Groombridge, Wu, Baughman & Stone LLP

Groombridge, Wu, Baughman & Stone LLP is a patent litigation firm. We try cases in court, in arbitrations, in the International Trade Commission, and before the Patent Trial and Appeal Board, and we argue appeals before the Federal Circuit.

We are nationally recognized thought leaders on patent issues, as well as on issues of social justice. And we are teachers, training the next generation of patent litigators. We have a long track record of achieving successful outcomes for our clients both in the courtroom and in the boardroom.

In the decades before founding Groombridge, Wu, Baughman & Stone LLP, our partners led these representations, among many others:

• 10x Genomics in an ITC proceeding involving micro fluidic devices.
• Amgen in litigations andInter Partes Review (IPR) proceedings against, e.g., Sandoz, Hospira, Mylan, Coherus, and Apotex under the Biosimilars Price Competition and Innovation Act (BPCIA), the statute providing for biosimilar versions of biologic therapies, including the first trial under the BPCIA. Obtained landmark ruling interpreting the statute.
• Aruba Networks in Commil v. Cisco and Aruba, involving enterprise wireless technology. Plaintiff settled with Aruba on favorable terms after opening statements.
• Biogen in litigation against Bayer Healthcare and EMD Serono, involving recombinant beta interferon.
• Cabaret Biotech Ltd. in an action involving CAR-T cancer therapy.
• CheckFree and Fiserv in litigation against Metavante, involving provision of electronic payment solutions to the banking industry.
• Chugai Pharmaceuticals in IPR proceedings regarding protein purification and in Hatch-Waxman litigation regarding the cancer treatment ALECENSA® (alectinib).
• Cisco Systems in litigation against Storage Technologies, resulting in a favorable jury verdict of noninfringement and invalidity.
• Edwards Lifesciences in litigation against Medtronic, involving transcatheter heart valve technology. Obtained a verdict of infringement and $394 million in damages. Together with related matters, this case subsequently settled with payments to Edwards totaling approximately $1.1 billion.
• Garmin in litigations and an International Trade Commission proceeding against, e.g., Silver State Intellectual Technologies, Pacing Technology, Triangle Software, and Navico. Obtained results including a complete defense verdict at trial against Silver State, summary judgment against Pacing Technology, and a win at trial and on JMOL, affirmed on appeal, against Triangle Software.
• Genentech in litigation and IPR proceedings against, among others, Baxalta, BMS, Coherus, Fresenius, GlaxoSmithKline, Human Genome Sciences, and the University of Pennsylvania, involving cancer therapeutics, hemophilia therapeutics, and recombinant antibody expression systems, among others.
• General Electric in litigation against Mitsubishi Heavy Industries, involving wind turbine technology. Obtained a verdict of infringement and $170 million damages.
• Google in litigation against Word To Info, involving infringement allegations against Google’s search and machine learning technologies.
• Liberty Mutual Insurance Company in filing ten petitions for Covered Business Method (CBM) review, beginning the first day PTAB trials became available, resulting in final written PTAB decisions invalidating every claim of each challenged patent, all affirmed on appeal.
• Life Technologies in litigation against Enzo Biochem, involving DNA-sequencing technology.
• Medicis Pharmaceutical Corp. in litigation against, among others, Impax Labs, Prasco, Mylan, Ranbaxy, Sandoz, Barr Laboratories, and Lupin, involving Hatch-Waxman challenges to Medicis’s SOLODYN® product.
• Natera in litigation against Invitae Corp., involving DNA-sequencing technology.
• Nearmap US in litigation against Eagle View Technologies, involving automated modeling of ground structures from aerial imagery.
• SAP AG as co-counsel in the first-ever CBM trial before the PTAB, resulting in the PTAB’s first final decision; this result, in SAP’s favor, was affirmed on appeal.
• Siemens in an International Trade Commission proceeding involving LED technology.
• Simmons Bedding Company in three IPR proceedings against Leggett & Platt, involving mattress technology.
• Spansion LLC in eight IPRs filed by petitioner Macronix, involving semiconductors and memory technology.
• Twitter in litigation and IPR proceedings against Blackberry, involving patents asserted by BlackBerry against various aspects of the social media platform. Obtained ruling on motion to dismiss invalidating four of seven asserted patents as ineligible under Section 101.
• Vanda Pharmaceuticals in Hatch-Waxman litigation regarding proposed generic versions of Vanda’s FANAPT® and HETLIOZ® products, including a trial victory affirmed on appeal in a leading Hatch-Waxman case.