Cesari and McKenna, LLP provides a full range of litigation services for its clients including litigation in state and federal courts as well as before administrative agencies such as the International Trade Commission (ITC). The firm provides services from pre-suit investigations through trial and appellate work as necessary. The below representive cases are but a subset of the firm's past work.
Representative Cases Representing The Patent Owner
Haemonetics Corp. v. Baxter Healthcare Corp. et al.
We partnered with the firm of Sherin and Lodgen to represent Haemonetics in this patent infringement action. The Haemonetics patent related to a compact centrifuge device for separating blood into its constituent components. The case was tried to a jury, and on January 30, 2009, the jury returned a verdict in Haemonetics' favor, awarding it approximately $15.7 million in patent infringement damages.
Pellegrini v. Texas Instruments, Inc.
We represented an individual patent holder against Texas Instruments (TI) in this case. The patent-in-suit related to a motor drive circuit for brushless permanent magnet synchronous motors. The case settled during a court-ordered mediation shortly before trial with a substantial payment to our client.
Cognex Corporation v. Electro Scientific Industries, Inc.
We represented Cognex in this patent infringement action brought in Massachusetts. The Cognex patent related to a machine vision system for the automatic positioning and placement of surface mount integrated circuit devices on printed circuit boards. The case settled about one month before trial with a substantial payment to Cognex.
Cognex Corporation v. Nikon Corporation
Cognex initiated an International Trade Commission (ITC) proceeding and parallel district court action against Nikon alleging infringement of Cognex patents relating to the positioning and placement of semiconductor wafers in wafer processing equipment. Both actions settled after a few months of discovery with a substantial payment to Cognex.
NovAtel Inc. v. Trimble Navigation Ltd.
We represented NovAtel in this patent infringement action which was litigated primarily in the Northern District of California. We also defended NovAtel in a related countersuit brought by Trimble before the International Trade Commission (ITC). The technology was digital signal processing used by GPS receivers to search for and lock onto signals from satellites. The case was settled shortly after we successfully opposed Trimble's motion for summary judgment of invalidity in the District Court, and filed our own motion for summary determination of non-infringement and invalidity of Trimble's patent in the ITC.
Representative Cases Representing The Accused Infringer
Cognex Corporation v. Acacia Research Corporation et al.
We represented Cognex Corporation in this action. Acacia accused various Cognex customers of patent infringement and Cognex filed the declaratory judgment action against both Acacia and the Acacia unit holding rights to the patent to protect Cognex customers from Acacia's demands. The Court also denied a motion for summary judgment by Acacia and the action subsequently settled.
Phonetel Communications, Inc. v. Yamaha Corporation of America
We represented Korg, Inc. and USA, Inc in this patent infringement suit in the Northern District of Texas against a large class of music synthesizer manufacturers. Shortly after the district court denied a motion to dismiss various counterclaims that we had filed, we were able to settle the case for our clients on favorable terms.
Measurement Computing Corp. and SoftWIRE Technology LLC v. National Instruments Corp.
We represented Measurement Computing and SoftWIRE in a declaratory judgment action brought in Boston against National Instruments (NI), which had asserted eight patents relating to graphical programming against our clients. During the course of the litigation, we acquired on behalf of our client two patents formerly owned by Fluke Corp. and asserted those patents against NI. The case resolved with NI acquiring the assets of Measurement Computing for approximately $33 million.
NPC, Inc. v. International Precast Supply, Inc.
We represented International Precast Supply, a Massachusetts manufacturer of construction supplies, in a patent infringement suit brought in New Hampshire. The technology involved expandable clamping rings. An investigation revealed that the invention of one of NPC's patents had been on-sale for more than a year before the application for patent had been filed. NPC was forced to publicly disclaim this patent. Shortly thereafter, the parties settled with NPC making a payment to International Precast Supply.
Massachusetts Institute of Technology and Hologic, Inc. v. Norland Medical Systems, Inc. and McCue PLC
We represented the defendants McCue and Norland in this suit for patent infringement. The patents in suit related to a sonometer, a medical device that uses ultrasound waves to obtain and process measurements to assess a patient's bone condition, and to a device that is used to calibrate the sonometer. We filed a motion for summary judgment of non-infringement and/or invalidity on behalf of defendants and, after a Markman hearing, were able to convince plaintiffs to effectively drop the suit.
Lexmark International, Inc. v. Static Control Components, Inc. et al.
We represent a defendant in this action in the Eastern District of Kentucky. The defendant is a re-manufacturer of toner cartridges used in printers manufactured by Lexmark. Lexmark has asserted 23 of its patents against the defendants in the case. Our client and the other defendants are challenging Lexmark's so-called prebate program which requires purchasers of its printers to use its toner cartridges only once and to return the used cartridges only to Lexmark.
JumpSport, Inc. v. Hedstrom Corporation et al.
We represented Hedstrom in this patent infringement action in the Northern District of California. The patents related to safety enclosures for trampolines. The case was tried to a jury. JumpSport was seeking straight damages from Hedstrom in excess of $2.5 million for infringement of its patents, and a trebling of those damages for alleged willfulness. At the conclusion of the trial, the jury returned a verdict against Hedstrom in the amount of $13,000. The case was appealed to the Federal Circuit. The case has since been settled.