Practice Areas

Our firm handles all types of intellectual property litigation in district courts throughout the United States and the ITC, and IPRs before the PTAB. We also work with co-counsel to file and manage cases in other countries, including China. Our primary focus is Patent Monetization for patent owners and Generic Drug Hatch-Waxman Litigation on behalf of generic drug companies, but we also take on licensing matters and counsel individual inventors, start-ups and small companies.

  • Patent Monetization

    We turn your patents into revenue. We have obtained court awards, settlements and licensing deals for our patent-owner clients in cases before district courts around the country and the International Trade Commission. And we have represented large and small companies, startups, solo inventors, and non-practicing entities. We’ve taken cases to trial and argued before the Federal Circuit. The attorneys on our team have relevant technical backgrounds in electrical engineering, computer science, networking, integrated and semiconductor chip technologies, biomedical, chemical and mechanical engineering, medical devices, biology and chemistry. Our experience is also international in scope – our attorneys have managed the filing of lawsuits in Australia, Brazil, China, England, France, Germany, India, Romania and Spain.

    We put our fees at risk and offer contingency billing arrangements. We’ve also structured cases where clients pay costs and we work on a full contingency basis, or where our fees are highly discounted and capped. We have relationships with litigation funders as well, giving us the ability to craft the best funding approach for the particular client and patent portfolio at hand. And we partner with patent prosecution firms for clients with continuing prosecution and open portfolios.

    Examples of our successful representations are:

    Represented an Israeli startup against web services and search engine providers in Delaware. The asserted patents related to technology providing previews of search results.

    Represented a software development company in litigations in Delaware against more than 15 defendants, including some of the largest software companies in the world. The asserted patents covered technology for backup and restore software. 

    Represented a software developer against over 30 laptop, router, semiconductor, and handset makers. The asserted patents covered technology that facilitated program-controlled, direct transfer of data along a bus or data pathway between peer input/output devices in a data-processing apparatus or data-processing network. 

    Represented an electronics component manufacturer in its ITC action against a multinational semiconductor company on patents related to silicon microphone packages. The client was able to obtain a partial limited exclusion order due to this lawsuit.

    Represented a hardware design company against a manufacturer of an activity tracking device on patents covering wearables technology.

    Represented a generic drug company in a Hatch-Waxman litigation involving a four-billion dollar drug product where our client prevailed at trial, launched its drug at risk, won on appeal and generated hundreds of millions of dollars in sales in a contingency profit-sharing fee arrangement.

    Our current cases include:

    Densys Ltd. v. 3Shape Trios A/S and 3Shape A/S, 6:19-cv-00680 (WD TX)

    Exafer Ltd. v. Microsoft Corporation, 1:20-cv-00131 (WD TX)

    In re Certain Electronic Stud Finders, Metal Detectors, and Electrical Scanners, 337-TA-1221 (2020) (ALJ Lord)

    In re Certain Digital Imaging Device and Products Containing the Same and Components Thereof, 337-TA-1231 (2020) (ALJ Elliot)

    Murolet IP LLC v. Schindler Holding Ltd., 6:20-cv-01011 (WD TX)

    NextGen Innovations, LLC v. II-VI and Finisar, 4:20-cv-00854 (ED TX)

    Onstream Media Corporation v. Facebook Inc., 1:20-cv-00214 (WD TX)

    Onstream Media Corporation v. Lifesize, Inc., 6:19-cv-00709 (WD TX)

    Onstream Media Corporation v. Polycom, Inc., 6:20-cv-00743 (WD TX)

    ParkerVision v. Buffalo Inc., 6:20-vc-01009 (WD TX)

    ParkerVision, Inc. v. Hisense Co., Ltd. et al., 6:20-cv-00870 (WD TX)

    ParkerVision, Inc. v. Intel Corporation, 6:20-cv-00108 (WD TX)

    ParkerVision, Inc. v. Intel Corporation, 6:20-cv-00562 (WD TX)

    ParkerVision, Inc. v. TCL Industries Holdings Co., Ltd. et al., 6:20-cv-00945 (WD TX)

    ParkerVision, Inc. v. ZyXEL Communications Corporation, 6:20-cv-01010 (WD TX)

    paSafeShare LLC v. Microsoft Corporation, 6:20-cv-00397 (WD TX)

    SITO Mobile R&D IP et al. v. Blue Scout Media, LLC, 6:20-cv-00910 (WD TX)

    SITO Mobile R&D IP et al. v. FloSports, Inc., 6:20-cv-00471 (WD TX)

    SITO Mobile R&D IP et al. v. Hulu, LLC, 6:20-cv-00472 (WD TX)

    • Generic Drug Hatch-Waxman Litigation

      We have been working with generic drug companies for more than twenty years. Our experience is real. We have tried and won cases involving “true” first-to-file products, allowing our clients to launch at-risk and prevail on appeal. We’ve also tried cases where we have taken the lead role in joint defense groups. And we’ve briefed and argued appeals before the Federal Circuit. 

      But in many of our cases, we share responsibilities with a JDG and focus on client-specific defenses and outcomes. We also work with our clients to develop patent certification strategies, detailed statements and notice letters. In all matters, we stick to our budgets. We have no billable hour requirements, so we don’t duplicate work, chase every defense and get bogged down with needless discovery disputes. We can also share in the risks of litigation with contingency fee arrangements and take on the responsibility of paying hard costs. In fact, our attorneys pioneered alternative billing arrangements for generic drug clients in the late ’90s.

      We know the industry, how it has changed over the years, and the market pressures our clients face. We’ve written articles, have attended CPhI and DCAT, and we speak regularly at generic drug conferences in the United States and India.

      Our representative clients have included:

      • Accord Pharmaceuticals/Intas
      • Aizant Drug Research Solutions Pvt. Ltd.
      • Amneal Pharmaceuticals
      • Ajanta Pharma Limited
      • Kremers Urban Pharmaceuticals
      • MSN Laboratories Private Limited 
      • Novel Laboratories
      • Optimus Pharma Pvt. Ltd.
      • Prinston Pharmaceutical Inc.
      • Ranbaxy Pharmaceuticals
      • Sagent Pharmaceuticals
      • Somerset Pharma

      Whether it is a formulation, polymorph, method-of-use, pharmacokinetics and/or complex or large molecule patent or compound challenge, we have that experience and Daignault Iyer LLP can get you the result you’re looking for. We have represented generic drug companies in cases involving the following drug products:

      • Abiraterone
      • Famotidine
      • Alosetron
      • Fentanyl
      • Aripiprazole
      • Gabapentin
      • Atorvastatin
      • Guaifenesin
      • Bendamustine
      • Hyoscyamine
      • Bivalirudin
      • Levofloxacin
      • Brexpiprazole
      • Linagliptin
      • Cabazitaxel
      • Macitentan
      • Cabozantinib
      • Omeprazole
      • Calcium acetate
      • Palbociclib
      • Canagliflozin
      • Capecitabine
      • Pemetrexed 
      • Pirfenidone
      • Cilastatin/Imipenem
      • Polyethylene glycol
      • Clozapine
      • Prasugrel
      • Dextroamphetamine
      • Sacubitril/valsartan
      • Eluxadoline
      • Sodium picosulfate
      • Empagliflozin
      • Zolpidem
      • Esmolol

    Daignault Iyer LLP

    8618 Westwood Center Drive, Suite 150
    Vienna, VA 22182