Skip to content
Amin, Turocy & WatsonIntellectual Property

Litigation

We try the cases we prosecute.

Our litigators appear in the venues where patent cases actually go — the District of Delaware, the Northern and Central Districts of California, the Eastern and Western Districts of Texas, the Northern District of Illinois, the Southern District of New York, the International Trade Commission, and the Federal Circuit.

  • District Court
  • ITC Section 337
  • Federal Circuit

A patent case is won or lost on whether the trial team genuinely understands the technology. Ours do, because most of them spent years drafting and prosecuting patents in the same fields before they ever took a deposition. That shows up in the places it matters — in claim construction, in expert preparation, and in cross-examination of the other side's technical witnesses, where a question that reveals the examiner actually understood the art is worth more than an hour of argument.

Our practice also reaches the disputes that travel alongside patent cases: trade secret misappropriation, Lanham Act and trademark claims, copyright, the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act, cybersquatting and domain disputes, unfair competition, and non-compete matters.

Section 337 at the ITC

An exclusion order is an existential remedy on a sixteen-month clock, and the Commission does not slow down for a respondent still learning its own product. Defending there means building the technical record and the domestic-industry challenge in parallel from the first week, and being ready to try the case long before a district court would have finished claim construction.

Claim construction as the real trial

Most patent cases are decided at Markman and everyone involved knows it. Constructions are won on the intrinsic record — the specification's own words and the prosecution history — which is why having prosecutors on the trial team is a practical advantage rather than a marketing line. They know what that record contains because they spend their working lives building records exactly like it.

Matters of public record

  • ITC Investigation No. 337-TA-841 — no violation found

    The firm defended the respondent in a Section 337 investigation brought by Technology Properties Limited, a licensing company seeking an order that would have excluded our client's professional-grade photographic printers from importation into the United States. Partners Vinay Joshi and Andrew Oliver led the team and tried the case in January 2013. Several co-respondents settled in the weeks before the initial determination. Our client did not, and the administrative law judge found no infringement of any of the three asserted patents. The investigation terminated with a finding of no violation of Section 337 on 9 January 2014.

    In re Certain Digital Photo Frames and Image Display Devices, Inv. No. 337-TA-841 (U.S. ITC)

Team

7 professionals in Litigation

Filter the directory

Insights

More from the firm

All insights

Have a question about Litigation?

Contact the firmFind an attorney