Steven F. Meyer is a partner in Locke Lord LLP's New York office. He focuses in patent litigation in the U.S. District Courts and the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, as well as the U.S. International Trade Commission (ITC). He also prosecutes patent applications in the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO), including Patent Office appeals and interferences. Mr. Meyer has litigated, prosecuted and rendered opinions in patent matters for United States and foreign clients, primarily in the mechanical and medical devices fields. These matters have included a wide range of technologies including automotive parts, air handling devices, wireless communication systems, computer routing systems, medical devices and nuclear reactor repair methods. Previously in his career, Mr. Meyer was a nuclear safety and licensing engineer. Mr. Meyer has experience in Section 337 investigations in the U.S. International Trade Commission. He was part of the team that represented Bombardier before the ITC in In re Certain Personal Watercraft and Components Thereof, as well as a part of the team that represented Ericsson and Sony Ericsson in recent investigations.
Education
- J.D., cum laude, Pace University School of Law, 1989
Editor, Pace Environmental Law Review - M.S., Mechanical Engineering (Thermo-hydraulics), Polytechnic Institute of New York, 1985
- B.S., Nuclear Engineering, Polytechnic Institute of New York, 1982
Admitted To Practice
- U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit
- U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit
- U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York
- U.S. District Court for the District of Connecticut
- United States International Trade Commission
- United States Court of International Trade
- U.S. Patent and Trademark Office
Representative Experience
International Trade Commission
- In the Matter of Certain Semiconductor Devices, DMA Systems, and Products Containing Same (U.S. ITC (2007)). Represented 15 separate non-parties that received subpoenas served by complainant Samsung; successfully quashed all 15 subpoenas.
- In the Matter of Certain Wireless Communication Equipment, Articles Therein and Products Containing the Same (U.S. ITC (2006)). Represented Ericsson and Sony Ericsson in action before the International Trade Commission brought by Samsung on 7 patents directed to cellular telephones and cellular communication systems.
- In the Matter of Certain Wireless Communication Devices, Components Thereof, and Products Containing the Same (U.S. ITC (2006)). Represented Ericsson in action before the International Trade Commission brought against Samsung on patents directed to cellular telephones.
- In the Matter of Certain Personal Watercraft and Components Thereof (U.S. ITC Inv. No. 337-TA-452 (2002)). Represented Bombardier Inc. in action before International Trade Commission brought by Yamaha Motor Co. and Sanshin Industries alleging infringement of 11 patents directed to personal watercraft. Obtained dismissal of six of the patent before trial through successful motions for summary determination of noninfringement, invalidity or lack of jurisdiction (no domestic industry). The matter was settled after trial on the remaining five patents.
Counsel for Plaintiff (federal court)
- IBM Corp. v. Compuware Corp. (Patent Infringement) represented IBM in asserting infringement claims against Compuware for a variety of computer hardware and software patents. (S.D.N.Y., 7:04cv357)
- Lucent Technologies Inc. v. Micron Technology, Inc. (Patent Infringement and Breach of Patent License) represented Lucent in assertion of several Lucent patents covering semiconductor devices and semiconductor fabrication technologies and in declaratory judgment of invalidity/non-infringement of several Micron patents covering complex telecommunications systems; plus countersuit filed in E.D. Va. which was successfully transferred to D. Del. (D. Del.; settled)
- Brown & Williamson Tobacco Corporation v. Phillip Morris Incorporated, 229 F.3d 1120 (Fed. Cir. 2000) represented Brown & Williamson Tobacco Corp. in patent infringement action involving reduced circumference cigarettes.
- C.R. Bard, Inc. v. SciMed Life Systems, Inc. (D. N.J.) represented C.R. Bard, Inc. in a patent infringement action involving PTCA balloon dilation catheters.
- C.R. Bard, Inc. v. M3 Systems, Inc. represented C.R. Bard in patent infringement action involving automatic biopsy needles. Published decisions: 157 F.3d 1340, 1998-2 Trade Cases P 72,289, 48 U.S.P.Q.2d 1225 (Fed. Cir. 1998).
- Duracraft Corp. v. Bionaire Inc. et al. (D. Mass.) Patent. Represented Duracraft in action involving patents directed to humidifiers; case settled with payment to Duracraft.
- Stryker Corp. and Osteonics Corp. v. Intermedics Orthopedics, Inc. and Marli Medical Supplies, Inc. 891 F. Supp. 751 (E.D.N.Y. 1995) (Patent Infringement) represented plaintiffs asserting patent for orthopedic hip replacement. Obtained award of $72 million in damages after trial, based on novel lost profits theory and including increased damages and attorneys' fees, after willful infringement was established. Affirmed. 96 F3d. 1409 (Fed. Cir. 1996).
- Procter & Gamble Co. v. Nabisco, Keebler & Frito Lay (Patent/Trade Secret) represented P&G in highly complex patent and trade secret/industrial espionage case involving food chemistry. Settled on eve of trial for payment to P&G of $125 million, which, at the time, represented the largest settlement in a patent case. Interlocutory published decisions: 604 F. Supp. 1485 (D. Del. 1986); 697 F. Supp. 1360 (D. Del. 1988); and 125 F.R.D. (D. Del. 1987).
Counsel for Defendants (federal court)
- Pragmatus Telecom, LLC v. Volkswagen Group of America, Inc., C.A. No. 12-1559-RGA (Dist. of Delaware, 2012). Three patents at issue related to automated call distribution centers that utilize web technologies known as "click to chat" and "click to call."
- Parallel Networks, LLC v. Abercrombie & Fitch, et al., 6:10-cv-111 (E.D. Texas, Tyler, 2011), representing Volkswagen Group of America, Inc/ -- Summary Judgment of Non-Infringement at the District Court decided by Judge Davis on August 12, 2011. Affirmed by the Federal Circuit on January 16, 2013.
-
- Kruse Technology Partnership v. Daimler AG, et al., 10-01066-JVS (Central Dist. Cal., 2012), representing Volkswagen AG and Volkswagen Group of America, Inc. -- Summary Judgment of Non-Infringement at the District Court decided by Judge Selna on March 21, 2012. Pending Federal Circuit decision on appeal.
- Spread Spectrum Screening LLC v. Eastman Kodak Company et al., 1:10-cv-01101-RWG (N.D. Illinois, 2010), representing Heidelberg USA, Inc. Resolution resuling in a minimum settlement fee
- In Re: Halftone Color Separations, 8:08-ML-01926-CJC (Central Dist. Cal., 2008), representing Heidelberg USA Inc. v. Screentone Systems Corp., Acacia Patent Acquisition LLC, Acacia Research Corporation. Forced Screentone to dismiss all infringement claims against Heidelberg royalty free.
- GeoTag, Inc. v. Aromatique Inc. et al., 2:2010-cv-00570 (E.D. Texas, 2010) representing Rolex Watch USA, Inc.
- MAN Roland v. Goss Int'l and Heidelberger Druckmaschinen, District of New Hampshire (Civil Action No. C-03-513-514). Defended Heidelberger against antitrust counterclaims predicated upon inequitable conduct. Obtained summary judgment dismissing all allegations of inequitable conduct.
- Medtronic Vascular, Inc. v. Boston Scientific Corp., Scimed Life Systems, Inc., Boston Scientific Scimed, Inc. and Medinol, Ltd. District of Delaware, Civil Action No. 98-478-SLR (Patent) Defending Medinol against charges of infringement of several patents relating to cardiovascular stents. Obtained summary judgment of no direct infringement and no contributory infringement. Medtronic, 348 F.Supp. 2d 316 (D. Del. 2004); received favorable Markman ruling and grant of summary judgment of no infringement, including no active inducement of infringement. Medtronic, Civ. No. 98-478-SLR, 2005 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 822 (D. Del. 2005)(Markman); Medtronic, Civ. No. 98-478-SLR, 2005 U.S. DIst. LEXIS 1157 (D. Del. 2005)(no infringement). (D. Del.; 2004-2005)
- Compuware Corp. v. IBM (E.D. Mich. 2004) (represented IBM in defending claims of trade secret theft, copyright infringement and antitrust violations and in asserting counterclaims of infringement of six patents relating to graphical user interfaces).
- Yamaha et al. v. Bombardier et al., 2001 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 24568 (C.D. Cal. 2001)(represented Bombardier in action brought by Yamaha Motor Co. and Sanshin Industries Co., Inc. involving allegations of infringement of 33 patents directed to personal watercraft. The case was settled as part of settlement of companion ITC proceeding).
- TM Patents, L.P. v. IBM Corp. (Patent Infringement) represented IBM against charge of infringing four complex computer patents in the area of data storage, memory control and parallel processing data routing. In case of first impression, the Court ruled that patentee is collaterally estopped from challenging claim construction rulings obtained in a prior action that was settled before appeal. 72 F. Supp.2d 370 (S.D.N.Y. 199)(Includes favorable Markman rulings). Summary judgments dismissing patents following Markman ruling. 121 F. Supp.2d 349 (S.D.N.Y. 2000)(patent rights also lost for failure to comply with government-grant license requirements) and 136 F. Supp.2d 209 (S.D.N.Y. 2001).
- Medical Marketing Group v. C.R. Bard, Inc. (N.D. Ga.) Lead counsel for Bard involving patents directed to urinary catheters; obtained summary judgment of patent invalidity, and successfully argued before Federal Circuit for affirmance.
- Go Medical v. C.R.Bard, Inc. (N.D. Ga.) Principal counsel for Bard involving patents directed to urinary catheters; developed inequitable conduct defense resulting in successful settlement.
- Advanced Cardiovascular Systems v. C.R. Bard, Inc., 26 USPQ2d 1304 (N.D. Cal. 1992) defended Bard against claim of infringement on a patent relating to balloon dilation catheters; obtained summary judgment of noninfringement.
- MPR Associates, Inc. v. General Electric Co., (E.D. Va. 1995). Co-counsel for General Electric in "rocket docket" patent action involving repair of nuclear reactors. Case settled after defeating motion for preliminary injunction.
- Duracraft Corp. v. Honeywell, Inc., 881 F. Supp. 685 (D. Mass., 1994)(represented Duracraft in a case settled by the parties involving Duracraft's alleged infringement of Honeywell's HEPA air purifier patent).
- Luk Lamellen GmbH v. Valeo (E.D. Mich.) Defended Valeo in a patent infringement action involving eight patents covering automotive clutches.
- LuK Lamellen Und Kupplungsbau FmbH. v. Valeo Clutches & Transmission, Inc. and Valeo SA (E.D. Mich.) Represented Valeo in action involving patent directed to automotive flywheel assembly.
- Casco Products Corp. v. Valeo Vision SA (S.D.N.Y.) Patent. Represented Valeo Vision in action involving patents directed to automotive lighter assemblies.
Counsel For Patent Applicant
- In re Zurko (Federal Circuit) represented applicants in en banc appeal to the Federal Circuit addressing the issue of the Federal Circuit's standard of review of Patent Office decisions. Published Decisions: 116 F.3d 874 (Fed. Cir. 1997); 142 F.3d 1447 (Fed. Cir. 1998); 258 F.3d 1379 (Fed. Cir. 2001).
Publications & Presentations
Publications
- Author, "The Recent Explosion in the Number of False Patent Marking Suits Filed by 'Marking Trolls'," AIPPI Journal (Japan), Vol. 55, Pg. 39-44 (October 2010)
- Author "Patent Exhaustion Doctrine: Impact of Conditions on Authorized Sales," Institute of Intellectual Property Chizaiken Forum, Vol. 72, Pg. 37-45 (Winter 2008).
- Author "Overview of the New Rules on Ex Parte Appeals to the Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences," IP Litigator, Vol. 11, No. 6, Pg. 4 (November/December 2005).
- Co-Author, "Priority Rules Again in the New Patent Interference Rules," IP Litigator, Vol. 11, No. 4, Pg. 7 (July/August 2005)
- Author "Doctrine of Equivalents Applied to Means-Plus-Function Limitations," The Intellectual Property Strategist, Vol. 11, No.9, Pg. 1 (June 2005).
- Author "The Federal Circuit's Guidance for the Application of Prosecution History Estoppel Following its Recent Festo Decision," International Legal Strategy, Legal Risk Management for Japan Business Executives, Vol. 13-3 (March 15, 2004).
Presentations
- Presentation, "KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex, Inc.; One Year Later," Japan Institute of Intellectual Property (April 21, 2008).
- Presentation, "Patent Exhaustion: Quanta Comp. v. LG Electronics," Japan Intellectual Property Association (April 15, 2008), and Japanese Patent Attorney Association (April 17, 2008)
- Presentation, "Comments on KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex, Inc.," Tokyo IP High Court (April 19, 2007); Japan Patent Office (April 19, 2007); and Japanese Patent Attorneys Association (April 20, 2007).
- Presentation, "The Scope of the Patent Exhaustion Doctrine," INFOPAT Association Seminar, Tokyo, Japan (October 23, 2006).
- Presentation, "Judicial Enforcement Developments," Hong Kong Intellectual Property Department (May 12, 2006).
- Presentation, "Proposed Legislative Amendments to 35 U.S.C. Section 271(g)," AIPLA IP Practice in Japan Committee, La Quinta, California (February 1, 2006)
- Presentation, "Section 337 Patent Litigation in the International Trade Commission," INFOPAT Association Seminar, Tokyo, Japan (October 25, 2005).
- Presentation, "New Rules on Appellate Practice Before the Board," American Intellectual Property Law Association Spring Meeting, Philadelphia, PA (May 12, 2005).
- Presentation, "Improving Patent Prosecution Practice in View of the Federal Circuit's Decisions in 2004," INFOPAT Association Seminar, Tokyo, Japan (February 22, 2005).
- Presentation, "Improved Patent Prosecution in View of Recent Federal Circuit Decisions," INFOPAT Association Seminar, Tokyo, Japan (January 13, 2004).
Professional History
- Partner, Locke Lord LLP
- Partner, Morgan & Finnegan, LLP
- Nuclear Licensing Engineer, New York Power Authority
- Nuclear Safety and Licensing Engineer, American Electrical Power Service Corporation
Professional Affiliations & Achievements
- Member, American Bar Association, Environmental, Energy and Resources Section
- Member, American Intellectual Property Law Association
- Member, New York Intellectual Property Law Association
- Member, International Trade Commission Trial Lawyers Association
- Member, Federal Circuit Bar Association
- Member, International Trade Commission Committee of the Intellectual Property Owners Association
- Member, Federal Bar Association, Energy Committee, Intellectual Property Committee
- Member, New York State Bar Association, Section on Environmental Law
- Member, New York City Bar Association, Energy Committee
- Member, New York Intellectual Property Law Association\
- Liaison, Japan Patent Office
|
|