Ralph J. Gabric
Shareholder
Overview

“My client’s problems are my problems.  I am personally invested, and always thinking about ways for achieving victory in the most cost-effective manner while also keeping an eye out for settlement opportunities.”

Ralph is the co-chair of the firm’s litigation practice group, and has 30 years of experience handling patent matters.  Ralph has served as lead counsel on numerous cases, and he has successfully represented clients in jury trials, bench trials, and appeals to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, as well as in post-grant review proceedings before the Patent Trial and Appeals Board.   Intellectual Asset Management (IAM) magazine writes that Ralph is “incredibly client-oriented” and “a composed lawyer who dispatches tricky questions from judges very effectively.”    

Ralph has extensive experience in representing generic pharmaceutical companies in Hatch-Waxman pharmaceutical litigation. He has appeared as lead counsel in cases involving numerous drug products and has also assisted clients with regulatory and pre-litigation strategies.   

Ralph also has experience protecting and defending other technologies, including medical devices, communications networks, cellular telephony, automotive, infrared cameras, and various internet-based technologies.  He is a frequent speaker and author on current topics in patent law. Ralph consistently has been named by publications that recognize attorney achievement, having been recognized in multiple years by The Best Lawyers in America, the IAM Patent 1000The World’s Leading Patent Professionals, and Chambers U.S.A.  Ralph has also repeatedly been recognized as an Illinois Super Lawyer in patent litigation. 

Education
  • J.D.,
    DePaul University College of Law, 1988, Member of the DePaul Law Review
  • B.S., Chemistry
    Boston College, 1985
Bar Admissions
  • Illinois
  • Supreme Court of the United States
  • U.S. Court of Appeals, 6th Circuit
  • U.S. Court of Appeals, 8th Circuit
  • U.S. Court of Appeals, 9th Circuit
  • U.S. Court of Appeals, Fed. Cir.
  • U.S. Dist. Court, Dist. of Colorado
  • U.S. Dist. Court, Dist. of Delaware
  • U.S. Dist. Court, Dist. of Maryland
  • U.S. Dist. Court, Dist. of New Jersey
  • U.S. Dist. Court, E.D. Michigan
  • U.S. Dist. Court, E.D. Texas
  • U.S. Dist. Court, N.D. California
  • U.S. Dist. Court, N.D. Illinois, Trial Bar
  • U.S. Dist. Court, S.D. Illinois
  • U.S. Dist. Court, S.D. Indiana
  • U.S. Dist. Court, S.D. New York
  • U.S. Dist. Court, W.D. Michigan
  • U.S. Patent & Trademark Office
Technical Background
  • Biopharma
  • Chemistry
Experience | Overview
  • Ralph was co-lead trial counsel in one of the most significant patent defense jury verdicts ever, successfully defending against a billion dollar claim for alleged willful infringement and the threat of an injunction that would have significantly impacted the client’s North American business.  After a 4 week trial, the jury found the patents invalid and not infringed.  The non-infringement finding was affirmed by the Federal Circuit.
  • Ralph led a defense team in a Hatch-Waxman litigation where many of the asserted claims were held invalid on summary judgment for lack of written description, the ruling leading to a favorable settlement and early launch date.
  • Ralph led a defense team in a Hatch-Waxman litigation where certain claims using the transitional language “consisting essentially of” were held invalid as indefinite.  This is believed to be a case of first impression.
  • Ralph led a defense team that successfully pierced the attorney-client privilege based upon the crime-fraud exception, and which ultimately led to the trial court ruling that the asserted patents were unenforceable for inequitable conduct after a 5 day bench trial.
  • Ralph was lead counsel for petitioner in consolidated IPR proceedings in which each of the challenged claims were found unpatentable.  The evidentiary record in those proceedings is believed to be the largest in any IPR to date, involving some 14 depositions and over 15 declarations.  The unpatentability finding was affirmed by the Federal Circuit.
  • Ralph has served as lead counsel in several cases on behalf of medical device manufacturers resulting in favorable multi-million dollar settlements for his clients.
  • Ralph is currently lead counsel in several Hatch-Waxman litigations on behalf of generic drug companies that involve branded drugs having sales approaching a billion dollars.
  • Ralph is currently lead counsel in numerous IPR petitions involving wide-ranging technologies from pharmaceuticals to electronic cigarettes.
Forward Thinking
in the media
May 03, 2017
On May 3, 2017, Law360 mentioned Ralph Gabric and Laura Lydigsen in an ongoing case for their client. Please click here to read more.
in the media
January 10, 2017
On January 10, 2017, Law360.com mentioned the Federal Circuit decision upholding a PTAB decision in favor of FLIR Systems Inc. where Ralph Gabric is quoted.  Please click here to read more.
multimedia
September 25, 2015

The Brinks Post-Grant Practice Group held the third in a series of ...

in the media
September 08, 2015

On September 8, 2015 Joe Hetz, Richard DeMille and Ralph Gabric were mentioned in the Law360 article ...

in the media
April 30, 2015
On April 28, 2015 Laura A. Lydigsen and Ralph Gabric were mentioned in Chicago Daily Law Bulletin regarding their recent presentations at the Paragraph IV Disputes conference on April 27 in New York. Click here to read more.
in the media
April 24, 2015
On April 24, 2015 Brinks attorneys Ralph Gabric and Mircea Tipescu were mentioned as counsel for ZTE in the Law360 article, 'Law360's Weekly Verdict: Legal Lions & Lambs.' Click here to read more.
in the media
July 25, 2014
Ralph Gabric, Robert Mallin and Hersh Mehta were mentioned in the Law360 article, 'Kia Slams Keyless Inventor Over Duplicative IP Suits,' on July 25, 2014. Click here to read more.
book
1999
Ralph J. Gabric contributed 'Chapter 2, Protecting Trade Dress,' to the second edition of Trade Dress and Product Configuration Law published by Aspen Law & Business in 1999.
Presentations
  • "PTAB Live: Thoughts on Practice, Procedure, IPRs and More in the World of Pharmaceutical Patent Validity Challenges," ACI Paragraph IV Disputes, New York, NY, April 25, 2017
  • "Generic Drug Litigation in the U.S.," 7th Annual Generic International Summit, Shanghai, China, April 20, 2017
  • "Parallel Proceedings Moot Court: District Court and PTAB Mock Pharmaceutical Patent Invalidity Hearing," Brinks Sponsoring ACI Paragraph IV Disputes, New York, NY, April 25, 2016
  • "The PTAB Live," ACI's Paragraph IV Disputes Conference, New York, New York, April 25-26, 2016
  • "A View From the Bench: The Federal Judges Speak," ACI's Paragraph IV Disputes Conference, New York, New York, April 27-28, 2015
  • "Working with Local Counsel and Within Local Rules: Magistrate and Local Counsel Roundtable," ACI's Paragraph IV Disputes Master Symposium, New York, New York, April 27-28, 2014
  • “Damages in a Post-Uniloc World—Expert Tools for Determining Reasonable Damages and Obtaining Further Relief from Infringement,” ACI’s Advanced Forum on Patent Litigation, New York, New York, December 2013
  • “Enforcement’s Role in Your IP Strategy: A Balanced Approach,” IP Strategy Summit (TIPSS), November 2013
  • “Managing Risks of U.S. IP Litigation,” International Intellectual Property Rights Conference, Global IP Convention, Bangalore, India, January 2013
  • “Markman Hearing - Claim Construction,” International Intellectual Property Rights Conference, Global IP Convention, New Delhi, India, January 2012
  • "The Post-Therasense World: Pleading and Defending Against Inequitable Conduct Allegations Under the Heightened Standard for Materiality and Intent," ACI's Paragraph IV Disputes: Expert Insights on Hatch-Waxman Litigation Strategies for Brand Names and Generics, San Francisco, Calif., December 2011
  • "Developing Proactive Procedures and Strategies Today For the Flood of Biosimilar Litigation Tomorrow: From the Exchange of Patents to be Litigated to Project Launch," ACI’s 2nd Annual Conference on Biosimilars, New York City, June 2011
  • "Patent Litigation Issues on Chemicals, Drugs & the Pharmaceutical Industry," 3rd International Intellectual Property Rights Conference, Global IP Convention, Bangalore, India, April 2011
  • "Ethical Issues in Patent Litigation," Practicing Law Institute's Patent Litigation 2010 Seminar, Chicago, Illinois, October 2010
  • "Clearance Opinions and Reliance on Advice of Counsel in the Aftermath of Echostar," Recent Developments in IP Litigation, Brinks Gilson & Lione Seminar, Chicago, Illinois, September 2006
Representative Matters

  • Fontem Ventures B.V. and Fontem Holdings 1 B.V. v. R.J. Reynolds Vapor Co. (C.D. Cal. 2016-present). Subject: Patent Infringement. Resolution: Transferred to M.D.N.C. Ongoing. Mr. Gabric is lead counsel for defendant R. J. Reynolds.
  • Panasonic Corporation v. MobileDemand LLC  (D.N.J. 2016).  Subject:  Design patent infringement.  Mr. Gabric is lead counsel for Panasonic.   

  • Creative Technology Ltd v. ZTE Corporation and ZTE (USA) Inc. (E.D. Tex. 2016-present). Subject: Patent Infringement. Resolution: Ongoing. Mr. Gabric is lead counsel for defendants ZTE Corporation and ZTE (USA) Inc.
  • In the Matter of Certain Portable Electronic Devices and Components Thereof  (ITC Inv. No. 337-TA-994, 2016-present). Subject: Patent Infringement. Resolution: Ongoing. Mr. Gabric is counsel for respondents ZTE Corporation and ZTE (USA) Inc.
  • Dow Pharmaceutical Sciences, Inc. and Valeant Pharmaceuticals North America LLC v. Actavis Laboratories UT, Inc., Actavis Inc., and Allergan PLC formerly known as Actavis PLC (D. N.J. 2016-present). Subject: Patent Infringement relating to Onexton® (benzoyl peroxide and clindamycin phosphate topical gel). Resolution: Ongoing. Mr. Gabric is lead council for the Actavis defendants.
  • Horizon Pharma Ireland Ltd. v. Actavis Laboratories UT, Inc., (D.N.J. 2014). Subject: Patent Infringement relating to Pennsaid® (diclofenac sodium topical solution). Resolution: Ongoing. Mr. Gabric is lead counsel for Defendant.
  • Noven Therapeutics, LLC v. Actavis Laboratories FL, Inc., Actavis Pharma, Inc., ANDRX Corp., and Actavis, Inc. (D.N.J. 2014). Subject: Patent Infringement relating to Brisdelle® (paroxetine mesylate). Resolution: Ongoing. Mr. Gabric is lead counsel for Defendants.
  • AstraZeneca AB v. Watson Laboratories, Inc., Actavis, Inc., and Actavis LLC (D. Del. 2014). Subject: Patent Infringement relating to Onglyza® (saxagliptin) and Kombiglyze® (saxagliptin and metformin HCl). Resolution: Ongoing. Mr. Gabric is lead counsel for Defendants.
  • Kia Motors America, Inc. and Kia Motors Corporation v. Peter F. Wingard (N.D. Ill. 2014).  Subject: Declaratory Judgment Action for Non-Infringement.  Resolution: Ongoing.  Mr. Gabric is lead counsel for Kia Motors.
  • Noven Pharmaceuticals, Inc. v. Watson Laboratories, Inc. et al. (D.N.J. 2011-2014). Lead counsel for generic client in Hatch-Waxman patent litigation in a first to file (FTF) opportunity related to a methylphenidate transdermal patch sold by Noven as Daytrana®. Obtained partial summary judgment rulings of non-infringement and invalidity due to inadequate written description. The parties’ settlement permits a 2015 launch notwithstanding the 2018 expiration of the patents-in-suit.
  • Roche Palo Alto LLC and Genentech, Inc. v. Watson Laboratories, Inc.-Florida (D. Del. 2013). Subject: Patent Infringement relating to Valcyte® (valganciclovir HCl). Resolution: Ongoing. Mr. Gabric is lead counsel for Watson Laboratories, Inc.-Florida.
  • McDavid, Inc., and Stirling Mouldings Limited v. Nike USA, Inc. (N.D. Ill. 2013). Subject: Patent Infringement. Mr. Gabric was lead counsel for Nike, Inc.
  • InterDigital Communications, Inc. v. ZTE Corporation (D. Del. 2013). Subject: Patent Infringement. Resolution: Ongoing. Mr. Gabric is counsel for defendant, manufacturer of wireless devices.
  • Draeger Medical Systems, Inc. v. Atom Medical International, Inc. and Philips Electronics North America Corp. (M.D. Fla. 2012). Subject: Patent Infringement. Resolution: Case settled. Mr. Gabric was lead counsel for Atom Medical International, Inc. and Philips Electronics North America Corp.
  • Advanced Connection Technology, Inc. v. Canon U.S.A., Inc. (N.D. Cal. 2012). Subject: Patent Infringement. Resolution: Ongoing. Mr. Gabric is lead counsel for Canon U.S.A., Inc.
  • Avanir Pharmaceuticals, Inc., Avanir Holding Company, and Center for Neurologic Study v. Watson Pharmaceuticals, Inc., Watson Laboratories, Inc., and Watson Pharma, Inc. (D. Del. 2012). Subject: Patent Infringement relating to Nuedexta® (dextromethorphan hydrobromide and quinidine sulfate). Resolution: Case settled. Mr. Gabric was lead counsel for the Watson defendants.
  • Geotag, Inc. v. Where 2 Get It, Inc., et al. (E.D. Tex. 2011). Subject: Patent Infringement. Resolution: Case settled. Mr. Gabric was lead counsel for Seiko USA, Seiko Instruments Inc. and Seiko Watch Corp.
  • Boston Scientific Corp., Boston Scientific Scimed, Inc., Boston Scientific Ltd., and Endovascular Technologies, Inc. v. Cook, Inc., Wilson-Cook Medical, Inc., Cook Medical Inc., Cook Ireland Ltd., Cook Group, Inc., Taewoong Medical Co., Ltd., Standard Sci-Tech Inc., EndoChoice, Inc., and Sewoon Medical Co., Ltd. (D. Mass. 2010-present). Subject: Patent Infringement. Resolution: Ongoing. Mr. Gabric is lead counsel for the Cook entities.
  • Trading Technologies International, Inc. v. Stellar Trading Systems, Ltd. et al (N.D. Ill. 2010). Subject: Patent Infringement. Resolution: Case settled. Mr. Gabric was lead counsel for Stellar Trading Systems.
  • Abbott Laboratories and Fournier Laboratories Ireland Ltd. v. Watson Laboratories, Inc.-Florida, Watson Pharma, Inc., and Watson Pharmaceuticals, Inc. (D. N.J. 2010). Subject: Patent Infringement relating to Trilipix® (fenofibric acid). Resolution: Case settled. Mr. Gabric was lead counsel for the Watson defendants.
  • Delphi Automotive Systems, LLC, IEE Sensing, Inc., IEE SA, and Elesys North America, Inc. v. Vehicle Occupant Sensing Systems, LLC, et al. (E.D. Mich. 2010). Subject: Patent Infringement. Resolution: Case settled. Mr. Gabric was lead counsel for defendant Elesys North America, Inc.
  • ICOR International, Inc. v. E.I. DuPont de Nemours & Company (S.D. Ind. 2010). Subject: Declaratory Judgment of Non-infringement and for False Marking. Resolution: Case voluntarily dismissed. Mr. Gabric was lead counsel for ICOR International, Inc.
  • Cook, Inc. v. Endologix, Inc., (S.D. Ind. 2009). Subject: Patent Infringement. Resolution: Case settled. Mr. Gabric was lead counsel for Cook.
  • AOL, Inc. v. Yahoo! Inc. (S.D.N.Y. 2009). Subject: Patent Infringement. Resolution: Case settled. Mr. Gabric was lead counsel for Yahoo!
  • Vehicle Occupant Sensing Systems, LLC v. American Honda Motor Co., Inc. (E.D. Tex. 2009). Subject: Patent Infringement. Resolution: Case settled. Mr. Gabric was lead counsel for defendant American Honda.
  • LifeWatch Services, Inc. and Card Guard Scientific Survival, Ltd. v. Medicomp, Inc. and United Therapeutics Corporation, (M.D.  Fla., 2009) Subject: Patent Infringement. Resolution: Ongoing. Mr. Gabric is lead counsel for LifeWatch Services and Card Guard.
  • AstraZeneca Pharmaceuticals LP, AstraZeneca UK Limited, IPR Pharmaceuticals, Inc., and Shionogi Seiyaku Kabushiki Kaisha v. Teva Pharmaceuticals USA, Inc. and Teva Pharmaceutical Industries, Inc. (D. Del. 2008). Subject: Patent Infringement relating to Crestor® (rosuvastatin calcium). Mr. Gabric represented Teva Pharmaceuticals, USA, Inc.
  • McDavid, Inc., and Stirling Mouldings Limited v. Nike USA, Inc. (N.D. Ill. 2008). Subject: Patent Infringement. Mr. Gabric was counsel for Nike, Inc.
  • Merck Sharp & Dohme Pharmaceuticals SRL v. Teva Pharmaceuticals USA, Inc. and Teva Pharmaceutical Industries, Inc. (D. N.J. 2007).  Subject: Patent Infringement relating to Singulair® (montelukast sodium). Resolution: Patent on compound held enforceable and not invalid.  Mr. Gabric was lead counsel for the Teva defendants.
  • Alticor Inc., Amway Corp. and Quixtar Inc. v. NCR Corp. (W.D. Mich. 2007). Subject: Patent Infringement. Resolution: Case settled. Mr. Gabric represented Amway, Alticor and Quixtar.
  • Pokorny v. Quixtar, et al. (N.D. Cal. 2006). Subject: Class Action/RICO. Resolution: Settled. Mr. Gabric represents defendants Quixtar, et al.
  • Bonutti IP, L.L.C. v. ArthroCare Corp. (S.D. Ill. 2005-2007). Subject: Patent Infringement. Resolution: Obtained multi-million dollar settlement on behalf of the plaintiff-patentee. Mr. Gabric was lead counsel for Bonutti IP.
  • Jacobs Chuck Mfg. Co. v. Shandong Weida Machinery Company and One World Technologies, Inc. (E.D. Tex. 2005-2007). Subject: Patent Infringement. Resolution: Case settled. Mr. Gabric represented both defendants.
  • Automotive Technologies International, Inc. v. American Honda Motor Company, General Motors Corporation and Elesys North America, Inc. (D. Del. 2006).  Subject: Patent Infringement. Resolution: Ongoing. Mr. Gabric represents defendants American Honda, GM and Elesys North America. Resolution: Case stayed pending reexamination of asserted patents.
  • Nitro Distributing, et al. v. Alticor, et al. (W.D. Mo. 2002-Present). Subject: Antitrust. Issue: Whether Alticor conspired with others in violation of §§ 1 and 2 of Sherman Act. Resolution: Summary Judgment in favor of defendants; affirmed on appeal by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit. Mr. Gabric represented the defendants.
  • Dionex Inc. v. Alltech Associates, Inc. (N.D. Cal. 2002-2005). Subject: Patent Infringement. Issue: Infringement and Invalidity. Resolution: Case settled. Mr. Gabric represented Alltech Associates.
  • McArthur Photography Inc. v. Ficore (N.D. Ill. 2002-2004). Subject: Copyright Infringement. Issue: Whether Ficore made reprints of photographs without license. Resolution: Case settled. Mr. Gabric was lead counsel for McArthur Photography.
  • Amway Corp. v. Procter & Gamble (W.D. Mich. 1998-2003). Subject: Tortious Interference. Issue: P&G is charged with publishing court pleadings that contain false and misleading information about Amway. Resolution: P&G protected by the Fair Reporting Privilege.
  • eSpeed, et al. v. Chicago Mercantile Exchange, et al. (N.D. Tex. 1999-2001). Subject: Patent Infringement. Issue: Infringement and Validity. Resolution: Case settled. Mr. Gabric represented the CME.
  • Star Scientific, Inc. v. R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Co. (D. Md. 2001). Subject: Patent Infringement. Issue: Infringement, validity and enforceability. Resolution: Patents held unenforceable after an eight-day bench trial. Reversed on appeal and remanded for trial on the issues of validity and infringement. After a four-week jury trial in May-June 2009, the jury ruled in favor of R.J. Reynolds on every issue, patents held not infringed and invalid. Non-infringement finding affirmed on appeal. Mr. Gabric was co-lead counsel for defendant R. J. Reynolds.
  • Holcomb Healthcare Services Corp. and Amway Corporation v. Nikken, Inc. (M.D. Tenn. 1999-2001). Subject: Patent and Unfair Competition. Issue: Infringement and Validity. Resolution: The Court denied the defendant's motions for summary judgment on the issue of infringement, validity and unfair competition. Case settled.  Mr. Gabric represented Amway and Holcomb Healthcare.
  • Dionex, Inc. v. Alltech Associates, Inc. (N.D. Cal. 1998-2000). Subject: Patent Infringement. Issue: Infringement and Validity. Resolution: Case settled. Mr. Gabric was lead counsel for Alltech Associates.
  • Prototype Equipment Co. v. Fallas Automation, Inc., et al. (N.D. Ill. 2000). Subject: Patent Infringement. Issue: Defendant threatened to introduce product at trade show that infringed our client’s patent. Resolution: Temporary Restraining Order granted resulting in favorable settlement for our client.
  • Foresight, Inc. v. Platipus Anchors, Ltd. (D. Col. 1998-2000). Subject: Patent Infringement. Issue: Infringement and Validity. Resolution: Court interprets patent claims as a matter of law in a manner favorable to our clients, the alleged infringers; summary judgment granted in favor of our clients. Mr. Gabric was lead counsel for Platipus Anchors.
  • Yesmail.com v. Internet Marketing Group, Brett Enright and Mark Ellis (N.D. Ill. 2000). Subject: Computer abuse, spamming, tortious interference with business relationships. Issue: Whether defendants’ e-mail activities and efforts to disguise their identity violated plaintiff’s common law and statutory rights. Resolution: Consent Judgment entered in favor of plaintiff finding defendants’ efforts to conceal their identity and efforts to create the appearance that their e-mail messages originated from plaintiff constituted violations of federal and common law. Mr. Gabric was lead counsel for Yesmail.com.
  • Yesmail, Inc. v. Mail Abuse Prevention System, LLC (N.D. Ill. 2000). Subject: Tortious interference with contractual relationship, business disparagement, defamation arising from Internet-related activities. Issue: Whether identifying plaintiff as a “spammer” and blocking transmission of plaintiff’s e-mail messages violated plaintiff’s common law rights. Resolution: The District Court for the Northern District of Illinois granted a temporary restraining order in our client’s favor preventing defendant from identifying plaintiff as a “spammer” and from interfering with plaintiff’s transmission of e-mail messages to third party internet service providers. Case settled. Mr. Gabric was lead counsel for Yesmail, Inc.
  • Procter & Gamble v. Amway Corp. (S.D. Texas 1997-1999). Subject: Defamation, violations of the Lanham Act and RICO statutes, defamation, tortious interference with business relations, fraud and vicarious liability. Issue: The claims were based on statements made by Amway distributors about P&G, comparative advertising of Amway and P&G products, and Amway's business activities. Resolution: Some of the claims were dismissed at the pleading stage and others were dismissed by summary judgment. The remaining claims were dismissed at the conclusion of a two-week jury trial. Court of Appeals affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded. The district court stayed proceedings pending the outcome of Amway's petition for a writ of certiorari by the Supreme Court.
  • Procter & Gamble v. Randy Haugen and Amway Corporation (D. Utah 1995-1999). Subject: Lanham Act, defamation per se, tortious interference with business relations and vicarious liability. Issue: Whether Amway was vicariously liable for false statements made by Amway distributors about P&G. Resolution: All of P&G's claims were dismissed at the pleading stage or by summary judgment. The Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed that Amway was not vicariously liable and remanded two claims of direct liability which are pending in the district court.
  • Out of Line Sports, Inc. v. Rollerblade, Inc. (D. Col. 1996-1998). Subject: Patent infringement. Issue: Infringement and Validity. Resolution: Case settled.
  • Alpine Lace Brands, Inc. v. Borden, Inc., Schreiber Foods, Inc., et al., No. 95-1131 (JWB) (D. N.J. 1996); aff’d, Nos. 96-1511, 97-1047 (Fed. Cir. Oct. 22, 1998). Subject: Patent for low-fat cheese. Issue: Patent Infringement. Resolution: Court interprets patent claims as a matter of law in a manner favorable to our clients, the alleged infringers; summary judgment granted in favor of our clients; affirmed by the Federal Circuit after appeal. Mr. Gabric represented Schreiber Foods.
  • Glascraft, Inc. v. Graves Spray Supply, Inc., No. 95-662-CIV-T-25C (M.D. Fla. 1996). Subject: Patents for fiberglass resin/catalyst spray guns. Issue: Infringement and validity of patents owned by both parties. Resolution: Case settled. Mr. Gabric represented Glascraft.
  • Apollo Inc. v. Global Village Inc. (N.D. Ill. 1995). Subject: Trademark Infringement. Issue: Validity, infringement and whether second-filed trademark action should proceed in lieu of first-filed declaratory judgment in California. Resolution: First-filed California declaratory judgment action dismissed and second-filed trademark action allowed to proceed. Case settled. Mr. Gabric represented Apollo Inc.
  • Marianna Imports v. Helene Curtis, Inc., 873 F. Supp. 308 (D. Neb. 1994). Subject: Patent for permanent hair-waving compound. Issue: Should the patent infringer’s second-filed, but first-served declaratory judgment action prevail over the patent owner’s first-filed, but second-served assertive action. Resolution: The patent infringer’s second-filed action is dismissed in favor of our client, the patent owner’s, first-filed assertive action; case later settles in favor of our client, Helene Curtis, by Marianna’s cessation of infringement and payment of damages. Mr. Gabric represented Helene Curtis, Inc.
  • Helene Curtis, Inc. v. Ken Lange, Stylors, Inc., New Horizons Labs, Ltd. and J. Cannon, Inc., Nos. 3 C 7388-7391 (N.D. Ill. 1994). Subject: Patent for permanent hair-waving compound. Issue: Patent Infringement and Validity. Resolution: Four cases settled.  Mr. Gabric represented Helene Curtis, Inc.
  • In re Convertible Rowing Exerciser Patent Litigation, 817 F.Supp. 434 (D. Del. 1993); see also, 903 F. 2d 822 (Fed. Cir. 1990). Subject: Multi-district patent infringement action against our client, Roadmaster Corp. and Ajay Enterprises, Inc., and seven other defendants alleging infringement of a patent on a convertible rower. Issue: Whether a decision by the International Trade Commission (ITC) that a patent-in-suit was invalid, was binding in a later Federal District Court action involving the same patent. Resolution: The Delaware District Court entered a Summary Judgment for the defendants holding that the facts underlying the ITC invalidity decision were binding on the patentee under the doctrine of collateral estoppel, and therefore, cannot be re-tried in Federal Court.
  • Pogue v. Allied Products Corp., 14 U.S.P.Q. 2d 1329 (N.D. Ill. 1989). Subject: Patents and copyrights for computer software for machine control operator interfaces. Issue: Amendment of copyright infringement claim to include a patent infringement claim. Resolution: Motion granted; case settled.
  • Tenman Systems, Inc. v. The Ziegelman Organization, No. 89 CH 43 (N.D. Ill. 1989). Subject: Trade secrets for computer software. Issue: Whether an alleged contract can be enforced on the basis of supposed underlying trade secrets when the signatures on the contract were forged. Resolution: After a document examiner reports that the signatures on the alleged contracts are not genuine, the case settles permitting our client, Ziegelman, to continue to use the computer software.
Post-Grant Patent Office Proceedings
  • R.J. Reynolds Vapor Company v. Fontem Holdings 1B.V. (IPR2017-01319). Subject: U.S. Patent 9,326,549.  Mr. Gabric is lead counsel for Petitioner R.J. Reynolds Vapor Company.
  • R.J. Reynolds Vapor Company v. Fontem Holdings 1B.V. (IPR2017-01318). Subject: U.S. Patent 9,326,549. Mr. Gabric is lead counsel for Petitioner R.J. Reynolds Vapor Company.
  • R.J. Reynolds Vapor Company v. Fontem Holdings 1B.V. (IPR2017-01180).  Subject:  U.S. Patent 8,893,726.  Mr. Gabric is lead counsel for Petitioner R.J. Reynolds Vapor Company.
  • R.J. Reynolds Vapor Company v. Fontem Holdings 1B.V. (IPR2017-01120).  Subject:  U.S. Patent 8,899,239.  Mr. Gabric is lead counsel for Petitioner R.J. Reynolds Vapor Company.
  • R.J. Reynolds Vapor Company v. Fontem Holdings 1B.V. (IPR2017-01119).  Subject:  U.S. Patent 8,490,628.  Mr. Gabric is lead counsel for Petitioner R.J. Reynolds Vapor Company.
  • R.J. Reynolds Vapor Company v. Fontem Holdings 1B.V. (IPR2017-01118).  Subject:  U.S. Patent 8,490,628.  Mr. Gabric is lead counsel for Petitioner R.J. Reynolds Vapor Company.
  • R.J. Reynolds Vapor Company v. Fontem Holdings 1B.V. (IPR2017-01117).  Subject:  U.S. Patent 8,893,726.  Mr. Gabric is lead counsel for Petitioner R.J. Reynolds Vapor Company.
  • R.J. Reynolds Vapor Company v. Fontem Holdings 1B.V. (IPR2016-01859).  Subject:  U.S. Patent 9,326,549.  Mr. Gabric is lead counsel for Petitioner R.J. Reynolds Vapor Company.
  • R.J. Reynolds Vapor Company v. Fontem Holdings 1 B.V. (IPR2016-1692). Subject U.S. Patent 9,326,548. Mr. Gabric is lead counsel for Petitioner R.J. Reynolds Vapor Company.
  • R.J. Reynolds Vapor Company v. Fontem Holdings 1 B.V. (IPR2016-01691). Subject: U.S. Patent 9,326,548. Mr. Gabric is lead counsel for Petitioner R.J. Reynolds Vapor Company.
  • R.J. Reynolds Vapor Company v. Fontem Holdings 1 B.V. (IPR2016-01532). Subject: U.S. Patent 8,365,742. Mr. Gabric is lead counsel for Petitioner R.J. Reynolds Vapor Company.
  • R.J. Reynolds Vapor Company v. Fontem Holdings 1 B.V. (IPR2016-01527). Subject: U.S. Patent 8,490,628. Mr. Gabric is lead counsel for Petitioner R.J. Reynolds Vapor Company.
  • R.J. Reynolds Vapor Company v. Fontem Holdings 1 B.V. (IPR2016-01272). Subject: U.S. Patent 8,899,239. Mr. Gabric is lead counsel for Petitioner R.J. Reynolds Vapor Company.
  • R.J. Reynolds Vapor Company v. Fontem Holdings 1 B.V. (IPR2016-01270). Subject: U.S. Patent 8,893,726. Mr. Gabric is lead counsel for Petitioner R.J. Reynolds Vapor Company.
  • R.J. Reynolds Vapor Company v. Fontem Holdings 1 B.V. (IPR2016-01268). Subject: U.S. Patent 8,365,742. Mr. Gabric is lead counsel for Petitioner R.J. Reynolds Vapor Company.
  • Sandoz Inc. v. Eli Lilly & Co. (IPR2016-00318). Subject: U.S. Patent 7,772,209. Mr. Gabric is lead counsel for Petitioner Sandoz Inc.
  • Continental Automotive Gmbh, Kia Motors Corporation, and Kia Motors America, Inc. v. Netlatch, LLC (IPR2015-00481) Subject: U.S. Patent 5,530,431 B2. Mr. Gabric is lead counsel for Petitioners. 
  • FLIR Systems, Inc. v. Leak Surveys, Inc. (IPR2015-00065) Subject: U.S. Patent 8,426,813. Mr. Gabric is lead counsel for Petitioner FLIR Systems, Inc. 
  • FLIR Systems, Inc. v. Leak Surveys, Inc. (IPR2014-00609) Subject: U.S. Patent 8,193,496. Mr. Gabric is lead counsel for Petitioner FLIR Systems, Inc. 
  • FLIR Systems, Inc. v. Leak Surveys, Inc. (IPR2014-00608) Subject: U.S. Patent 8,426,813. Mr. Gabric is lead counsel for Petitioner FLIR Systems, Inc. 
  • FLIR Systems, Inc. v. Leak Surveys, Inc. (IPR2014-00434) Subject: U.S. Patent 8,193,496. Mr. Gabric is lead counsel for Petitioner FLIR Systems, Inc. 
  • FLIR Systems, Inc. v. Leak Surveys, Inc. (IPR2014-00411) Subject: U.S. Patent 8,426,813. Mr. Gabric is lead counsel for Petitioner FLIR Systems, Inc.
  • Honda Tsushin Kogyo Co., Ltd. v. Advanced Connection Technology, Inc. (IPR2014-00307, USPTO). Subject: U.S. Patent No. 7,128,617. Mr. Gabric was lead counsel for Petitioner Honda Tsushin Kogyo Co., Ltd.
  • Atom Medical International, Inc. v. Draeger Medical System, Inc. (IPR2014-00232, USPTO). Subject: U.S. Patent No. 6,345,402. Mr. Gabric was lead counsel for Petitioner Atom Medical International, Inc.
  • Atom Medical International, Inc. v. Draeger Medical System, Inc. (IPR2014-00194, USPTO). Subject: U.S. Patent No. 7,335,157. Mr. Gabric was lead counsel for Petitioner Atom Medical International, Inc.
  • Atom Medical International, Inc. v. Draeger Medical System, Inc. (IPR2014-00095, USPTO). Subject: 6,483,080. Mr. Gabric was lead counsel for Petitioner Atom Medical International, Inc.
  • Honda Tsushin Kogyo Co., Ltd. V. Advanced Connection Technology, Inc. (IPR2013-00520, USPTO). Subject: U.S. Patent No. 7,128,617 B2. Mr. Gabric was lead counsel for Petitioner Honda Tsushin Kogyo Co., Ltd.
Pro Bono (Trial Bar Appointments)
  • Craddieth v. Target Stores, (N.D. Ill., 2009). Subject: Employment discrimination.
  • Pelmer v. Stuart Dean, (N.D. Ill., 2006). Subject: Employment discrimination.
Press Releases & Events
April 25, 2017
On April 25, 2017, at the ACI Paragraph IV Conference, Ralph Gabric will moderate the panel, PTAB Live: Thoughts on Practice, Procedure, IPRs and More in the World of Pharmaceutical Patent Validity Challenges, which will discuss: The ...
April 21, 2017

CHICAGO—Ralph J. Gabric and Laura A. Lydigsen, shareholders and patent litigators at intellectual property law firm Brinks Gilson & Lione, will be featured presenters at the 11th Annual ACI Paragraph IV Disputes Conference on April 25, 2017, at the Conrad New York...

March 27, 2017
CHICAGO—Six attorneys and shareholders at intellectual property law firm Brinks Gilson & Lione have been selected for inclusion in Euromoney PLC’s 2017 Expert Guide to the World’s Leading Patent Law Practitioners: William H. ...
February 09, 2017

CHICAGO—Twenty attorneys at intellectual property law firm Brinks Gilson & Lione have been named to the 2017 ...

August 15, 2016

CHICAGO—Fifteen attorneys at Brinks Gilson & Lione, one of the largest intellectual property law firms in the United  ...

April 25, 2016
Mark Remus will participate in, "Parallel Proceedings Moot Court: District Court and PTAB Mock Pharmaceutical Patent Invalidity Hearing" This interactive session will illustrate the ins and outs of this balancing act through a mock ...
January 12, 2016

CHICAGO—Twenty-two attorneys at intellectual property law firm Brinks Gilson & Lione have been named to the 2016 ...

September 01, 2015
CHICAGO—Intellectual property law firm Brinks Gilson & Lione announced today that Mark H. Remus has rejoined the firm as a partner in its Chicago office. Remus is a seasoned trial lawyer who has served as lead counsel on numerous patent ...
August 17, 2015
CHICAGO—Thirteen attorneys at Brinks Gilson & Lione, one of the largest intellectual property law firms in the United States, were recently listed in The Best Lawyers in America 2016.  Eleven of the honored attorneys are based in ...
January 20, 2015
CHICAGO—Twenty-four attorneys at Brinks Gilson & Lione, one of the nation's largest intellectual property law firms, are named to the 2015 Illinois Super Lawyers list by Super Lawyers, a rating service that lists lawyers from more than ...
October 23, 2014
CHICAGO—Gary M. Ropski, a shareholder at intellectual property law firm Brinks Gilson & Lione and the firm's past president, has been named the #1 Leading Intellectual Property Lawyer in Illinois by Leading Lawyers, and fifty-nine ...
August 19, 2014
CHICAGO—Sixteen shareholders at Brinks Gilson & Lione, one of the largest intellectual property law firms in the United States, have been selected by their peers for inclusion in The Best Lawyers in America© 2015. Thirteen of the ...
June 16, 2014
CHICAGO— Each year, Intellectual Asset Management magazine's IAM Patent 1000—The World’s Leading Patent Practitioners spotlights best-in-class patent prosecution, licensing and litigation practitioners and firms, and this year ...
January 14, 2014
CHICAGO -- Brinks Gilson & Lione, one of the nation’s largest intellectual property law firms, has announced the 2014 chairpersons of its legal and industry practice groups and geographic task forces. The firm added a new practice group ...
June 16, 2014
CHICAGO—Intellectual property law firm Brinks Gilson & Lione's Chicago office has again this year received high recognition in IAM Patent 1000—The World’s Leading Patent Practitioners, receiving distinction as Recommended ...
December 10, 2013
On December 10, Ralph J. Gabric will be speaking on the panel “Damages in a Post-Uniloc World—Expert Tools for Determining Reasonable" at ACI’s Advanced Forum on Patent Litigation in New York City, NY.  
October 09, 2013
CHICAGO—William H. Frankel, Ralph J. Gabric, Gary M. Ropski, and James R. Sobieraj, four stand-out attorneys and shareholders at intellectual property law firm Brinks Gilson & Lione, have been selected for inclusion in Euromoney PLC's ...
August 05, 2013
CHICAGO—Chambers USA has placed Chicago-based intellectual property law firm Brinks Gilson & Lione in Band 2 for IP law firms in its 2013 national rankings, and has recognized five Brinks lawyers for their achievements in the intellectual ...
July 15, 2013
CHICAGO—When you're in the business of protecting others' brands, patents and intellectual property, it helps to have a winning brand of your own. That's the situation of Chicago-based Brinks Gilson & Lione, one of the ...
January 15, 2013
CHICAGO – Brinks Gilson & Lione has added four new attorneys as chairs of its firm-wide practice groups and formed two new task forces to focus on intellectual property legal services to clients in Germany and Brazil. Appointees include ...
January 04, 2013
CHICAGO – Thirty-eight attorneys from Brinks Gilson & Lione have been named in the 2013 Super Lawyers Illinois Edition, in the categories of Intellectual Property, Intellectual Property Litigation, and Alternate Dispute Resolution ...
October 05, 2012
CHICAGO – Eighteen attorneys from intellectual property law firm Brinks Gilson & Lione have been named as leaders in intellectual property law in the 2013 edition of The Best Lawyers in America, the oldest and most respected peer-review ...
September 20, 2012
CHICAGO – The 2012 Super Lawyers Business Edition has named 24 attorneys from Brinks Gilson & Lione in the categories of Intellectual Property and Intellectual Property – Litigation respectively. The following Brinks attorneys are ...
September 18, 2012
CHICAGO – Leading Lawyers Network has named 54 attorneys from Brinks Gilson & Lione, one of the largest intellectual property law firms in the United States, as 2012 Leading Lawyers in intellectual property in Illinois for 2012. The roster ...
June 15, 2012
CHICAGO – For the tenth consecutive year, Brinks Gilson & Lione has been named among the top intellectual property law practices in Illinois in the annual Chambers USA: America’s Leading Lawyers for Business. In addition, Brinks ...
Honors
  • Illinois Super Lawyers, Intellectual Property Litigation, 2006-2017
  • The Best Lawyers in America, Intellectual Property Law, 2009-2017
  • Named, Euromoney Expert Guide to the World's Leading Patent Law Practitioners, 2017
  • Leading Patent Practitioner, Intellectual Asset Management magazine's "IAM Patent 1000 – The World’s Leading Patent Practitioners," 2013-2016
  • Leading Intellectual Property Lawyer, Leading Lawyers Network, Law Bulletin Publishing Company, 2004-2016
  • Chambers USA: America's Leading Lawyers for Business, Leading Illinois Intellectual Property Lawyers, 2004-2013
Affiliations
  • American Intellectual Property Law Association
  • American Bar Association
  • Federal Circuit Bar Association
  • Intellectual Property Owners Association
Back to Top