Patent

Patent laws provide exclusive rights to people who have received a patent on an invention. Gustafson Gluek has represented patent holders against companies that are infringing the patent rights of our clients. For example, Gustafson Gluek has assisted in the prosecution of patent infringement claims involving medical devices such as pacemakers and technology used in printing machines.

Sometimes, however, a patent holder will attempt to abuse its exclusive rights by illegally obtaining or extending a patent. Gustafson Gluek has extensive experience in litigating cases alleging patent misuse. Often this type of patent misuse is found in the drug industry, where a brand name drug manufacturer will attempt to keep generic drugs off the market by unlawfully extending the life of its patent by committing fraud on the patent office or bringing sham litigation against generic manufacturers for patent infringement. The attorneys at Gustafson Gluek have been actively involved in cases involving claims of patent abuse related to the drugs Augmentin, Paxil, Wellbutrin, Premarin and others.

KBA Giori, North America, Inc. etal. v. Muhlbauer, Inc., et al.

This is a patent infringement case in which Gustafson Gluek was one of the counsel representing the plaintiff, KBA-Giori against Muhlbauer, Inc. There were several cases involving these two parties and the technology employed by the patents at issue is generally used in commercial printing presses and related equipment.. The first case that Gustafson Gluek was involved in went to trial October 2009 and the jury found infringement of the patent by the Defendants and awarded reasonable royalty damages to our client.

Spine Solutions, Inc., etal. v. Medtronic Sofamore Danek, Inc., et al.

This is a patent infringement case in which Gustafson Gluek was one of the counsel representing the plaintiff, Spine Solutions, Inc., Synthes Spine So., L.P.P., and Synthes, Inc. against Medtronic Safamor Danek, Inc. and Medtronic Sofamor Donek, USA. The patent at issue in that case involved technology relating to spinal disc implants. This case went to trial in November 2008 and a jury verdict was returned in favor of our client. The jury found willful infringements and awarded both lost profits and reasonable royalty damages to our client. There are various post-trial motions and likely will be an appeal of the jury verdict.