Overview
Sean McEldowney is a partner in Kirkland’s Intellectual Property Litigation Group. Sean has litigated patent, trade secret, breach of contract, and other intellectual property cases in federal district courts around the country, the International Trade Commission, and in state courts. He has been trial counsel in more than 10 patent and trade secret cases, and he has also represented clients in appeals at the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit. In addition to his trial experience, Sean also prides himself on developing litigation strategies that drive favorable settlements or summary judgments. He has represented clients in litigation matters involving a variety of technologies including chemical technology, semiconductor technology, medical equipment, various software and hardware applications, and industrial technologies. Sean was selected as a “Rising Star” in Washington, D.C., by Super Lawyers Magazine for 2014–2016.
Experience
Representative Matters
In re Certain Lithium Metal Oxide Cathode Materials (ITC). Represented BASF and Argonne National Laboratory in a Section 337 patent infringement suit alleging that BASF’s competitor, Umicore, infringed two patents related to materials used in lithium-ion batteries. After a full trial in front of an administrative law judge, obtained a favorable initial determination that was upheld by the full Commission, resulting in a limited exclusion order banning Umicore’s importation of the products at issue. Kirkland also successfully fended off Inter Partes Review petitions seeking to invalidate BASF and Argonne’s patents at the U.S. Patent Office.
Carrier Corp. v. Goodman Global, Inc., et al. (D. Del). Represented Carrier in assertion of Carrier’s patent related to HVAC control technology against competitor Goodman Manufacturing. Obtained favorable claim construction and summary judgment orders. After five-day jury trial, the jury returned a finding in favor of Carrier on all issues, including findings of direct infringement, induced infringement, and validity for all asserted claims. Kirkland subsequently prevailed in an inter partes reexamination confirming the validity of Carrier’s patent.
Geographic Services, Inc. v. The Boeing Co. (Va. Cir. Ct.). Defended Boeing against trade secret misappropriation claims related to geographic information systems databases. After taking over the case just months before trial, our team won a motion to strike (akin to a motion for directed verdict) at the close of plaintiff’s case.
Peraton, Inc. v. Raytheon Co. (E.D. Va.). Defended Raytheon against trade secret misappropriation and breach of contract claims relating to proposals for a contract with a U.S. intelligence agency. Mid-way through discovery, Raytheon successfully added a breach of contract counterclaim against Peraton and defeated Peraton’s motion for summary judgment on that counterclaim. After Raytheon moved for summary judgment against Peraton’s claim on both liability and damages grounds, the case settled.
B. Braun Melsungen AG v. Terumo Medical (D. Del.). Represented B. Braun Melsungen AG in patent infringement action in federal district court in Delaware regarding medical device products. Obtained successful jury verdict of infringement and validity on our client’s patents, and obtained an injunction against future sales of the accused products.
Allergan Sales, LLC v. Sandoz Inc. (E.D. Tex. & Fed. Cir.). Representing Sandoz in an ANDA suit filed by Allergan on patents related to glaucoma medications. After a bench trial, the court entered a judgment of non-infringement in favor of Sandoz on two of the three asserted patents. On appeal, the Federal Circuit upheld the finding of non-infringement as to those two patents and reversed the district court’s finding of non-infringement as to the third patent, thus leading to an outright verdict of non-infringement.
Siemens Medical Solutions USA, Inc. v. Saint-Gobain Ceramics & Plastics, Inc. (D. Del.). Represented Siemens Medical in patent infringement suit where Siemens Medical asserted infringement of its patent related to lutetium-based scintillation crystals for use in detecting gamma rays. After trial, the jury returned a $50 M verdict for our client.
Arkema, Inc. v. Honeywell, Inc. (E.D. Pa.). Representing Honeywell in suit brought by Arkema seeking a declaration of invalidity and non-infringement on Honeywell’s patents related to refrigeration chemicals. Successfully briefed motion to stay the case until the conclusion of proceedings at the U.S. Patent Office.
Lucent Technologies Inc. v. Gateway, Inc. (S.D. Cal.). Represented Lucent Technologies in patent infringement suit where Lucent Technologies asserted patents related to audio compression technology. Part of the trial team winning large jury verdict on infringement and validity.
Lucent Technologies Inc. & Multimedia Patent Trust v. Microsoft. (S.D. Cal.). Represented Lucent Technologies and Multimedia Patent Trust in patent infringement suit where Lucent Technologies and Multimedia Patent Trust asserted patents related to various software and hardware applications. Part of the trial team winning large jury verdict on infringement and validity.
NeuroGrafix, et al. v. Siemens Medical Solutions USA, Inc., et al. (C.D. Cal.) Defended Siemens against patent infringement claims brought by inventor and patentee related to software and hardware components in magnetic resonance imaging scanners. Successfully briefed a motion to dismiss four of the five plaintiffs from the suit, which precluded plaintiffs from seeking lost profits. Obtained favorable settlement after briefing and arguing claim construction that invalidated many of the patent claims.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. v. ON Semiconductor (D. Del.). Represented Samsung Electronics Co. in patent infringement suit where Samsung asserted several patents related semiconductor technology and ON Semiconductor counterclaimed asserting several of its own patents related to semiconductor technology.
Clerk & Government Experience
Law ClerkHonorable WIlliam C. BrysonUnited States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit2005–2006
Pro Bono
More
Thought Leadership
Publications
Sean M. McEldowney, Comment, New Insights on the "Death" of Obviousness: An Empirical Study of District Court Obviousness Opinions, 2006 Stan. Tech. L. R. 4.
Sean M. McEldowney, Comment, The "Essential Relationship" Spectrum: A Framework for Addressing Choice of Procedural Law in the Federal Circuit, 153 U. Pa. L. Rev. 1639 (2005).Credentials
Admissions & Qualifications
- California
- District of Columbia
Courts
- United States District Court for the Central District of California2010
- United States District Court for the Eastern District of California2009
- United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit2009
Education
- University of Pennsylvania Carey Law SchoolJ.D.cum laude2005
Dolores K. Sloviter Prize
Executive Editor, University of Pennsylvania Law Review
Arthur Littleton and H. Clayton Louderback Legal Writing Instructor, 2004–2005
- Washington State UniversityB.S., Chemical Engineering2000