Paul F. Brinkman, P.C.

Paul has been involved in over sixty Section 337 matters, including the following:

• Certain Interactive Fitness Products including Stationary Exercise Bikes (2022): Representing respondent iFit Inc. and subsidiaries in multi-jurisdictional patent litigation against Peloton.
• Certain Laptops, Desktops, Servers, Mobile Phones, and Tablets (2021): Representing respondent Samsung in multi-respondent patent litigation filed by non-practicing entity Sonrai Memory Ltd. A hearing is scheduled in June, 2022.
• Certain Power Inverters and Converters and Vehicles Containing Same (2021): Represented respondent Porsche AG in multi-respondent patent litigation filed by non-practicing entity Arigna Technology Ltd. The case settled favorably before trial.
• Certain Robot Floor Cleaning Devices (2021): Representing iRobot against copycat rival SharkNinja in patent-based investigation relating to robotic floor cleaners. A virtual hearing was held in January 2022. The ALJ found two of iRobot’s patents valid and infringed and recommended a limited exclusion order and cease and desist order be issued against SharkNinja.
• Certain Integrated Circuits (2021): Defended Intel in repeat investigation filed by Tela after it lost its prior ITC investigation against Intel (see below). The Commission assigned the case to its 100 day pilot proceeding on the issue of whether Tela was precluded from bringing the litigation and the case settled shortly thereafter.
• Certain Electronic Devices with Wireless Connectivity (2021), Certain Wireless Communications Equipment (2021), and Certain Semiconductor Devices and Wireless Infrastructure Equipment (2021): Represented Samsung in three parallel Section 337 investigations against Ericsson relating to mobile network technology. The parties settled early during fact discovery.
• Certain RFID Products (2021): Defended Kapsch TrafficCom in a patent-based investigation relating to tags and readers used in tolling operations brought by an industry rival. The parties setted after trial in September, 2021.
• Certain Digital Imaging Devices (2020): Defended Samsung in patent-based investigation brought by non-practicing entity Pictos relating to image sensors in mobile devices. The case settled before the hearing in 2021.
• Certain Automated Storage and Retrieval Systems (2020): Representing AutoStore against rival robot system supplier Ocado in multi-jurisdictional patent litigation. Following trial in 2021, the ALJ found the asserted patents invalid under Section 112. The case is currently on appeal to the Federal Circuit.
• Certain Non-Invasive Aesthetic Body-Contouring Devices (2020): Defended Allergan and its supplier of CoolTone body contouring products in a patent-based investigation. The parties settled on the last day of trial.
• Certain Synthetic Roofing Underlayment Products (2020): Successfully defended CertainTeed’s roofing underlayments from claims of patent infringement. The complainant withdrew its complaint after losing on claim construction. The claim construction hearing was held virtually.
• Certain Mobile Devices with Multi-Function Emulators (2020): Defended Samsung in patent-based investigation relating to magnetic emulation technology. After the case was tried in a Webex-based hearing in November 2020 the ALJ and Commission found no violation by our client and terminated the investigation.
• Certain Luxury Vinyl Tile (ITC 2019): Represented Mohawk Industries in asserting three patents against over 40 Chinese manufacturers and distributors of flooring panels. Obtained a general exclusion order against infringing imports.
• Certain Integrated Circuits (ITC 2019): Defended Intel in a multi-patent investigation relating to integrated circuit manufacturing processes filed by Tela Innovations. The Commission found no violation by our client and terminated the investigation.
• Certain LTE- and 3G-Compliant Cellular Communications Devices (ITC 2018): Defended a global smartphone manufacturer against cellular-communications patents alleged to be standard essential. Following a hearing, the Commission found no violation and terminated the investigation.
• Certain Beverage Dispensing Systems (ITC 2018): Represented Heineken against its rival Anheuser-Busch InBev in a patent-based investigation. Following a hearing in 2019, the Commission found a violation and issued an exclusion order against infringing Anheuser-Busch products.
• Certain Blow-Molded Bag-in-Container Devices (ITC 2018): Defended Heineken in a patent-based investigation brought as part of a global campaign by Anheuser-Busch InBev. After Heineken’s countersuit was tried in April, ABI withdrew its case entirely on the eve of trial.
• Certain Solid State Storage Devices (ITC 2018): Defended Samsung in a patent-based investigation placed within the ITC’s 100 day pilot program, which was tried on the issue of domestic industry in March, 2018, and settled before a merits trial.
• Certain Thermoplastic-Encapsulated Electric Motors (ITC 2017): Defended Mitsuba in a patent-based investigation filed by Intellectual Ventures. The case settled prior to trial after several favorable decisions.
• Certain Digital Cable and Satellite Products (ITC 2017): Represented Sony in patent-based investigation against ARRIS and Pace on set-top boxes. The investigation and corresponding countersuits settled favorably before trial.
• Certain Integrated Circuits with Voltage Regulators (ITC 2016): Represented a Silicon Valley developer of power management solutions in a patent-based investigation against semiconductor industry giants.
• Certain Carbon and Alloy Steel Products (ITC 2016): Represented United States Steel Corporation against 40 Chinese steel manufacturers and distributors in a Section 337 investigation for price fixing, theft of trade secrets by cyber espionage and false designation of origin; participated in one of only three investigations in the past 25 years to receive oral argument before the entire Commission.
• Certain Textile Products (ITC 2015): Represented a domestic textile producer in a Section 337 investigation for patent infringement and false advertising of the thread count in bedding materials, obtaining a general exclusion order following grant of summary determination in the client’s favor.
• Certain Radiotherapy Systems and Treatment Planning Software (ITC 2015): Represented a California-based medical device maker in a patent-based investigation against its Swedish rival. Trial was held in June 2016. After obtaining a favorable initial determination from the ALJ, the case settled prior to issuance of an exclusion order.
• Certain Table Saws Incorporating Active Injury Mitigation Technology (ITC 2015): Represented Oregon-based SawStop in a patent-based investigation against a German rival. Trial was held in April 2016, and SawStop obtained an exclusion order based on infringement of two patents.
• Certain Light-Emitting Diode Products (ITC 2015): Represented a North Carolina LED and lighting producer in a Section 337 investigation for patent infringement and false advertising against a major importer and its supplier. The case was tried in October 2015, and the ALJ found a violation of Section 337 based both on patent infringement and false advertising. The ALJ also imposed monetary and evidentiary sanctions against respondents for discovery abuse. The case settled prior to issuance of an exclusion order.
• Certain Ink Cartridges (ITC 2015): Represented a Japanese printer manufacturer and its domestic ink cartridge producing subsidiary in a Section 337 investigation for patent infringement against numerous Respondents. The ALJ issued her final determination finding violations and recommending a general exclusion order in December 2015. The Commission affirmed the ALJ’s determination and issued a general exclusion order and cease and desist order.
• Certain Opaque Polymers (ITC 2014): Represented a major domestic chemical company against a Turkish producer for patent infringement and trade secret misappropriation relating to hollow-sphere polymers used in paints. After finding widespread spoliation by respondents leading to sanctions of default and monetary penalties, the Commission found a violation and issued an exclusion order and cease and desist orders in April 2015.
• Certain Consumer Electronics with Display and Processing Capabilities (ITC 2014): Represented a Japanese Respondent television manufacturer in patent litigation brought by patent assertion entity GPH. The case was tried in April 2014 and settled prior to the Commission’s final determination.
• Certain Media Devices (ITC 2014): Defended a Japanese electronics conglomerate against allegations of patent infringement from non-practicing entity Black Hills Media. The case was tried in February 2014 and the Commission found no infringement in September 2014.
• Certain Mobile Devices (U.S. District Court 2014): Represented Motorola Mobility in a motion for preliminary injunction brought by Microsoft to U.S. Customs and Border Protection’s decision to permit Motorola to import mobile devices that designed-around a limited exclusion order.
• Certain Microelectromechanical Systems (ITC 2013): Represented a multinational electronics producer against a California company for patent infringement of gyroscopes and accelerometers contained in consumer electronics products. The case settled favorably with a royalty-bearing license during trial in February 2014.
• Certain Wireless Electronic Devices (ITC 2013): Represented a domestic multimedia company against allegations of patent infringement from non-practicing entity TPL. The case was tried in June 2013, and the Commission found no violation based on non-infringement and other grounds in February 2014.
• Certain Radio Frequency Integrated Circuits (ITC 2012): Defended a North Carolina semiconductor company and its customers in a Section 337 action brought by a California-based competitor alleging infringement of five U.S. patents. The complainant withdrew its complaint against the clients during discovery.
• Certain Projectors with Controlled-Angle Optical Retarders (ITC 2012): Defended Sony in responding to an investigation relating to cinema and high-end projectors brought by a non-practicing entity, which withdrew from the case on the eve of trial.
• Certain Integrated Circuits, Chipsets, and Products Containing Same Including Televisions (ITC 2012): Successfully represented a Taiwanese semiconductor company in responding to serial-patent infringement complaints filed by a rival.
• Certain Automotive GPS Navigation Systems (ITC 2012): Represented automotive OEMs and their Japanese suppliers of GPS modules in wide-ranging patent infringement litigation brought by Swiss non-practicing entity Beacon Navigation. The complaint was withdrawn in the middle of discovery and the section 337 investigation was terminated.
• Certain Handheld Electronic Computing Devices (ITC 2011): Represented a U.S. multimedia company in defending its popular e-readers from claims of patent infringement by Microsoft. The case was tried in February 2012 and settled very favorably for the client.
• Certain Portable Electronic Devices (ITC 2011): Represented an Asian smartphone manufacturer in responding to patent infringement litigation brought by its major competitor. The case was settled in 2012 after significant post-trial litigation, including an enforcement proceeding.
• Certain Mobile Electronic Devices (ITC 2011): Represented Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd., Samsung Electronics America, Inc. and Samsung Telecommunications America, LLC in two 337 actions against a global smartphone manufacturer, involving 12 design and utility patents. Both cases were tried simultaneously in two ITC hearing rooms. The Commission found violations in both investigations.
• Certain GPS Navigation Products, Components Thereof, and Related Software (ITC 2011): Defended a Japanese GPS producer against a domestic rival in a 337 action involving four patents. The case settled favorably.
• Certain Mobile Devices and Related Software (ITC 2011): Represented a domestic smartphone producer in two actions against its main rival involving nine patents. The cases were tried in September and December 2011.
• Certain Electronic Devices, Including Mobile Phones, Mobile Tablets, Portable Music Players, and Computers (ITC 2011): Represented a global telecommunications company in high-stakes patent litigation against a domestic rival, which spanned three separate ITC investigations and resulted in a large settlement in the client’s favor.
• Certain Muzzle-Loading Firearms and Components Thereof (ITC 2011): Defended a Spanish manufacturer of black powder rifles in patent litigation, including a temporary enforcement proceeding brought by a domestic firearms producer.
• Certain Components for Installation of Marine Autopilots with GPS or IMU (ITC 2011): Represented a marine navigation company in patent litigation involving autopilot systems.
• Certain Electronic Imaging Devices (ITC 2011): Defended a global telecommunications company in a camera-related patent dispute brought by Flashpoint. The case was settled prior to trial.
• Certain Electronic Paper Towel Dispensing Devices and Components Thereof (ITC 2011): Led a global paper products company to a complete victory in a patent dispute against numerous manufacturers and importers of infringing paper towel dispensers. After a finding of infringement on summary determination, the client obtained a general exclusion order prohibiting importation of all infringing devices from any source.
• Certain Mobile Telephones and Wireless Communications Devices Featuring Digital Cameras (ITC 2010): Represented the most well-known photography company in the world against major smartphone producers at the Commission level following an unfavorable initial determination, obtaining a remand to a new Administrative Law Judge.
• Certain DC-DC Controllers and Products Containing Same (ITC 2010): Represented a Taiwanese semiconductor company in seeking relief for patent infringement and trade secret misappropriation. The respondents filed a consent order agreeing not to import accused products on the eve of trial.
• Certain Welding Bulk Welding Wire Containers and Components Thereof and Welding Wire (ITC 2010): Defended a European welding wire supplier against allegations of infringement. The case was tried in 2010, and the Commission found no infringement and terminated the investigation.
• Certain Catheters, Consoles, and Other Apparatus for Cryosurgery (ITC 2008): Defended a small Canadian medical products company in bet-the-company litigation brought by its market rival, which settled favorably prior to trial. Immediately thereafter, the client was acquired by a multinational medical device manufacturer.
• Certain R-134a Coolant (otherwise known as 1,1,1,2-tetrafluroethane) (ITC 2008): Represented a global chemical company in an investigation against a Chinese producer for infringement of a patented process of producing an ozone-friendly refrigerant. The investigation was settled favorably on appeal.
• Certain Hard Disk Drives (ITC 2008): Defended a California-based hard disk drive manufacturer in an investigation brought against hard drives and computers that contain them. Complainant withdrew its case prior to trial.
• Certain 3G Mobile Handsets (ITC 2008): Defended a global telecommunications company in an investigation relating to alleged standard essential patents. The ITC found non-infringement and terminated the investigation.
• Certain Nitrile Rubber Gloves (ITC 2008): Obtained a finding of no violation based on invalidity on behalf of a global medical equipment supplier and its affiliates in an investigation regarding medical examination gloves.
• Certain Mobile Telephone Handsets (ITC 2007): Represented a global telecommunications company in multiple cases in the United States, including an ITC action, and coordinated cases in the U.K., France, Italy, Germany, Finland, Holland, and China. The Administrative Law Judge denied the plaintiff’s request to enjoin our client from importing its handsets into the United States. It also held that none of the three asserted patents were infringed and that one was invalid under KSR Int'l v. Teleflex. This provided a complete defense victory—allowing the client to continue importing hundreds of millions of handsets into the United States—and set the stage for a global settlement on the eve of trial in another case in Delaware.
• Certain Automotive Grilles (ITC 2005): Defended the principal importer of aftermarket automotive body parts from Taiwan in an investigation brought by one of the big three U.S. automakers. The case was withdrawn after it was demonstrated to the complainant that its patent was invalid.
• Certain Electric Robots (ITC 2005): Led a German paint robot manufacturer to a trial victory over its Japanese rival.
• Certain Point of Sale Terminals (ITC 2004): Defended an Irish manufacturer of credit and debit card processing machines against a claim filed by a non-practicing entity based on lack of jurisdiction.
• Certain Insect Traps (ITC 2004): Defended the lead respondent in an investigation involving propane-based insect traps. In a novel move, succeeded in terminating the investigation as to one of the patents and certain of the accused products during the discovery period without a hearing and without any findings of a Section 337 violation. Tried the remaining case in late May 2004 and won a final determination of non-infringement.
• Certain Two-Handle Centerset Faucets (ITC 2000): Led one of America’s largest plumbing products companies to obtain general exclusion order instructing U.S. Customs to seize or deny entry to any imported infringing faucets. The victory was highlighted by the ITC Bar Association as the most significant ITC patent litigation of the year and resulted in detentions and seizures by U.S. Customs of many competitive products.

Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan, LLP

• Partner, 2011–2017

Alston & Bird LLP

• Partner, 2002–2011

Kirkland & Ellis LLP

• Partner, 1999–2002

• Associate, 1994–1999