- Chemical & Materials Technologies
- Electrical & Computer Technologies
- Internet & Domain Names
- Licensing & Transactions
- Mechanical Technologies
- Post Grant Proceedings
- Trademark & Copyright
Group at a Glance
- 30 members
Industries we have litigated in include: software, medical devices, biotechnology, pharmaceuticals, internet services, consumer products, financial services, sporting goods, photography, industrial hardware, home products, CT scanning, and telephony
What Matters to Our Clients
Experts on the Law and Technology
Intellectual property disputes often have complex scientific and technical questions at their core. Understanding the law, therefore, is only part of a winning formula. To make critical split-second decisions in the courtroom, or successfully impeach a well-prepared expert, litigators must have a fluency in the technology involved.
At Wolf Greenfield, we don't just have the patent law expertise but also the technical and scientific skills and industry experience needed to give our clients a home field advantage in any courtroom. We’ve mastered the art of guiding a judge or jury through technical complexities to understand the core of a dispute. Our litigators are not just advocates, but also teachers: we teach the judge and jury the principles necessary to understand the case, so as to help reach a successful outcome. Our technical depth also allows us to think one step ahead of our opponents in creating aggressive trial strategies and in choosing the optimal time and venue for litigation.
Because our Litigation Group has access to the expertise of every patent attorney and technology specialist in the firm, we are able to master a broad spectrum of subject matters. We have worked on cases involving everything from surgical devices to financial services software to lighting fixtures to snowboards. We have successfully litigated against some of the largest law firms in the country and against some of the largest corporations in the world, and our clients have emerged with market-moving victories.
Staying Focused on Business Goals
Our primary focus in developing any litigation strategy is to understand the client’s needs and long range business goals. Every litigation decision stems from those business goals, and they guide each strategic and tactical move along the way. We partner with clients and take the time to understand their businesses so our legal skill and experience becomes part of their resources.
Not every dispute calls for a lawsuit. In situations where litigation could adversely affect a client’s market position, we counsel the most effective ways to avoid litigation. When litigation is inevitable, we counsel on how to strategically time it, budget for it, and select the most favorable venue.
With a solid understanding of our clients’ businesses and the industries in which they operate, our litigators are able to weigh the consequences before the pursuit begins, and re-evaluate it at each point along the way. Our litigators are also experienced in resolving disputes through negotiation, mediation, and arbitration.
Members of our Litigation Group have successfully argued some of the seminal intellectual property decisions of our times. These include the U.S. Supreme Court decision in Aro Mfg. Co. v. Convertible Top Co., which became a historic case on the doctrine of permissible repair and related issues. We also won a landmark case on the types of evidence courts may consider for patent claim construction, and defeated State Street Bank in the Federal Circuit case that established the patentability of business methods and software-implemented inventions.
We are equally as successful in other venues. Our Litigation Group won the longest patent interference proceeding in U.S. Patent and Trademark Office history over vascular graft technology, and we won the largest jury verdict in a trade secret case in Massachusetts history. In 2007, we also won the largest jury award for a patent case in Massachusetts, in Diomed v. AngioDynamics and Vascular Solutions.
Experience in Various Forums
Our Litigation Group members have experience arguing cases before the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, as well as other circuit courts of appeal across the country, and in the U.S. Supreme Court. Our group handles jury and bench trials in numerous federal district courts and appears before other IP dispute forums including the U.S. Patent Board of Appeals and Interferences, the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board, the International Trade Commission, and the U.S. Court of Federal Claims, as well as arbitration tribunals such as the National Arbitration Forum, the American Arbitration Association, and the World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO).
Broad Scope of Practice
We represent both plaintiffs and defendants in virtually every kind of IP claim or cause of action including:
- Patent infringement
- Patent interference
- Trademark infringement
- Trade secret, nondisclosure, and non-competition disputes
- Internet and domain name disputes and arbitration
- Copyright disputes
- Breach of contract claims, IP licensing, and other transactional disputes
- Antitrust and unfair competition claims from the use of IP or technology
- Joint ownership issues
- University / corporate collaborations
- Alternative dispute resolution
Effective Case Staffing
Clients appreciate our ability to staff cases in the manner most suited to the client's business and litigation goals. In many instances, lean staffing provides a focused and cost-effective approach, with one shareholder heading the core team, supported by a single associate and paralegal. As New England's largest IP-only firm, however, we also have the capacity to field a large and sophisticated team from day one, or to ramp up from a core team as needed during busy periods on a particular case.
Our Litigation Group draws on an experienced and sophisticated support structure of paralegals, IT specialists, as well as members of Wolf Greenfield's technical practice groups as needed, to ensure that our resources are tailored to each client's litigation needs.
- athenahealth, Inc.
- Burton Snowboards
- C.R. Bard, Inc.
- Davol, Inc.
- EMC Corporation
- Infineon Technologies
- InterSystems Corporation
- Iron Mountain Incorporated
- Jackson Laboratory
- Keurig, Incorporated
- L-3 Communications Corporation
- Massachusetts Institute of Technology
- McAfee, Inc.
- MStar Semiconductor, Inc.
- Sony Corporation
- Staples, Inc.
- Sun Life
- The New York Times Company
- Verizon Wireless
June 14, 2013 - IP ALERT - Supreme Court Says Isolated Natural DNA Not Patent Eligible But Leaves Open Questions Regarding Synthetic DNAs
June 14, 2013 - Patrick Waller quoted in Law360 on gene patenting.
June 2013 - Wolf Greenfield Attorneys Named to IAM 1000 World’s Leading Patent Practitioners List
June 13, 2013 - Patrick Waller quoted on the Myriad decision.
May 13, 2013 - CLIENT ALERT— Supreme Court’s Bowman Decision Addresses Self-Replicating Technologies
May 3, 2013 - Wolf Greenfield Achieves Dismissal of Patent Action
April 2013 - Wolf Greenfield Associate Named “Up and Coming” Lawyer by Massachusetts Lawyers Weekly
April 24, 2013 - WOLF GREENFIELD WEBINAR: Key Patent Litigation Decisions and the ITC as Alternate Forum - Replay Now Available
April 2013 - Wolf Greenfield Tops the Boston Business Journal’s List of Largest Area Intellectual Property Law Firms
April 10, 2013 - Larry Green quoted in Biopharminsight on Idenix
April 10, 2013 - Rob Walat quoted in Mass High Tech
March 22, 2013 - Ed Walsh quoted on "first-inventor-to-file" changes
March 22, 2013 - Patrick Waller quoted on the "First-Inventor-to File" system
March 11, 2013 - Patrick Waller quoted in Law360 on first-to-file patent system
February 21, 2013 - Wolf Greenfield Attorney Recognized for Pro Bono Service by Women’s Bar Foundation
February 12, 2013 - Deadline approaches for patent protections
Aspex v. Revolution (3/14/2012) - Will Your Settlement Agreement Prevent You from Later Asserting Your Patent Rights?
February 5, 2013 - Wolf Greenfield Named Elite Trademark Law Firm in World Trademark Report 1000
January 29, 2013 - Preparing for the “First Inventor to File” Transition
January 18, 2013 - Ed Walsh was quoted in a Law360 article on Patent Reform
October 22, 2012 - Fifteen Wolf Greenfield Lawyers Highlighted in 2012 Massachusetts Super Lawyers List
October 18, 2012 - WOLF GREENFIELD SEMINAR: What You Need to Know to Prepare for the "First Inventor to File" Transition - Replay Now Available
September 19, 2012 - Eleven Wolf Greenfield Attorneys Selected for 2013 Best Lawyers in America®
September 10, 2012 - Vanguard Fights Trio of Patent Trolls
September 6, 2012 - Federal Circuit Establishes New Standard on Divided Infringement and Inducement
July 27, 2012 - Chelsea Loughran quoted in Law360 on the new First-To-File rules
June 2012 - Wolf Greenfield Named to IAM 1000 World’s Leading Patent Practitioners List
June 2012 - GBLS Recognizes Wolf Greenfield with 2012 Associates Drive Award
In re Constr. Equip. Co. (decided 12/8/2011) - Reexamination Finding of Invalidity Upheld by Federal Circuit Years After Litigation Holding of No Invalidity
June 14, 2012 - ITC Affirms Wolf Greenfield Victory
June 4, 2012 - Wolf Greenfield’s Litigation Group Grows With the Addition of Three New Members
April 26, 2012 - Wolf Greenfield Named Top Trademark Law Firm by World Trademark Report’s WTR 1000
In re MSTG, Inc (4/9/12) - No Settlement Negotiations Privilege
Noah Systems v. Intuit (4/9/12) - Federal Circuit Clarifies Algorithm Disclosure Requirements for Means-Plus-Function Claims
Aventis Pharma v. Hospira (4/9/12) - Federal Circuit Finds Inequitable Conduct For Failure To Cite Prior Art Under the Heightened Therasense Standard
AFT Trust. v. J&L Fiber (4/3/12) - Prosecution History Can Be Used During Claim Construction
March 26, 2012 - IP ALERT - Supreme Court Invalidates Process Claims in Prometheus
Bridgestone, LLC v. Federal Corp. (dec. 3/16/12) - Federal Circuit Takes Another Look at Likelihood of Confusion
March 15, 2012 - Mike Rader Moderated a Panel at the Annual Meeting of the Association of University Technology Managers
Marine Polymer v. HemCon (decided 3/15/12) - Intervening Rights Cannot Be Triggered by Argument Alone in Reexaminations
In re Erik P. Staats and Robin P. Lash (3/5/2012) - Federal Circuit Rejects Restrictions on Broadening Claims in Reissue Applications
MySpace, Inc. v. GraphOn Corporation (3/2/2012) - Federal Circuit Muddies Waters Over Claim Construction and Section 101
Coach Services v Triumph Learning (2/21/12) - What “Fame” Means in the Likelihood of Confusion and Dilution Contexts
ClearValue v Pearl River Polymers (2/17/12) - A Range With No Special Features Can Anticipate Sub-range
In re Google, Inc. (decided 2/6/12) - Substance of Emails Determines Attorney-Client Privilege Protection
February 1, 2012 - Do Opinions of Counsel Still Matter After Patent Reform? Absolutely!
January 31, 2012 - Navigating Patent Eligibility for Process Claims
Dealertrack v. David L. Huber et al. (1/20/12) - Lack of Detail in Software-Related Claims Can Mean Invalidity
January 18, 2012 - Wolf Greenfield wins ITC action
January 17, 2012 - Mike Rader presented at American Intellectual Property Law Association
December 2011 - Neil Ferraro Named 2012 Boston Patent Law Association President
January 3, 2012 - Wolf Greenfield Welcomes 2012 Promoting Seven Lawyers to New Positions
December 28, 2011 - Wolf Greenfield Achieves Pro Bono Victory in Asylum Case
December 2011 - Recent Developments in Patent Litigation: Important Court Decisions and Their Intersection With the Patent Reform Act Webinar- Replay Now Available
December 2011 - ITC Patent Litigation on a Budget
November 2011 - America Invents Act: The Implications of Patent Reform
Powell v Home Depot (11/14/11) - False Petition Does Not Constitute Inequitable Conduct
November 8, 2011 - IP: 3 Keys to Teaching Patents to Judges
October 2011 - 3 Strategies for Winning Patent Cases
October 13, 2011 - IP: Winning Patent Litigation on a Budget
October 12, 2011 - Wolf Greenfield Sponsored MIT Forum Event on October 12
TianRui Group. Co. v. ITC (decided 10/11/11) - ITC Can Find Trade Secret Law Violation Where Acts Occur Outside US
In re Stepan (decided 10/5/11) - BPAI Triggers “New Ground of Rejection” When Changing Statutory Basis of Rejection
September 2011 - America Invents Act – Patent Reform is Finally Here
In re Leithem (decided 9/19/11) - BPAI Can Trigger “New Ground of Rejection” Through Change in Rationale Alone
Ultramercial v. Hulu (decided 9/15/11) - Federal Circuit Clarifies Limits on Patent-Eligibility of Software Patents
September 2011 - Pre-Litigation Strategies to Ensure a “Home Court” Advantage
September 9, 2011 - IP ALERT—Senate Endorses The Long-Awaited Patent Reform
September 2011 - Eight Wolf Greenfield Attorneys Receive Best Lawyers in America Title
Markem-Imaje Corp. v. Zipher Ltd (decided 9/9/11) - Same Claim Terms Can Have Different Meanings Within Different Limitations
Classen v. Biogen Idec (decided 8/31/11) - Process Claims With Physical Implementation Steps May Be Patent-Eligible
AIA Engineering v Magotteaux (decided 8/31/11) - Federal Circuit Muddies Reissue Application Practice
Unigene Laboratories v. Apotex (decided 8/25/11) - Follow-on Pharmaceutical Formulation Found Non-Obvious
August Technology v. Camtek (decided 8/22/11) - Inventions Cannot be Offered For Sale Until Conception Date
August 16, 2011 - National Institutes of Health Intervenes to End Patent Infringement Suit Against The Jackson Laboratory Concerning Mouse Models for Alzheimer’s Research
CyberSource v. Retail Decisions (decided 8/16/11) - Processes Equivalent to "Human Mental Work” Not Patent-Eligible
In Re NTP, Inc. (decided 8/1/11) - Priority Chain Can Be Broken if Parent Application Has No Written Description Support for Claims Under Reexamination
In Re NTP, Inc.  (decided 8/1/11) - Inventor’s Own Testimony Cannot Corroborate Evidence of Earlier Invention Date
In re Jeff Lovin (decided 7/22/11) - Appeal Briefs Must Contain Substantive Arguments for Claims Considered Separately
Duramed v. Paddock (decided 7/21/11) - Prosecution History Estoppel Bars Allegations of Infringement Under Doctrine of Equivalents
General Protecht Group v. Leviton (decided 7/8/11) - Avoiding Implied Licenses Linked to Continuation Patents
June 27, 2011 - Eric Kaviar interviewed by WIN Interactive
American Calcar v. American Honda (dec. 6/27/11) - Narrow Disclosure Limits Claim Scope
June 20, 2011 - Jim Foster was a panelist for a webinar on the Therasense decision
June 9, 2011 - Should You Litigate? What To Do When A Patent Infringement Action Appears On The Horizon
June 9, 2011 - IP Lawyers Weigh In On Microsoft V. I4i Ruling
Microsoft v. i4i (decided 6/9/11) - Supreme Court Confirms Standard of Proof Required to Overcome a Patent’s Presumption of Validity
Advanced Software v. Fiserv (decided 6/2/11) - Some Claim Limitations Need Not Be Practiced for Direct Infringement
Global-Tech v. SEB (decided 5/31/11) - Supreme Court Holds that “Willful Blindness” to Patent Rights May Prove Indirect Infringement
Therasense v. Becton Dickinson (decided 5/25/11) - Raising the Bar for Establishing “Inequitable Conduct”
In re Brimonidine (decided 5/19/11) - Importance of Building a Detailed Factual Record for Federal Circuit Review of Obviousness Determinations
In re Kao (decided 5/13/11) - Federal Circuit Evaluates Patentability of "Providing Information" Claim Limitation
Radio Systems v. Accession (decided 4/25/11) - Cease and Desist Notices Not Sufficient to Establish Personal Jurisdiction
Lexion Medical v. Northgate (decided 4/22/11) - Broad Construction of Claimed Numerical Range Affirmed
Citigroup v. Capital City Bank (3/28/11) - "DuPont Factors" Weighed in Affirming TTAB's Decision
In re Jung (decided 3/28/11) - PTO’s Burden in Rejecting Claims is Met When Applicant Can Understand Basis for Rejection
American Piledriving v. Geoquip (3/21/11) - Federal Circuit Passes on Opportunity to Provide Further Guidance on Claim Construction
In re BP Lubricants (decided 3/15/11) - Raising the Bar to Plead False Marking
Centocor Ortho v. Abbott (decided 2/28/11) - Written Description Support Requires Working Examples or “Constructive Possession”
February 25, 2011 - Managing the Pace of Patent Applications
February 25, 2011 - Federal Circuit Tosses $1.67 Billion Patent Verdict Against Abbott Labs
February 17, 2011 - WOLF GREENFIELD SEMINAR: Managing IP Risks: The Importance of Obtaining Freedom to Operate Guidance - presentation now available
January 1, 2011 - Wolf Greenfield filed 2,749 patent applications and 688 trademark applications in 2010.
December 2010 - Wolf Greenfield was ranked #1 in number of patents filed and number of patent attorneys in Mass High Tech’s annual survey
Akamai v. Limelight (dec. 12/20/10) - Final Decision on Joint Infringement Standard Left to Full Court
Research Corp v. Microsoft (decided 12/8/10) - Federal Circuit Upholds Method Claims Outside the “Machine-or-Transformation” Test After Bilski
Western Union v. Moneygram (decided 12/7/10) - Common Sense Can Be Used in Determining Obviousness
Finjan v. Secure Computing (11/4/10) - Federal Circuit Addresses Infringement of Non-Method Claims that Recite Components Capable of Performing Method Steps
September 2010 - Wolf Greenfield 3rd Annual IP Litigation Webinar - webinar replay now available
Tessera v. ITC (decided 9/2/10) - Patent Rights Exhausted as of Authorized Sale
August 22, 2010 - Hunter Baker, Ed Gates and Chelsea Loughran presented at the American Chemical Society’s Fall National Meeting
July 7, 2010 - A Wolf Greenfield Webinar: Forecasting the Future of Method Patents Post-Bilski — archived replay of webinar now available
In Re Giacomini (decided 7/7/10) - Federal Circuit Clarifies Role of Provisional Applications as Prior Art
June 28, 2010 - CLIENT ALERT— Supreme Court Leaves Door Open to Business Method Patents
Encyclopedia Britannica v. Alpine Elec. (6/18/10) - Later Filed Applications Must Contain Specific References to Earlier Filed Application to Establish Priority Date
June 17, 2010 - WOLF GREENFIELD SEMINAR: Strategically Building and Monetizing a Patent Portfolio - replay now available
June 11, 2010 - Special Feature -- Patent Litigation on a Budget
June 2, 2010 - Wolf Greenfield’s litigation team secured summary judgment of no patent infringement for our client The Jackson Laboratory
June 1, 2010 - What to Do When You Have to Sue Controlling Your Patent Litigation Costs
March 23, 2010 - Don’t assume concessions must be made for withheld indemnifications
March 15, 2010 - Credibility was at issue in 2009's largest verdict
February 26, 2010 - Wolf Greenfield wins key claim construction ruling for The Jackson Laboratory
February 25, 2010 - WOLF GREENFIELD SEMINAR: The Economics of Patent Litigation - replay now available
February 25, 2010 - Patent counsel at seminar advise plaintiffs to spend money up front, have settlement amount in mind
December 28, 2009 - Expert testimony invalid without evidentiary basis
September 24, 2009 - CLIENT ALERT — Federal Circuit Confirms Diagnostic and Therapeutic Methods Can be Patentable Subject Matter
September 23, 2009 - Wolf Greenfield 2nd Annual IP Litigation Webinar- replay available
March 25, 2009 - CLIENT ALERT — Federal Circuit Decision on Controversial PTO Rules
March 2, 2009 - Amicus brief filed for Bilski v. Doll
January 2009 - Patent Reexaminations Boom as a Strategy to Fight Infringement Charges
January 5, 2009 - Amicus brief filed for In re Engage, Inc.
LITIGATION SUCCESS - Wolf Greenfield wins $17M patent infringement settlement from Kraft for our client Keurig
November 13, 2008 - CLIENT ALERT — Federal Circuit Preserves–with Modifications–Patentability of Business Methods
September 25, 2008 - The Real Impact of eBay, KSR, MedImmune, Seagate, and Translogic – webinar replay now available
July 1, 2008 - Supreme Court Expands 'Exhaustion' Doctrine: Patent Owners' Right to Collect Downstream Royalties Restricted
June 30, 2008 - Supreme Court Expands Exhaustion Doctrine
June 12, 2008 - Amicus brief filed for In re Engage, Inc.
June 11, 2008 - Supreme Court Expands Exhaustion Doctrine and Restricts Patent Owners From Collecting Downstream Royalties
June 11, 2008 - CLIENT ALERT — Supreme Court Expands Exhaustion Doctrine and Restricts Patent Owners From Collecting Downstream Royalties
June 9, 2008 - No Downstream Royalties for LG: High Court
June, 2008 - Judge Puts a Literary Twist on Copyright Infringement Case
May 30, 2008 - Federal Court Dents RIAA Strategy Against File-Sharers
April 30, 2008 - Industry Insights: PTO's Potential Next Moves
April 22, 2008 - Apple Seeks Patent on iPhone Instant Messenging
April 21, 2008 - Snake Antivenom Can Be Patented, But Hold the Peanut Butter
April 17, 2008 - PRESS RELEASE — Top Litigator Allen Rugg joins Wolf Greenfield
April 15, 2008 - Seagate Drops Legal Bomb on SSD Memory Maker
April 14, 2008 - Tafas Decision Sparks Hope IDS Rules Also Doomed
April 7, 2008 - IP Boutique Wolf Greenfield Gains Top Litigator Allen Rugg, Expands Practice Rugg Brings National Reputation in High-Stakes IP and Business Litigation
April 7, 2008 - Amicus brief filed for In re Bilski
March 2008 - Top Trends in Intellectual Property Law for 2008
February 11, 2008 - Top IP Law Issues for 2008 Covered by Wolf Greenfield in Mass High Tech Article
February 7, 2008 - An Entrepreneur's Guide to the Intellectual Property Galaxy
May 2007 - Is Patent Litigation Worth It?
December, 2006 - IP Cases: Mediate or Litigate
November 2006 - Accelerated Examination of Patent Applications: Too Good To Be True?
October 2, 2006 - Is patent litigation worth the headaches?
June 12, 2006 - Companies sigh relief from Supreme Court's eBay decision
June 8, 2006 - Building the Patent Litigation War Chest: Enforcing Rights While Managing Costs
June 2006 - Cos. Sigh Relief from Supreme Court’s eBay Decision
April 14, 2005 - The "Use it or Lose it" Rule in Trademark Law
Q&A Booklet - Q&A on Intellectual Property Litigation