Holmes J.
Hawkins III

Ideal Innovations, Inc. et al. v. U.S. et al. — U.S. Court of Federal Claims. Successfully represented General Dynamics Land Systems in an action involving claims of patent infringement and trade secret misappropriation relating to MRAP armored vehicles that were widely deployed during the height of the Iraq War to protect troops from the expanding use of explosively formed projectile (EFPs) road side bombs. Obtained early dismissal of the trade secret claims and one patent claim as being time-barred. The Court later granted Defendants' motion for summary judgment on the remaining two patent infringement claims, finding that the United States had a license to the asserted patents.

MacDermid Enthone, Inc. v. BASF Corporation — U.S. District Court for the Northern District of New York/Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB)/U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (CAFC). Successfully defended BASF in a patent infringement action relating to methods for electrolytic plating of copper onto semiconductor substrates during the manufacturing process. Filed two petitions for Inter Partes Review (IPRs) in the PTAB, asserting that both of the asserted patents were invalid in view of the prior art. The PTAB initially found one of the patents invalid but held the claims of the other patent were not unpatentable. BASF appealed the decision on the second patent to the CAFC, which vacated and remanded the PTAB's decision on the grounds that it failed to provide an adequate evidentiary basis for its findings and thereby rendering its motivation to combine analysis insufficient. The Federal Circuit also found that the PTAB acted arbitrarily and capriciously by failing to provide a reasoned explanation for reaching an inconsistent finding regarding a key prior art reference among the two IPR petitions. On remand, the PTAB reanalyzed the prior art using the correct legal standards and this time found the claims of the second patent were also unpatentable. Enthone appealed that decision to the CAFC, which affirmed the PTAB decision. The end result was that both patents asserted against BASF were held invalid.

Romala Stone v. The Home Depot U.S.A., Inc. — U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Georgia. Successfully defended Home Depot in an action involving claims of patent infringement, breach of contract, unfair competition, deceptive trade practices and violations of the Georgia Trade Secret Act. Obtained early dismissal of unfair competition, deceptive trade practices and trade secret claims. Subsequently won summary judgment invalidating the patent-in-suit based on indefiniteness and that the plaintiff was entitled to no damages on its breach of contract claim. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit affirmed the District Court in all respects.

TradeCard, Inc. v. Bank of America, N.A. and S1 Corp. — U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York. Successfully defended S1 Corp., a leading provider of software for the financial services industry, in a jury trial relating to a patent on an automated system for processing international letters of credit transactions. The jury concluded both that the client’s software did not infringe the patent-in-suit and that the patent was invalid based on the prior art.

SRI Int’l v. Internet Security Systems et al. — U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware. Successfully defended Internet Security Systems (ISS) in a patent infringement action involving multiple patents related to computer network intrusion detection and preventions systems. Won summary judgment invalidating one of the patents-in-suit, which was later affirmed by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit. After a subsequent jury trial, won judgment as a matter of law that ISS did not infringe any of the remaining patents-in-suit. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit affirmed the final non-infringement judgment in favor of ISS.

Belden Technologies, Inc. et al. v. Superior Essex, Inc. et al. — U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware. Represented Superior Essex against patent infringement claims relating to high-speed telecommunications cables. Obtained summary judgment rulings that certain asserted patents were either not-infringed or invalid, and also that pre-suit damages were excluded for lack of patent marking. In a subsequent jury trial, the jury found that three additional asserted patents were invalid. One additional patent was found invalid after post-trial motions. Also represented Superior Essex in parallel reexamination proceedings before the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office.