In National Graphics, Inc. v. Dynamic Drinkware, LLC, for which I was lead counsel representing National Graphics, we successfully defended an inter partes review of my client’s patent relating to molding lenticular lenses into plastic cups. The Board’s decision was appealed to the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, where we successfully defended the appeal, resulting in the published opinion Dynamic Drinkware, LLC v. Nat’l Graphics, Inc., 800 F.3d 1375 (Fed. Cir. 2015) upholding the Board’s decision. In the district court, we secured summary judgment as to patent infringement, as set forth in Nat’l Graphics, Inc. v. Brax Ltd, 151 F. Supp. 3d 903 (E.D. Wis. 2015), resulting in settlement of the case.
In Metalcraft of Mayville, Inc. v. Toro Company, I worked as co-lead counsel with Adam Brookman representing Metalcraft of Mayville (d/b/a/ Scag) to enforce its patent relating to a suspension system for a riding lawnmower. We secured a preliminary injunction from the district court, as set forth in Metalcraft of Mayville, Inc. v. Toro Co., 2016 WL 4076894, (E.D. Wis. Aug. 1, 2016). The decision was appealed to the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, where I presented oral argument and we successfully defended the appeal, reflected in Metalcraft of Mayville, Inc. v. The Toro Co., 848 F.3d 1358 (Fed. Cir. 2017). The case subsequently settled.
In Arctic Cat v. GEP Power Products, I served as lead counsel on behalf of our client, GEP Power Products, in defense of a claim of patent infringement relating to a power distribution module for all terrain vehicles. We filed a petition for inter partes review where we secured a final decision from the Patent Trial and Appeal Board finding all of the challenged claims unpatentable. The decision was appealed to the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, where I presented oral argument and we successfully defended the appeal, as reflected in Arctic Cat Inc. v. GEP Power Prod., Inc., 919 F.3d 1320 (Fed. Cir. 2019). The case was remanded to the Board, which upheld its prior decision finding the claims unpatentable.
