Representative Experience

• In 2023, represented plaintiff steel building manufacturer as lead counsel in six-day copyright infringement trial in West Texas. Jury awarded client over US$2.1m in defendant’s indirect profits. Defendant paid the judgment amount and stipulated to a court-ordered permanent injunction.
• In 2022, two weeks after serving defendant client’s final invalidity contentions, plaintiff dismissed all patent infringement claims with prejudice and dismissed client’s counterclaims without prejudice in District of Delaware.
• In 2021, represented defendant insurance company in Lanham Act trademark infringement action. Obtained transfer of action from the Western District of Texas to the Eastern District of Wisconsin. Attended early mediation and secured dismissal of action at the pleading stage.
• In 2020, represented major financial institution in patent infringement action involving mobile check deposit technology in the Western District of Texas. Obtained dismissal of action at the pleading stage.
• In 2020, co-represented defendant in trade secret misappropriation action in the Western District of Wisconsin. After district court granted client’s motion for summary judgment, barring plaintiff from pursing a claim for actual damages at trial, plaintiff dismissed its remaining claims and agreed not to appeal the summary judgment decision.
• In 2019, represented defendant manufacturing company in patent infringement action involving appliance automation in the Southern District of Ohio. Obtained favorable settlement.
• In 2017 and 2018, represented defendant manufacturing company in eight patent, 71 claim infringement action brought by a Fortune 100 company in the Western District of Wisconsin. Obtained reduction in number of asserted claims to 16. Filed motion for summary judgment as to non-infringement on all eight asserted patents. Case settled on favorable terms during summary judgment briefing.
• In 2018, represented petitioner in two inter partes review (IPR) proceedings involving insect detection devices and methods. Argued both cases at trial. PTAB invalidated all challenged claims in device patent. Obtained favorable settlement of district court action based on outcome in IPRs.
• Represented defendant as lead counsel in patent infringement action brought by competitor in the District of Minnesota, involving patents directed at methods for assessing the cleanliness of rooms. Case settled on the eve of trial.
• Lead counsel for major financial institution in patent infringement multidistrict litigation, In re Maxim Integrated Products, Inc., MDL No. 2345 (W.D. Pa.), involving four patents directed at mobile banking methods and applications. Co-argued at Markman claim construction hearing on behalf of 25 defendant joint defense group. Obtained favorable post-mediation settlement.
• Represented defendant in copyright infringement action brought by photographer Argued appeal and obtained affirmance of summary judgment decision in client’s favor. Kienitz v. Sconnie Nation LLC, 766 F.3d 756 (7th Cir. 2014).
• Obtained global victory for apparel manufacturer and national retailers as lead counsel in nine consumer class action lawsuits, which challenged defendants’ advertising under California, Florida, Illinois, Indiana, Maryland, Michigan, Minnesota and Wisconsin law. Buetow v. A.L.S. Enters., Inc., 650 F.3d 1178 (8th Cir. 2011)<em>; Buetow, 2012 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 116041 (D. Minn. Aug. 17, 2012).
• Represented plaintiff healthcare system in patent litigation brought by client’s patent licensee against a competitor in the Western District of Wisconsin. Case resulted in favorable jury verdict.
• Represented audio/video technology company as lead counsel in patent infringement lawsuit in the Western District of Wisconsin. Obtained favorable settlement.
• Represented major appliance manufacturer as lead counsel in patent litigation involving patent directed at internet advertising methods. At the summary judgment stage, the action settled on favorable terms.
• Represented major financial institution as lead counsel in multidefendant patent infringement action involving patents directed to online methods for applying for credit cards. Case settled on favorable terms.
• Represented plaintiff licensee in a patent license dispute with patent inventor and patent licensee, who alleged that plaintiff’s license was terminated. On cross-motions for summary judgment, the district court ruled that plaintiff had underpaid royalties and was in breach of the license, but that defendants waived the right to terminate the license. After defendants appealed, plaintiff cross-appealed. The Seventh Circuit agreed with plaintiff and reversed the district court’s ruling on the contract interpretation issue, and remanded for further fact-finding to determine whether the termination of the license was wrongful. See EraGen Biosciences Inc. v. Nucleic Acids Licensing LLC, 540 F.3d 694 (7th Cir. 2008). On remand, the case settled, and plaintiff remained licensed under the patents.
• Represented defendant apparel manufacturer in patent license dispute brought by its patent licensee. The licensee failed to make a royalty payment due defendant, and then filed an action in the Western District of Michigan seeking a declaratory judgment that defendant’s patents were invalid. Briefed and argued defendant’s motion for a preliminary injunction to enforce the license and to enjoin the former licensee from selling licensed products. The district court granted defendant’s motion and preliminarily enjoined the former licensee from manufacturing, selling or using the licensed products. Negotiated a favorable resolution of the action, under which the licensee paid all outstanding royalties, paid all of defendant’s attorney’s fees and stipulated to the validity and enforceability of defendant’s patents, as well as a permanent injunction.
• Represented plaintiff in this patent infringement action involving paper trimmer technology. After the jury returned a verdict in plaintiff’s favor, defendant sought to vacate the damages award, arguing that plaintiff was not entitled to lost profits damages because post-judgment sales data established that defendant’s new product was a non-infringing alternative. The district court denied the motion and defendant appealed. Argued appeal and obtained affirmance.