Tensegrity's appellate success is a reflection of its attorneys' unparalleled knowledge and experience in patent law. We are frequently called upon to undertake appeals on matters that had been handled at the trial court by other law firms.

SELECTED APPELLATE MATTERS OF TENSEGRITY AND OUR ATTORNEYS

  • Wi-LAN USA, Inc. v. Ericsson Inc., Appeal Nos. 2015-1766, -1794 (Federal Circuit) (successful appeal of summary judgment findings, resolved 2017) see notable successes
  • Arista Networks, Inc. v. Cisco Systems, Inc., IPR2016-00309, IPR2016-00309 (Patent Trial and Appeals Board, June 2017) (successful IPR challenges, 2017) see notable successes
  • Wi-LAN USA, Inc. v. Ericsson Inc., Appeal Nos. 2013-1485 & 2013-1566 (Federal Circuit) (successful appeal of trial court's dismissal, 2014) see notable successes
  • Kinetic Concepts, Inc. and Wake Forest University Health Sciences v. Smith & Nephew, Inc., Appeal No. 2011-1105 (Federal Circuit) (successful appeal of district court's granting of JMOL, 2014) see notable successes
  • Certain Mobile Devices and Related Software (ITC Inv. No. 337-TA-750) (representing Complainant Apple Inc.) (Respondent Motorola Mobility LLC) (Federal Circuit, 2013) see notable successes
  • Maxim Integrated Prods. v. BB&T, Co., Appeal No. 2013-1495  (Federal Circuit, 2014) (successful affirmation of district court’s reversal of dismissal with prejudice)

  • Micron Tech., Inc. v. Rambus Inc., Appeal No. 2009-1263 (Federal Circuit, 2011) (successful affirmation of district court’s determination of Rambus’s spoliation)

  • Cancer Research Tech. Ltd. v. Barr Labs, Inc., Appeal No. 2010-1204 (Federal Circuit, 2010) (successful appeal of district court’s finding of unenforceability for prosecution laches and inequitable conduct)

  • Praxair, Inc. v. ATMI, Inc., Appeal Nos. 2007-1483, 2007-1509 (Federal Circuit, 2008) (successful appeal of district court’s finding of unenforceability of one patent and if invalidity of another patent)

  • Prasco, LLC v. Medicis Pharms. Corp., Appeal No. 2007-1524 (Federal Circuit, 2008) (successful affirmation of district court’s dismissal of Prasco’s declaratory judgment complaint for lack of case or controversy)

  • Mangosoft, Inc. v. Oracle Corp., Appeal No. 2007-1250 (Federal Circuit, 2008) (successful affirmation of district court’s granting of summary judgment of non-infringement)

  • United States v. Applera Corp., Appeal No. 03-57229 (9th Circuit, 2005) (successful affirmation of the district court’s dismissal for lack of jurisdiction in a qui tam action under the False Claims Act)

  • Storage Tech. Corp. v. Cisco Sys., Appeal No. 02-1232 (Federal Circuit, 2003) (successful affirmation of district court’s granting of summary judgment of non-infringement of one patent, and remanded with respect to the other patent for further proceedings under a new claim construction)

  • TechSearch LLC v. Intel Corp., Appeal No. 00-1226, 00-1250 (Federal Circuit, 2002) (successful affirmation of district court’s granting of summary judgment of non-infringement)

  • Baltimore Therapeutic Equip. Co. v. Loredan Biomedical, Appeal No. 93-1301, 93-1331 (Federal Circuit, 1994) (successful affirmation of district court’s finding of non-infringement)

  • Biodex Corp. v. Loredan Biomedical, Appeal No. 91-1062 (Federal Circuit, 1991) (successful affirmation of jury verdict finding of invalidity of one patent and noninfringement of another patent)

  • Bibbero Systems, Inc. v. Colwell Systems, Inc., Appeal No. 88-1925, 88-2440 (Federal Circuit, 1990) (successful affirmation of district court’s granting of summary judgment of no copyright infringement)