I have helped Judges construe Patent terms and resolve Patent cases:
• A.R. Arena Products, Inc v. Grayling Industries, Inc., no. 11-CV-1911 (N.D. Ohio)
The invention in this case was an inflatable, bulk-material shipper bag. I oversaw discovery and resolved disputes regarding compliance with Local Patent Rules and production of Infringement / Non-Infringement Contentions (read the Order here). I also ruled on a motion to stay, pending reexamination by the Patent and Trademark Office (read the Order here). Finally, I conducted a Markman hearing and construed the disputed Patent terms (read the Order here). This led to resolution of the case.
Counsel for plaintiff reviewed my work as follows: “Good listener, writes clearly, thinks clearly, hard working, patient, asks the right questions. Ran as good a Markman hearing as I’ve been to.” Charles Bruton, Dentons LLP.
• Snap-On Business Solns. v. Hyundai Motor America, no. 07-CV-1961 (N.D. Ohio)
The invention in this case was software for a web-based automotive parts catalog. The critical issue, however, was whether the plaintiff owed defendant Hyundai a duty to indemnify it for patent litigation costs. Hyundai’s non-compliance with discovery obligations led to my recommendation that the Court impose serious sanctions (read the Order here). This led to resolution of the case.
Counsel for plaintiff reviewed my work as follows: “Cohen worked with the parties to achieve prompt resolution of this difficult case. We found him to be very intelligent, even-handed, responsive, and decisive when decisions were required. He would be an excellent mediator or arbitrator for significant, high-stakes cases.” Lynn Murray, Grippo & Elden LLC.
• Weatherchem Corp. v. J.L. Clark, Inc., 937 F. Supp. 1262 (N.D. Ohio 1996), affirmed in part and vacated in part, 1998 WL 854427 (Fed. Cir. Dec. 7, 1998)
The invention in this case was a plastic two-flap closure used as a sprinkle/pour cap on spice bottles. Following a bench trial, I drafted an opinion concluding that: (a) one patent was invalid due to the “on-sale bar,” (b) another patent was invalid because it was obvious given the prior art, and (c) in any event, the patent claims were not infringed (read the Order here).
On appeal, the Federal Circuit Court of Appeals characterized this opinion as “thorough and legally sound.”
• SKW Americas v. Euclid Chem. Co., 231 F.Supp. 2d 626 (N.D. Ohio 2002)
The invention in this case was a liquid additive that accelerates the hardening of hydraulic cement. I first drafted an opinion denying a motion to dismiss for lack of legal title to the patent (read the Order here). Then, I drafted a Markman opinion construing the disputed patent terms (read the Order here). This led to resolution of the case.
Counsel for defendant stated there was no point in pursuing an appeal because the Markman opinion was “unassailable.” Christopher Fagan, Fay Sharpe LLP.
• Royal Appliance Co. v. Hoover Co., case no. 00-CV-347 (N.D. Ohio)
The invention in this case was an upright carpet-cleaning extractor. I drafted a Markman opinion construing the disputed patent terms (read the Order here). Later, I drafted an Order granting in part summary judgment, based on invalidity and infringement (read the Order here). This led to resolution of the case.