Technische Innovationen werden immer wichtiger für Unternehmen. Damit gewinnen auch die Chancen und Risiken des Patentschutzes immer weiter an Bedeutung: Der bestehende Schutz für eigene Innovationen soll effektiv gegen Wettbewerber durchgesetzt werden. Gleichzeitig gilt es, die eigene Handlungsfreiheit zu sichern und unberechtigte Ansprüche Dritter abzuwehren.

Mehr anzeigen

Ausgewählte Referenzmandate

  • BlackBerry in several patent infringement cases, including:
  • A complete victory for the client following a two-week trial involving a three-patent suit, which resulted in the jury finding all three patents not infringed and invalid. NXP B.V. v. BlackBerry Limited, et al., Case
    No. 6-12-cv-00498 (Middle District of Florida).
  • A successful defense where the case settled favorably for our client the evening before closing arguments. Innovative Sonic Ltd. v. BlackBerry (f/k/a Research In Motion Ltd) et al., Case No.6-10-cv-00455 (Northern District of Texas).


  • Ambry Genetics in its successful defense against a 16-patent suit and a preliminary injunction, which led to the subsequent defeat of Myriad Genetics’ 15-year patent-protected monopoly on BRCA gene testing, a process that assesses a woman’s risk of developing breast or ovarian cancer. University of Utah Research Foundation et al. v. Ambry Genetics Corporation, Case No. 2-13-cv-00640-RJS (District of Utah). Six of those patents to stop Ambry resulted in a Federal Circuit opinion In Re Brca1- and Brca2-Based Hereditary Cancer Test Patent
  • Panasonic in successful outcomes of multiple matters, including:
  • A favorable settlement for both Panasonic and Nintendo in an International Trade Commission (ITC) investigation instituted by non-practicing entity, Optical Devices LLC. Certain Optical Disc Drives, Components Thereof, and Products Containing the Same (USITC 337-TA-897).
  • A victory in an ITC investigation involving Black Hills Media and accusations of infringing five US patents. In the matter of Certain Digital Media Devices, Including Televisions, Blu-Ray Disc Players, Home Theater Systems, Tablets and Mobile Phones, Components Thereof and Associated Software (USITC 337-TA-882).
  • Biomet (k/n/a Zimmer Biomet) in a favorable settlement of a 15-patent infringement action involving spinal, hip and knee implants and surgical methods brought by non-practicing entity, Bonutti Skeletal Innovations, a subsidiary of Acacia. Biomet Inc. v. Bonutti Skeletal Innovations LLC, Civil Case No. 13-00176-JVB-CAN (Northern District of Indiana).
  • Citrix Systems and Citrix Online in a complete summary judgment victory after Pixion asserted five patents against Citrix relating to fundamental aspects of web-based conferencing. The US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit affirmed the district court’s judgment. Pixion, Inc. v. Citrix Systems, Inc, Case No.
    3-09-cv-03496 (Northern District of California).
  • Tolmar and Sandoz in a complete victory of a patent infringement case under the Hatch-Waxman Act involving a generic substitute of Dovonex®, a $100 million-a-year branded medication for treatment of a skin condition known as psoriasis. LEO Pharma A/S v. Tolmar Inc., Case No. 1-10-cv-00269 (District of Delaware).
  • Brocade Communications in securing a $112 million judgment from a patent, copyright and trade secret
    infringement action. The case involved 13 patents on load balancing and high-availability of networking devices, as well as trade secrets and copyright claims. After a three-week trial, the jury returned a unanimous verdict. Following trial, the court issued permanent injunctions barring A10 from making, using or selling devices that infringed Brocade’s patents and trade secrets. Brocade v. A10 Networks, Case No. 5-10-cv-03428-PSG (Northern District of California).
  • Depomed, a specialty pharmaceutical company focused on developing and commercializing products to treat pain and other central nervous system conditions, in successful outcomes of multiple matters, including:
  • A case involving 29 patent claims from seven patents. After a seven-day bench trial, the court ruled the defendants could not market the generic drug until the expiration date of the last of the patents-in-suit in February 2024. Depomed, Inc. v. Actavis Elizabeth LLC et al., Case No. 3-12-cv-01358 (District of New Jersey).


  • The first Hatch-Waxman generic drug litigation case in the Northern District of California. We helped the client prevail on all 10 claim construction issues presented to the court. Depomed, Inc. v. Lupin Pharmaceuticals, Inc., et al.


  • Diablo Technologies in a complete jury trial victory against former development partner, Netlist, which had accused Diablo of eight counts of trade secret misappropriation, two counts of breach of contract, incorrect inventorship of Diablo’s patent, and two counts of trademark infringement and false advertising under the Lanham Act. Netlist Inc. v. Diablo Technologies Inc., Case No. 13-cv-5962 YGR (Northern District of California).
  • Seagate Technology in full a summary judgment victory in a case that spanned more than 14 years. In 2000, Convolve and the Massachusetts Institute of Technology sued Seagate and its customer, Compaq Computer Corporation. Convolve asserted misappropriation of no less than 57 trade secrets, infringement of three patents, breach of a nondisclosure agreement, and various other business torts, seeking damages in excess of a billion dollars. Convolve, Inc. v. Compaq Computer Corp., No. 00-cv-5141-GBD-JCF (Southern District of New York). This case prompted the landmark Federal Circuit decision, In re Seagate Technology, LLC, 497 F.3d 1360 (Fed. Cir. 2007) (en banc), which overturned 24 years of precedent in Seagate’s favor, abolishing the duty of
    care standard for willful infringement. Seikagaku Corporation and Zimmer in securing a verdict of non-infringement on all asserted claims filed by Genzyme Corporation. Genzyme filed a lawsuit against Seikagaku and Zimmer alleging that Seikagaku’s product,Gel-One®, distributed by Zimmer, infringed Genzyme’s patent related to the method of using a single injection of hyaluronic acid to treat osteoarthritis of the knee. Genzyme Corp. v. Seikagaku Corp., et al., Case No. 1-11-cv-10636-DPW (District of Massachusetts).


Ein vielfältiges, globales Netzwerk von branchenführenden Talenten, die sich für Sie und Ihre Vision einsetzen.


Nicole M. Jantzi

Kurzbiografie anzeigen


Einblicke & Events / Medien

On the Subject / February 10, 2020

IP Update / October 2019

Chicago, IL / Speaking Engagements / October 15-16, 2019

IP Update / September 2019

IP Update / August 2019

World Trademark Review / August 2, 2019

IP Update / July 2019

IP Update / JUNE 2019

IP Update / May 2019

IP Update / April 2019

Getting the Deal Through – Patents 2019 / April 2019

IP Update / March 2019

Webinar / Speaking Engagements / February 28, 2019

Stanford, CA / Speaking Engagements / February 13, 2019

On the Subject / January 28, 2019

IP Update / December 2018

Silicon Valley, CA / Speaking Engagements / December 6, 2018

IP Update / November 2018

World Trademark Review / November 1, 2018

IP Update / September 2018

Boston, Massachusetts / Speaking Engagements / August 20, 2018

IP Update / May 2018

IP Update / April 2018

General Counsel News – Intellectual Property / April 5, 2018

Patents 2018 / April 2018

IP Update / March 2018

/ March 2018

Special Report / March 2018

IP Update / February 2018

Burlington, Massachusetts / McDermott Event / February 13, 2018

IP Update / January 2018

IP Update / December 2017

IP Update / November 2017

/ November 2017

Chicago, Illinois / Speaking Engagements / November 2-3, 2017

IP Update / October 2017

IP Update / September 2017

IP Update / August 2017

IP Update / July 2017

General Counsel News — Intellectual Property / July 19, 2017

/ July 2017

Detroit, Michigan / Speaking Engagements / July 10, 2017

IP Update / June 2017

Munich, Germany / Speaking Engagements / June 12, 2017

On the Subject / May 24, 2017

Chicago, Illinois / Speaking Engagements / May 17, 2017

Getting the Deal Through: Patents 2017, Thirteenth Edition / May 2017

IP Update / April 2017

Veröffentlichungen / April 2017

General Counsel News (Intellectual Property) / March 29, 2017

IP Update / March 2017

Washington, District of Columbia / Speaking Engagements / March 23, 2017

/ March 2017

Munich, Germany / Speaking Engagements / March 20, 2017

IP Update / February 2017

Stanford, California / Speaking Engagements / February 22, 2017

Solingen, Germany / Speaking Engagements / February 16, 2017

Chicago, Illinois / McDermott Event / January 31, 2017

Special Report / January 31, 2017

Costa Mesa, California / McDermott Event / January 31, 2017

Menlo Park, California / McDermott Event / January 26, 2017

IP Update / January 2017

Burlington, Massachusetts / McDermott Event / January 17, 2017

IP Update / December 2016

On the Subject / December 2, 2016

IP Update / November 2016

/ November 2016

IP Update / October 2016

IP Update / September 2016

IP Update / August 2016

IP Update / February 2015

Thomson Reuters Legal Current / January 27, 2015

On the Subject / January 22, 2015

IP Update / January 2015

IP Update / December 2014

IP Update / September 2014

IP Update / August 2014

IP Update / July 2014

On the Subject / June 23