Capella Tower | Suite 3500
225 South Sixth Street | Minneapolis, MN 55402
Main:(612) 604-6400 | Fax:(612) 604-6800
www.winthrop.com |  A Professional Association

At-a-Glance

International patent litigator and trial attorney


Strategic partner to manage and protect intellectual property


Engineering, software, business and legal acumen


Passionate about inventions

 
FIND PROFESSIONALS BY LAST NAME
A   B   C   D   E   F   G   H   I   J  
K   L   M   N   O   P   Q   R   S   T  
U   V   W   X   Y   Z   View All
 


 

Devan V. Padmanabhan

Shareholder
p (612) 604-6748   f (612) 604-6948 
Education
Northwestern University School of Law, J.D., cum laude, 1993
Northwestern University, B.S., Electrical Engineering, 1990
Download vCard
Print page
Print PDF
Experience
Devan V. Padmanabhan is a highly experienced patent litigator who helps clients litigate and manage patent portfolios with national and international needs for more than 18 years. Devan’s significant experience includes patent litigation cases covering a wide range of technologies and industries, and crosses all intellectual property areas, including patent, copyright, unfair competition, trademark, and technology-based cases. As an electrical engineer and lawyer, Devan is able to maximize his technical, engineering, legal, and business acumen to the client’s advantage, both inside the courtroom and in the boardroom.

Devan understands that high quality and cost-effective patent prosecution is critically important to the long-term needs of companies. His passion is based on knowing that intellectual property and other technology-related rights are at the core of many transactions. Devan’s approach includes getting to know the client’s business and goals so he can strategically counsel clients on the legal risks associated with business decisions. This often includes analyzing infringement risks while strategically monitoring your competitor’s intellectual property portfolios, as well as participating in strategic development for the future of a client’s patent portfolios.

Devan has also helped clients avoid patent disputes altogether, reaching practical business solutions without engaging in extensive litigation. He regularly provides advice on handling letters from patent holders, patent infringement and patent validity issues during product development to help avoid patent disputes.

Devan’s clients come from a wide range of industries, including medical and chemical technologies and devices, pharmaceuticals, food and nutritional formularies, manufacturing and machinery, data and communications networks, computer software, agricultural products and processes, business systems, optical sensors, and others. Devan has represented clients such as Cargill and Dane Technologies, and has handled cases in trial and on appeal to the Federal Court. He is known internationally for his knowledge of software patent laws and is a sought-after lecturer on this topic. In addition, he is an Adjunct Professor at Hamline Law School.

Outside of work, Devan lives in Edina, MN.

Bar Admissions
Minnesota
U.S. Patent and Trademark Office
U.S. District Court for the State of Minnesota
U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit

Representative Litigation
Devan has acted as a lead or co-lead lawyer in patent cases including the following:

Counsel for Plantiff
Dane Technologies v. Ameritek (D. Minn.): Represented Dane in an action involving a patent directed to electronic braking systems; successfully secured a Federal Circuit ruling of infringement and validity.

Cargill, Incorporated v. Salt Creek, Inc. (S.D. Fla.): Represented Cargill in an action involving a patent directed physical chemical structure of an animal nutrition product; obtained a jury verdict of willful infringement and obtained treble damages.

Cargill, Incorporated v. Zeigler Bros., Inc. (S.D. Fla.): Represented Cargill in an action involving a patent directed to physical chemical structure of an animal nutrition product; obtained a jury verdict of willful infringement and obtained treble damages.

Transcom, Inc. v. Universal Motion Components, Inc. (D. Neb.): Represented Transcom in an action involving patents on mechanical seals for a gearbox; obtained a preliminary injunction and settled thereafter.

Transcom, Inc. v. Regal-Beloit Corp (D. Minn.): Represented Transcom in an action involving patents on mechanical seals for a gearbox; obtained a settlement after obtaining the preliminary injunction against Universal Motion Components.

Fair Isaac Corporation v. International Business Machines Corporation (D. Minn.): Represented Fair Isaac in an action involving patents directed to decision-making software; case settled on terms favorable to Fair Isaac.

Northbrook Digital LLC v. Vendio Services, Inc. (D. Minn.): Represented Northbrook Digital in an action involving patents directed to web advertising and blogging; after arguing a Markman hearing, case settled with payment to Northbrook.

Northbrook Digital LLC v. Browster Inc. (D. Minn.): Represented Northbrook Digital in an action involving patents directed to web advertising; after obtaining an infringement ruling, case settled with payment to Northbrook.

Nonin Medical, Inc. v. BCI, Inc.(D. Minn.): Represented Nonin on appeal at the Federal Circuit in an action involving patents directed to wireless oximetry.

Counsel for Defendant
OGMA v. Griffin International Companies LLC (D. N.J.): Representing Griffin Companies in an action involving patents directed to accelerometers.

Motorola, Inc. and GMP/Wireless Medicine, Inc. v. Nonin Medical, Inc. (N.D. Ill.): Represented Nonin in an action involving patents directed to wireless communication in medical devices; successfully defended Nonin and obtained a favorable result.

Visto Corporation v. Sproqit Technologies, Inc. (N.D. Cal.): Represented Sproqit in an action involving patents directed to wireless data communications; successfully obtained a covenant not to sue Sproqit after handling a multi-day Markman hearing.

NetCurrents Information Services, Inc. v. Dow Jones & Company, Inc. and Factiva, Inc. (C.D. Cal.): Represented Dow Jones in an action involving a patent related to Internet software; obtained a summary judgment of noninfringement.

Technology Patents LLC v. Deutsche Telekom AG, et al. (D. Md.): Represented Deutsch Telekom in an action involving patents relating to telecommunications; obtained a dismissal without having to file an answer.

Arimathea, LLC v. Wm. Wrigley Jr. Company, et al. (N.D. Ill.): Represented Caribou Coffee in an action involving a patent relating to a storage container; obtained a favorable result.

Fotomedia Technologies, LLC v. NuSkin Enterprises., et al. (E.D. Tx.): Represented defendant NuSkin in action involving patent related to photo sharing; obtained a dismissal of the case.

Data Network Storage LLC v. Compellent Technologies, Inc., et al. (S.D. Cal.): Represented Compellent Technologies in action relating to patent on computer storage systems; obtained favorable settlement and dismissal.
John Larry Sanders, et al. v. The Mosaic Company, et al. (W.D. Mo.): Represented Mosaic in an action involving a patent related to fertilizer formulations; plaintiff stipulated to noninfringement based on the Court’s ruling on the Markman hearing.

International Business Machines Corporation v. Fair Isaac Corporation (S.D.N.Y.): Represented Fair Isaac in action involving patents relating to decision making software; case settled on terms favorable to Fair Isaac.

Howard B. Garber v. Chicago Mercantile Exchange, et al. (E.D. Ill.): Represented Chicago Mercantile Exchange in an action involving a patent directed to trading software; obtained a dismissal of the action.

Medtronic Sofamor Danek, Inc., et al. v. Osteotech, Inc. (E.D. Tenn.): Represented Osteotech in an action involving patents directed to spinal fusion surgery; obtained a summary judgment of noninfringement on the most important patent and settled the case favorably prior to trial.

Sofamor Danek Group, Inc., et al., v. Osteotech (N.D. Fla.): Represented Osteotech in an action involving patents relating to spinal implants; settled the case after obtaining summary judgment against Sofamor Danek.

CellNet Data Systems, Inc. v. Itron, Inc. (N.D. Cal.): Represented Itron in action relating to patent directed to electronic monitoring systems; obtained summary judgment of noninfringement (affirmed at the Federal Circuit) and won award of $800,000 in attorneys’ fees.

Community Involvement

  • American Bar Association
  • American Intellectual Property Law Association
  • Federal Bar Association
  • Minnesota State Bar Association
  • Minnesota Intellectual Property Law Association
  • Hennepin County Bar Association

Collegiate Honors

  • Northwestern University School of Law: Executive Editor, Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology, 1992-1993
  • Northwestern University: Eastman Kodak Scholar; Tau Beta Pi

Articles & Presentations
Qtd. Parmar, Arundhati. “Two views: Diagnostics firms may be worried but there are write arounds.” MidCity News. 27 Mar. 2012.

 
Register   |  Login