskos, was on the trial team and cross examined the Cantor Colburn, LLP attorney who admitted “it sent a chill up his spine” to learn the inventors had sent the offer letter more than a year before the filing of the patent application. The original suit alleged that the defendants infringed plaintiff’s family of patents relating to ethanol production processes. The ensuing litigation culminated in the Court finding that the patents were invalid and not infringed by any defendant. Those findings were further bolstered at a trial in which the Court then found the patents unenforceable due to inequitable conduct by the attorneys. Woodard Emhardt attorney Spiro Bereveskos, Dan Lueders, and Lisa Hiday represent Defendant Iroquois Bio-Energy Company, LLC.


Bill McKenna quoted in The Information, “Amazon Tests Program to Combat Patent Infringement”

April 25, 2019

Bill McKenna quoted in The Information, “Amazon Tests Program to Combat Patent Infringement.”

Amazon is testing a new program that allows merchants on its marketplace who are victimized by cheap, patent-violating knockoffs to get them removed in a few months for just a few thousand dollars or less—much faster and cheaper than a typical legal process.

“When you’re looking at counterfeits, it’s easy to tell that a Louis Vuitton purse is covered by a Louis Vuitton trademark,” said William McKenna, an intellectual property lawyer at the firm Woodard, Emhardt, Henry, Reeves & Wagner in Indianapolis. “When you’re talking about patent infringement, it’s not so simple.”

Mr. McKenna said Amazon’s new utility patent program means sellers with the patents don’t have to file lawsuits against many individual companies or wait as long as a year for an order to handle them all together, which he described as subjecting sellers to “death by a thousand cuts.”

Click here to read the full article.


Woodard Emhardt Obtains Order Finding Exceptional Case and Awarding Fees in Litigation of Patent for Processing Ethanol Byproducts

December 18, 2018

In a multi-district case involving 26 defendants, Judge Miller of the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Indiana, granted the defendants’ motion for an order declaring the case exceptional and awarded attorneys’ fees. The original suit alleged that the defendants infringed plaintiff’s family of patents relating to ethanol production processes. The ensuing litigation culminated in the Court finding that the patents were invalid and not infringed by any defendant. Those findings were further bolstered at a trial in which the Court then found the patents unenforceable due to inequitable conduct by the attorneys. In consideration of the Court’s previous holdings, Judge Miller reasoned that the defendants had shown that this case was exceptional and appropriate for fees. Woodard Emhardt attorneys Spiro Bereveskos , Dan Lueders, and Lisa Hiday represent Defendant Iroquois Bio-Energy Company, LLC.


Woodard Emhardt Obtains Order Transferring Patent Case out of the ED of Texas

September 28, 2012

Judge Leonard Davis of the Eastern District of Texas recently ordered that a patent infringement lawsuit filed against an Indianapolis based company be transferred to the Southern District of Indiana.  The lawsuit was filed following the effective date of the new joinder provisions of the America Invents Act which prevent Plaintiffs from filing large multi-defendant lawsuits.  The case involved a New York based Plaintiff and Judge Davis found that the Southern District of Indiana was clearly a more appropriate forum.  Woodard Emhardt attorneys Spiro Bereveskos and Bill McKenna are representing the Defendant.


Amazon.com Unable to Push Litigation Out of the Eastern District Of Texas

May 14, 2012

In a recent patent infringement case, Amazon.com asked to have the case transferred from the Eastern District to the Western District of Texas. That motion was denied by the Eastern District federal court judge. Amazon appealed to the Federal Circuit (because the case involved patents) effectively asking the Federal Circuit to force the district court judge to vacate the original order and transfer the case. However, the Federal Circuit denied Amazon’s request and upheld the Eastern District court’s refusal to transfer the case (In re Amazon.com., Misc. No. 115, nonprecedential).

 In denying Amazon’s motion to transfer, the Federal Circuit noted that Amazon.com was seeking “an extraordinary remedy, available to correct a clear abuse of discretion or usurpation of judicial power.” In short, the Federal Circuit found neither in this case. Amazon had argued that access to sources of proof favored transferring the case. However, the Federal Circuit found no clear abuse of discretion in the District Court’s finding that the relative ease of access to evidence in the case did not favor transfer. Even though the district court had relied on the fact that some of the defendants’ likely documentary evidence was outside, but closer to, the Eastern District of Texas, the Federal Circuit relied on the fact that no defendant was headquartered in the Western District of Texas, and that “transfer here would not result in trial of the case where the alleged infringing products were developed and where a significant amount of the defendants’ sources of proof are maintained.”

 Amazon also argued in favor of moving the case based on severance and judicial economy but both of these arguments were also unpersuasive. In conclusion, the Federal Circuit stated that Amazon failed to make “a compelling showing that the Western District is a clearly more convenient venue” and therefore the court could not say that “the District Court’s decision amounted to a clear abuse of discretion.”


Will the America Invents Act (AIA) Change Patent Litigation in the Eastern District of Texas?

December 15, 2011

This presentation examines whether the AIA will change patent litigation in the Eastern District of Texas. The presentation explores aspects of the AIA, including changes to joinder, Post Grant Review and Inter Partes Review and how each of these changes in the law may impact patent litigation, particular with regard to the Eastern District of Texas. To view the presentation, visit: AIA Change Patent in Eastern District of Texas from Woodard, Emhardt, Henry, Reeves & Wagner, LLP.