Robert Bosch, LLC v. Snap-on Inc. et al., 769 F.3d 1094 (Fed. Cir. 2014).
Jim successfully defended tool and diagnostic manufacturers Snap-On and Drew Technologies in a patent infringement lawsuit involving a patent directed to a diagnostic tester for motor vehicles. After first successfully transferring the case from California to his client’s home base in Michigan, Jim argued the claim terms “program recognition device” and “program loading device” were indefinite because they are means-plus function elements with no corresponding structure disclosed in the specification. The district court agreed and found the patent invalid. On October 14, 2014, the Federal Circuit affirmed the decision. This decision represents the first time the Federal Circuit has ever held a means-plus-function term indefinite when the term did not use the word "means."
Wasica Finance et al. v. Continental, (D.Del. 2012-present); In re [Continental IPR]
Faced with a lawsuit in the District of Delaware, Jim represented Defendant Continental in staying the district court action at the outset of the case and obtaining institution of an inter partes review of the asserted patent. Jim represented Continental before the PTAB and invalidated most claims of the asserted patent. He continues to represent Continental now on appeal before the Federal Circuit, while the district court action remains stayed.
Drew v. Society of Automotive Engineers, Case No. 14-325 (Washtenaw County Circuit Court 2014)
When his client was removed from a vehicle diagnostics committee in an automotive standards setting organization, Jim took immediate action to reinstate his client to the committee. He obtained a temporary restraining order and preliminary injunction to keep his client on the committee, and invoked a little used arbitration clause in the SAE’s governing rules to trigger a more favorable arbitration forum. Jim obtained a favorable settlement permanently reinstating his client to the committee, an important facet of his client’s high tech business.