Leydig’s long history of success in patent litigation has many of the same qualities that drive its clients’ success: innovative approaches, technological adeptness, and strategic thinking. When combined with the courtroom acumen and advocacy skills of Leydig’s litigators, these attributes position the firm’s clients for favorable results when facing or pursuing patent infringement claims.
Such was the case when a competitor of a Leydig client filed a patent infringement suit arising from the client’s development and licensing of its own innovative software in the health care industry. The plaintiff claimed the software infringed its patent, which covered a software system and a business method.
Read More
For the client, much rode on an expeditious and positive outcome in the case. For Leydig, obtaining that outcome required a thoughtful and multipronged strategy that attacked the plaintiff’s claims in distinct ways.
The validity of the plaintiff’s system claims hinged on the sufficiency of detail provided for the algorithm underlying its patented software. At the claim construction phase, Leydig focused on one particularly vulnerable aspect of the algorithm, alleging it was a “means plus function” claim element that was indefinite because the necessary detail was missing from the patent specification. Through the credible testimony of a respected expert witness, Leydig presented a convincing case that invalidated the plaintiff’s system claim for indefiniteness.
Leydig needed a different strategy to defeat the plaintiff’s business method claims. Unlike the system claims, the business method claims required an automatic updating action. The viability of the plaintiff’s infringement claim depended on, among other elements, proof of a direct infringement by software users. Having worked closely with the client for years on a wide range of product development, patent, and licensing matters relating to the software, Leydig’s attorneys knew the client’s customers could configure the software in many ways, but they rarely, if ever, performed automatic updates in the way the patent required.
With this knowledge, Leydig focused on the direct infringement element of the plaintiff’s claim. Since the plaintiff could not find a single customer who performed the required automatic updating, its business method claim was mortally wounded, and the infringement suit soon settled on favorable terms for the firm’s client.
Leydig continues to provide a wide range of intellectual property representation for the client to facilitate its ongoing endeavors.
