Representative Cases
Intellectual Property & Patent Litigation Cases
3M Innovative Properties Company and Minnesota Mining and Manufacturing Company v. Avery Dennison Corporation, Case Number 01-1781 JRT/FLN—This case involved a patent infringement action brought against Avery Dennison Corporation, Winthrop & Weinstine’s client, alleging infringement of a patent pertaining to the use of embossed webs as liners for pressure sensitive adhesives and other industrial applications, and which specifically involved a multiple embossed web used as a releasable storage liner for pressure sensitive adhesives for moving a pressure sensitive adhesive from one web to a substrate. This case was tried before a jury in the federal district court in Minnesota.
Hysitron Incorporated v. MTS Systems Corporation, Case Number 07-1533 ADM/AJB—Winthrop & Weinstine is defending MTS Systems in a patent infringement action in the field of nanomechanical testing devices. The patent in question relates to an apparatus, a force sensor, used in conjunction with microindentation hardness testing and scanned-probe microscopes which generates a surface image of the topography of the sample subjected to microindentation. This lawsuit is presently pending the in federal district court of Minnesota.
DB Industries, Inc. d/b/a DBI SALA v. Alexander Andrew, Inc. and Custom Leathercraft Mfg. Co. d/b/a FallTech, Case Number 05-2806 (JMR/FLN)—Winthrop & Weinstine represented the plaintiff, a leader in the fall safety protection industry, in this patent infringement action relating to the enforcement of a patent which covered several innovations for a safety harness used by workers who work at elevation. This matter was settled favorably for our client.
Travelers Express Company, Inc. v. Transaction Tracking Technologies, Inc., Case Number 03-2848 (DSD/JGL)—In this action Winthrop & Weinstine represented the defendant in a patent infringement action involving a series of patents pertaining to technology for dispensing money orders and which provided multiple levels of securities codes, network capabilities for centralized collection of transaction data and centralized control, and other anti-fraud and anti-tampering features used in connection with the issuance of money orders. This case was settled favorably for our client.
MTS Systems Corporation v. Hysitron Incorporated, Case Number 06-3853 MJD/AJB—In this case Winthrop & Weinstine is bringing a patent infringement action on behalf of its client, MTS Systems, seeking to enforce its client’s patent which pertains to a dynamic tensile testing system that applies tensile loads to microfibers to measure and ascertain the mechanical properties of such fibers, including fibers with diameters of 1 to 60 microns. This case is presently pending in the federal district court for Minnesota.
Digital Angel Corporation v. Datamars, Inc., Case Number 04-4554 ADM/JSM—Winthrop & Weinstine represented the plaintiff in this patent infringement action involving a patent covering technology for a syringe implantable radio frequency identification device used for small animal identification. The case was settled favorably for our client.
Four Paws Products, Ltd. v. Royal Pet Incorporated—U.S. District Court, Eastern District of New York. We represented Royal Pet Incorporated in a patent litigation matter involving pet waste retrieval/removal products. Four Paws brought a Motion for Preliminary Injunction against our client, Royal Pet Incorporated, which was denied by the Court. Ultimately this case was settled between the parties.
Schaefer Fan Co., Inc. and Ronald E. Schaefer v. Universal Fog, Inc., Case Number 99-CV646 DWF/RLE—Winthrop & Weinstine successfully defended a patent infringement action on behalf of its client Universal Fog against a patent and a related consent judgment involving a spacing device designed to enhance safety for grills on a fan.
Miller Manufacturing Company, v. Royal Pet Inc., Case Number 05-2803 DWF/SRN—U.S. District Court, District of Minnesota. We represented Royal Pet Incorporated in a patent litigation matter involving tools to pick up pet waste. Ultimately this case was settled between the parties.
WIMCO, LLC v. Lange Industries, Inc., Case Number 06-cv-03565 PJS/RLE—Winthrop & Weinstine brought a successful patent infringement action on behalf of its client, Wimco, to enforce a patent covering a sediment filtration device used in conjunction with storm sewer construction. This case was settled favorably on behalf of Wimco.
DB Industries (d/b/a DBI/SALA)—We have represented DB Industries in patent and trademark litigation for approximately 10 years. In the patent litigation field, we have commenced approximately nine patent infringement actions on behalf of DBI. DBI is a leader in the manufacture, sale and design of various safety products used in the construction industry. DBI has a large patent portfolio. Examples of our experience representing this client include the following:
International Dodge Inc. v. DB Industries—We successfully defended this patent infringement action brought against our client and won a motion for summary judgment in federal court in New York.
DBI v. Safewaze/MSA-Rose Manufacturing Company—We successfully prosecuted this action to enforce two DBI patents. Defendant asserted a patent infringement counterclaim. We successfully prosecuted this litigation which involved payment by the Defendant to DBI, cross-licensing rights, and certain other consideration.
DBI v. Ultrasafe, Inc.—We successfully defended DBI’s patent rights in this case and the Defendant agreed to pay damages and stop selling the alleged infringing product.
DBI v. Safewaze, Inc.—In this lawsuit we successfully defended another DBI patent. The litigation was resolved by the Defendant agreeing to pay damages to DBI and it further agreed to stop selling the alleged infringing product.
DBI v. Sellstrom Manufacturing—This case is another example of the successful prosecution of a patent infringement action on behalf of DBI. The Defendant agreed to pay damages and stop manufacturing the alleged infringing product.
DBI v. FallTech, Inc.—In this case we prosecuted a patent infringement action alleging infringement of three separate patents. The case was brought to a successful conclusion which involved payment of damages and modification of the alleged infringing product or the Defendant’s agreement to cease manufacture of the alleged infringing product.
DBI v. Miller Manufacturing Co.—This case involves the defense of several DBI patents. We are currently in settlement negotiations.