Experience
Patent Preparation and Prosecution
Our firm works with a large company in the medical device industry in the preparation and prosecution of patent applications related to numerous technologies in its IP portfolio.
Quality Service. Quality Relationships.
Client: RELX Group
For the past 15 years, Dinsmore has been the acting patent counsel for RELX Group, while also advising the company’s outside counsel in patent matters. In addition, we advise on general intellectual property (IP) and labor matters.
“There are three reasons we continue working with Dinsmore,” said Kenneth Thompson II, General Counsel at RELX Group. “The quality of legal work is outstanding; the relationships we’ve developed with the IP group makes it feel like they’re part of my internal team, and relationships are very important to me; and frankly, it’s the same quality of legal advice and relationships at a discounted fee structure compared with global markets.”
RELX, which employs roughly 30,000 people, was founded in 1993 and based in London, UK. The company sells information-driven services and solutions to scientists, lawyers, teachers and business professionals.
“It’s exciting for me as general counsel based in Southwest Ohio for a global company to work with resources also headquartered in Southwest Ohio,” added Thompson. “The depth of our relationship is something that can’t be replaced. I hold the firm and the people in high regard.”
Throughout our history together, we’ve been able to solidify the company’s global patent program, establish processes and procedures for outside counsel and obtain wins on IP cases involving trolls.
Daws Mfg. Co., Inc. v. Dee Zee, Inc.
Counsel for Dee Zee which was accused of infringing a patent related to truck storage bins. The case settled.
Patent Applications
Protecting your organization’s competitive advantage is key to its success in the business world. That’s why one of the world’s leading automobile manufacturers turns to Dinsmore for their patent needs. We have guided the client through a multitude of patent applications for products ranging from automotive electronics to mechanical systems. We guide the client through the entirety of the patent process, from reviewing the invention disclosure documents and determining the patentability of the product to the drafting and filing of the patent application. We also represent our client in dealing with the patent office, filing written responses and initiating examiner investigations to ensure the patent is issued and our client’s business innovations are fully protected.
Patent Infringement Litigation
On behalf of our client, we developed and implemented cost-effective strategies for defending a patent enforcement suit.
Patent Infringement Litigation
Under Section 337 of the Tariff Act of 1930, the ITC investigates claims of unfair trade practices occurring in import trade. An increasing number of intellectual property lawsuits are tried before the ITC because ITC cases proceed faster than cases litigated in federal district courts, where most IP litigation takes place. The ITC also offers a unique set of remedies to companies engaged in patent disputes. The ITC has become a global forum for high-stakes patent cases brought by both U.S. and foreign companies intent on protecting valuable U.S. based IP rights. Dinsmore & Shohl LLP has a great deal of experience successfully representing parties in 337 investigations. For example, on behalf of our client, a $1 billion industrial machinery manufacturer, we reached successful settlements against multiple respondents importing industrial machinery from China, Germany, Italy and France.
Patent Preparation and Prosecution
Our firm worked with a large company in the high technology industry in the preparation and prosecution of patent applications related to numerous technologies in its IP portfolio.
Patent Preparation and Prosecution
Our firm worked with a large company in the high technology industry in the preparation and prosecution of patent applications related to numerous technologies in its IP portfolio.
Protecting New Corporate Identity and Innovative R&D
Protecting the Future
Innovation is the driving force behind the growth and sustainability of any business, especially one within a specialized industry. Growing your brand and reputation, as well as protecting your ideas, is an ongoing challenge that requires a thorough understanding of not only the law, but also the industry and the marketplace.
As a former subsidiary of BP Company North America, Tri-Arrows Aluminum faced plenty of challenges in building and safeguarding their new identity after being purchased by a consortium of five Japanese companies in 2011. Following the sale, they turned to Dinsmore, who assumed responsibility for managing existing patent applications and prosecution through the U.S. Patent Office. We have also teamed with Tri-Arrows to begin trademark efforts, working with the U.S. Trademark Office to establish and protect their name and brand in the marketplace. Our attorneys have worked exhaustively to learn the aluminum industry, including the market, price points and competition, in order to strategically place Tri-Arrows on a path to long-term success.
Beyond patents and trademarks, we also have steered Tri-Arrows through a number of research and development agreements, protecting their exploration into ventures that have the potential to impact the aluminum industry. Tri-Arrows’ forward-thinking mentality, combined with Dinsmore’s support and guidance, has enabled them to focus their R&D efforts on both the materials used and the processes employed as they search for competitive advantages.
Working in an industry where significant steps are sometimes hard to come by, Tri-Arrows has employed an aggressive mindset toward protecting their technology and intellectual property, knowing that any competitive advantage could be the determining factor in their success. Dinsmore has become a true partner of Tri-Arrows in this effort, building a level of trust that has paved the way for their continued growth.
Innovation is the driving force behind the growth and sustainability of any business, especially one within a specialized industry. Growing your brand and reputation, as well as protecting your ideas, is an ongoing challenge that requires a thorough understanding of not only the law, but also the industry and the marketplace.
As a former subsidiary of BP Company North America, Tri-Arrows Aluminum faced plenty of challenges in building and safeguarding their new identity after being purchased by a consortium of five Japanese companies in 2011. Following the sale, they turned to Dinsmore, who assumed responsibility for managing existing patent applications and prosecution through the U.S. Patent Office. We have also teamed with Tri-Arrows to begin trademark efforts, working with the U.S. Trademark Office to establish and protect their name and brand in the marketplace. Our attorneys have worked exhaustively to learn the aluminum industry, including the market, price points and competition, in order to strategically place Tri-Arrows on a path to long-term success.
Beyond patents and trademarks, we also have steered Tri-Arrows through a number of research and development agreements, protecting their exploration into ventures that have the potential to impact the aluminum industry. Tri-Arrows’ forward-thinking mentality, combined with Dinsmore’s support and guidance, has enabled them to focus their R&D efforts on both the materials used and the processes employed as they search for competitive advantages.
Working in an industry where significant steps are sometimes hard to come by, Tri-Arrows has employed an aggressive mindset toward protecting their technology and intellectual property, knowing that any competitive advantage could be the determining factor in their success. Dinsmore has become a true partner of Tri-Arrows in this effort, building a level of trust that has paved the way for their continued growth.
Representative IP Litigation Cases
Cascades Publishing Innovation, LLC v. Reed Elsevier, Inc., 3:13-cv-00422-WHR (SD OH 2013)
Cirrex Systems, LLC v. Ocean Optics, Inc., 1:12-cv-1769 (ND GA 2012)
Milacron, LLC, et al. v. Stough Tool Sales, et. al., 1-12-cv-119 (SD OH 2012)
Ball Metal Beverage Container Corp. v. Crown Packaging Technology, Inc., et al., 3:12-cv-0033 (SD OH 2012)
Diba Industries, Inc. v. IDEX Health & Science, LLC, 3:12-cv-01248 (DCT 2012)
AOK Global Products, LTD, et al. v. Ferno-Washington, Inc., 1-12-cv-267 (ED VA 2012)
Paducah River Painting, Inc. v. McNational, Inc., 5:11-cv-135 (WD KY 2011)
Ionic Communications Group, Inc v. Ionic Collective, LLC, 1:11-cv-00766 (SD OH 2011)
Chikezie Ottah v. First Mobile Technologies, 1:10-cv-07296 (SD NY 2010)
L.F.P. IP, LLC, et al. v. Hustler Cincinnati, Inc., 1:09-cv-913 (SD OH 2009)
T. Marzetti Company v. Roskam Baking Company, 2:09-cv-584 (SD OH 2009)
The Container Store, Inc. v. Schulte Corporation, et al., 4:08-cv-00410 (ED TX 2008)
Alps South, LLC v. The Ohio Willow Wood Company, 8:08-CV-1893-T-35MAP (MDFL 2008)
Stiefel Laboratories, Inc. v. Pracso, LLC, 07-0781, (SD OH 2007)
Prasco, LLC v. Stiefel Laboratories, Inc., 07-0135, (SD OH 2007)
NCR Corporation v. Abercrombie & Fitch Co., 06-0919, (SD OH 2006)
NCR Corporation v. The ATM Exchange, 05-0383, (SD OH 2005)
Daniel F. Fitzgibbon, Jr. v. Martin County Coal Corporation and Sidney Coal Company, Inc., 05-0036, (ED KY 2005)
Crown Packaging Technology, Inc., et al. v. Ball Metal Beverage Container, Corp., 05-0281, (SD OH 2005)
Pisces by OPW, Inc. v. Advanced Polymer Technology, Inc., 04-0178 (SD OH 2004)
Milacron, Inc. v. Graham Engineering Corporation, 02-2142, (SD OH 2002)
Total Containment, Inc. v. Osborne, et al., No. 96 7241 (ED PA 1997)
PISCES By OPW v. Total Containment, No. C-1-01-0063 (SD OH 2001)
Environ Products v. PISCES By OPW, No. 02-865 (ED PA 2002)
PISCES By OPW v. Environ Products, No. C-1-02-292 (SD OH 2002)
PISCES By OPW v. Total Containment, No. CIV-02-0543 (SD OH 2002)
PISCES By OPW v. Advanced Polymer Technology, No. C-1-04-178 (SD OH 2004)
Cirrex Systems, LLC v. Ocean Optics, Inc., 1:12-cv-1769 (ND GA 2012)
Milacron, LLC, et al. v. Stough Tool Sales, et. al., 1-12-cv-119 (SD OH 2012)
Ball Metal Beverage Container Corp. v. Crown Packaging Technology, Inc., et al., 3:12-cv-0033 (SD OH 2012)
Diba Industries, Inc. v. IDEX Health & Science, LLC, 3:12-cv-01248 (DCT 2012)
AOK Global Products, LTD, et al. v. Ferno-Washington, Inc., 1-12-cv-267 (ED VA 2012)
Paducah River Painting, Inc. v. McNational, Inc., 5:11-cv-135 (WD KY 2011)
Ionic Communications Group, Inc v. Ionic Collective, LLC, 1:11-cv-00766 (SD OH 2011)
Chikezie Ottah v. First Mobile Technologies, 1:10-cv-07296 (SD NY 2010)
L.F.P. IP, LLC, et al. v. Hustler Cincinnati, Inc., 1:09-cv-913 (SD OH 2009)
T. Marzetti Company v. Roskam Baking Company, 2:09-cv-584 (SD OH 2009)
The Container Store, Inc. v. Schulte Corporation, et al., 4:08-cv-00410 (ED TX 2008)
Alps South, LLC v. The Ohio Willow Wood Company, 8:08-CV-1893-T-35MAP (MDFL 2008)
Stiefel Laboratories, Inc. v. Pracso, LLC, 07-0781, (SD OH 2007)
Prasco, LLC v. Stiefel Laboratories, Inc., 07-0135, (SD OH 2007)
NCR Corporation v. Abercrombie & Fitch Co., 06-0919, (SD OH 2006)
NCR Corporation v. The ATM Exchange, 05-0383, (SD OH 2005)
Daniel F. Fitzgibbon, Jr. v. Martin County Coal Corporation and Sidney Coal Company, Inc., 05-0036, (ED KY 2005)
Crown Packaging Technology, Inc., et al. v. Ball Metal Beverage Container, Corp., 05-0281, (SD OH 2005)
Pisces by OPW, Inc. v. Advanced Polymer Technology, Inc., 04-0178 (SD OH 2004)
Milacron, Inc. v. Graham Engineering Corporation, 02-2142, (SD OH 2002)
Total Containment, Inc. v. Osborne, et al., No. 96 7241 (ED PA 1997)
PISCES By OPW v. Total Containment, No. C-1-01-0063 (SD OH 2001)
Environ Products v. PISCES By OPW, No. 02-865 (ED PA 2002)
PISCES By OPW v. Environ Products, No. C-1-02-292 (SD OH 2002)
PISCES By OPW v. Total Containment, No. CIV-02-0543 (SD OH 2002)
PISCES By OPW v. Advanced Polymer Technology, No. C-1-04-178 (SD OH 2004)
Research and Licensing Agreements
Our firm represented a large company in the automotive industry in the preparation and prosecution of patent applications related to numerous technologies in its IP portfolio, and in preparing and negotiating research agreements with universities. We assisted in implementing cost-effective procedures for conducting patentability analyses and patent preparation for a stream of invention disclosures.
Trademark Portfolio Management
Procurement, maintenance and management of worldwide trademark portfolios for various clients in numerous industries.
University Advanced Research Agreements
We represent an automotive manufacturer in negotiating and completing numerous university advanced research agreements and cooperative research and development agreements, in which we leveraged a unique combination of Intellectual Property and Corporate transactional experience.