Georgetown Rail Equipment Company v. Holland LP: Parsons Behle & Latimer won a jury verdict for Georgetown Rail Equipment Company (“Georgetown”) in a case against Georgetown’s direct competitor, Holland LP. A Texas federal jury found that Holland willfully infringed Georgetown’s patent for machine vision railroad track inspection technology and awarded lost profits damages to Georgetown. Parsons also helped Georgetown secure a preliminary injunction at the beginning of the lawsuit to stop Holland’s infringement.
University of Utah Research Foundation, et al. v. Ambry Genetics Corp.: Parsons Behle & Latimer represented the owners of patents relating to DNA enrichment, amplification, sequencing, and analysis in patent infringement litigation in the District of Utah. Parsons handled a multi-day preliminary injunction hearing and appeal therefrom to the Federal Circuit, which resulted in a landmark decision concerning patent eligible subject matter.
Exergen Corp. v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., et al.: Parsons Behle & Latimer obtained a major appellate victory for a manufacturer of non-contact infrared thermometers in its patent dispute with Exergen Corporation when the Federal Circuit reversed an adverse jury verdict. Despite the jury’s finding of willful infringement and its award of lost profits damages, the Federal Circuit held that each patent claim asserted against Parsons' client was invalid and/or not infringed.
In re BRCA1- and BRCA2- Based Hereditary Cancer Test Patent Litigation: Parsons Behle & Latimer represented patent owners in multi-district patent infringement litigation relating to breast and ovarian cancer genetic susceptibility testing. After helping the patent owners obtain favorable settlements with several defendants, Parsons represented the patent owners on appeal before the Federal Circuit.
AntiCancer, Inc. v. Leica Microsystems, Inc.: Parsons Behle & Latimer secured an early victory for defendant Leica Microsystems in a patent infringement lawsuit filed in the Southern District of California. The patented technology related to methods for whole body imaging of gene expression using an autofluorescent fluorophore and for following metastasis using green fluorescent protein markers in tumor cells to evaluate candidate protocols or drugs. Parsons obtained summary judgment of non-infringement and recovered Leica’s costs.
Celsis In Vitro, Inc. v. CellzDirect, Inc., et al.: Parsons Behle & Latimer represented the defendants in a patent infringement action filed in the Northern District of Illinois pertaining to methods of preparation and use of multi-cryopreserved hepatocyte (liver) cells. Parsons successfully defended defendants’ design-around process against plaintiff’s motion for preliminary injunction after a three-day evidentiary hearing, and successfully defended that judgment on interlocutory appeal to the Federal Circuit. Parsons subsequently obtained summary judgment rulings of non-infringement, non-willfulness, and limiting recoverable damages. Case favorably settled after summary judgment ruling of patent invalidity based on patent ineligible subject matter was overturned by the Federal Circuit.
Promega Corp. v. Life Technologies Corp.: Parsons Behle & Latimer represented a biotechnology defendant in a patent infringement, breach of contract and tort action relating to patent license agreements for genetic identification technology. After an adverse jury verdict, Parsons obtained judgment as a matter of law vacating the verdict and entry of judgment in favor of its client.
Telinit Technologies, LLC v. Jive Communications, Inc.: Parsons Behle & Latimer secured an early victory for a telecommunications company defendant in a patent infringement case filed in the Eastern District of Texas. The Court granted the company’s motion for judgment on the pleadings and dismissed the lawsuit, holding that plaintiff’s patent was invalid for claiming non-patentable subject matter.
