Intellectual Property

Overview

The attorneys of Morris James’ Intellectual Property Practice command respect as established and dominant leaders in Delaware in the arena of intellectual property strategy, management, enforcement, and defense. Our status has been earned as a result of decades of trials, representing Fortune 500 companies across the nation. Our attorneys are recognized for excellence in intellectual property law by organizations that include only attorneys of the highest caliber, including Chambers USA – America’s Leading Lawyers for Business, Best Lawyers®, Benchmark Litigation: The Definitive Guide to America’s Leading Firms and Attorneys, and Delaware Super Lawyers®.

We actively practice patent litigation in the United States District Court for the District of Delaware, and represent clients in a broad range of intellectual property disputes across numerous industries, including pharmaceuticals, telecommunications, automotive, biomedical, electronics, internet, and software development, among others. Our attorneys regularly act as counsel in national intellectual property litigation concerning patents, copyrights, trade secret, trademarks, and antitrust dispute cases.

Our attorneys are leaders in Delaware’s Courts, as well as professional and educational groups. We know the law, the Courts, the judges, and the mediators. The practice chair for the Intellectual Property Practice is Kenneth Dorsney. Mr. Dorsney has spoken at numerous seminars and law schools on patent law and litigation and is Editor-in-Chief and a Co-Author of ANDA Litigation: Strategies and Tactics for Pharmaceutical Patent Litigators and Pre-ANDA Litigation: Strategies and Tactics for Developing a Drug Product and Patent Portfolio.

Electronic Discovery

Unique to Morris James is our background in electronically stored information. eDiscovery is an evolving field that goes beyond technology into multiple legal, security, and privacy issues. Morris James' attorneys have taken a leadership role in this area and have developed a system employed firm-wide for a seamless and efficient eDiscovery system. We have participated in the drafting of the Delaware District Court Default Standards, as well as eDiscovery rules and guidelines in the other Delaware Courts.

Efficiencies of Technology

Morris James embraces technology as readily as our clients, and we continually refine our technology in order to improve our service to clients.

Working at the forefront of Delaware’s legal community, we are early adopters of a virtually paperless workflow, litigation management tools and technologically-enhanced courtroom presentations. Our IP attorneys and staff provide clients with around-the-clock case support, including filing with the Court.

Using our internally-developed IP Litigation Database, our attorneys offer valuable information to assist in determining how and when a judge could be expected to rule on a particular issue. As a result, our attorneys are better able to assist in expediting matters and adding value to the litigation team.

Recent Matters

ADTRAN, Inc. v. TQ Delta, LLC:
Patent Infringement - DSL technology

Amgen Inc. v. Hetero USA Inc., et al.
Patent Infringement – ANDA

Apple Inc. v. High Tech Computer Corp.
Patent infringement – telecommunications

Asahi Glass Co. Ltd., et al. v. Guardian Industries Corp.
Patent infringement – display technologies

AstraZeneca AB v. Aurobindo Pharma Ltd., et al.
Patent Infringement - ANDA

Bayer Intellectual Property GMBH, et al. v. Aurobindo Pharma Ltd., et al.
ANDA

Blackbird Tech LLC v. Garmin Ltd., et al.
Patent Infringement –activity tracker technology

Bristol-Myers Squibb Co., et al. v. Bionpharma, Inc.
Patent Infringement – ANDA

Cubist Pharmaceuticals LLC v. Sagent Pharmaceuticals, Inc.
Patent Infringement – ANDA

Forest Laboratories, LLC, et al. v. Apotex Inc., et al.
Patent Infringement –ANDA

Fresenius Kabi USA, LLC, et al. v. Sagent Pharmaceuticals, Inc.
Patent Infringement – ANDA

Genuine Enabling Technology LLC v. Sony Corp., et al.
Patent Infringement –user import devices and video game console systems

Impax Laboratories, Inc. v. Aventis Pharmaceuticals, Inc.
Patent Infringement-ANDA

LG Electronics U.S.A., Inc. v. Whirlpool Corp
Patent infringement – refrigerator technology

Medicines Company v. Hospira, Inc.
Patent infringement – biomedical technologies

Memory Integrity, LLC v. ASUSTek Computer, Inc., et al.
Patent Infringement – computer system technologies

MobileMedia Ideas LLC v. Apple Inc.
Patent infringement – telecommunications

Neev v. Abbott Medical Optics Inc.
Patent infringement – biomedical technologies

Novartis Vaccines & Diagnostics Inc. v. MedImmune LLC, et al.
Patent infringement – biomedical technologies

Onyx Therapeutics, Inc. v. Sagent Pharmaceuticals, Inc.
Patent Infringement – ANDA

Pfizer Inc., et al. v. Micro Labs USA Inc., et al.
Patent Infringement – ANDA

Shionogi Pharma Inc. v. Mylan Pharmaceuticals Inc.
Patent infringement – ANDA

SRI International v. Symantec Corporation
Patent infringement – internet security

Starhome GmbH v. AT&T Mobility LLC, et al.
Patent infringement - telecommunications

TQ Delta, LLC v. ZyXel Communications, Inc., et al.
Patent Infringement – DSL technology

UCB, Inc., et al. v. Apotex, Corp. and Apotex, Inc.
Patent Infringement – ANDA

Wyeth LLC, et al. v. Apotex Inc., et al.
Patent Infringement – ANDA