Steven F. Meyer

Steven F. Meyer is a Partner in New York office of Locke Lord LLP. He focuses on 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). He has been lead counsel in numerous inter partes review ("IPR") proceedings on behalf of Petitioners.

Steven 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, Steven was a nuclear safety and licensing engineer.

Steven 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.

Inter Partes Review

Mr. Meyer is lead counsel for the Petitioner in the following inter partes review (“IPR”) proceedings:

• Case No. IPR2014-01121 -- Zhongshan Broad Ocean Motor Co., Ltd. v. Nidec Motor Corporation regarding U.S. Patent No. 7,626,349 ("Low Noise Heating, Ventilating and/or Air Conditioning (HVAC) Systems"); status: instituted, subsequently joined with IPR2015-00762, upon grant of a request for rehearing; status: Final Written Decision issued, all challenged claims held unpatentable and motion to amend claims was denied.
• Case No. IPR2014-01122 -- Zhongshan Broad Ocean Motor Corporation v. Emerson Electric Co. regarding U.S. Patent No. 7,208,895 ("Control Systems And Methods For Permanent Magnet Rotating Machines"); status: Final Written Decision issued, and all challenged claims held unpatentable.
• Case No. IPR2014-01554 -- Volkswagen Group Of America, Inc. v. EmeraChem Holdings, LLC regarding U.S. Patent No. 6,037,307 ("Catalyst/Sorber For Treating Sulfur compound Containing Effluent"); status: Final Written Decision issued, and all challenged claims held unpatentable.
• Case No. IPR2014-01555 -- Volkswagen Group Of America, Inc. v. EmeraChem Holdings, LLC regarding U.S. Patent No. 5,451,558 ("Process For The Reaction And Absorption Of Gaseous Air Pollutants, Apparatus Therefor And Method Of Making The Same"); status: Final Written Decision issued, and all challenged claims held unpatentable.
• Case No. IPR2014-01556 -- Volkswagen Group Of America, Inc. v. EmeraChem Holdings, LLC regarding U.S. Patent No. 5,953,911 ("Regeneration Of Catalyst/ Absorber"); status: Final Written Decision issued, and all challenged claims held unpatentable.
• Case No. IPR2014-01557 -- Volkswagen Group Of America, Inc. v. EmeraChem Holdings, LLC regarding U.S. Patent No. 7,951,346 ("Methods And Systems For Reducing Particulate Matter In a Gaseous Stream"); status: Final Written Decision issued, and one group of challenged claims held unpatentable, and another group of challenged claims held not unpatentable based on claim construction narrower than that agreed upon by Patent Owner and Petitioner.
• Case No. IPR2014-01558 -- Volkswagen Group Of America, Inc. v. EmeraChem Holdings, LLC regarding U.S. Patent No. 5,599,758 ("Regeneration Of Catalyst/ Absorber"); status: Final Written Decision issued, and all challenged claims held unpatentable.
• Case No. IPR2015-01617 – Broad Ocean Technologies, LLC v. Nidec Motor Corporation regarding U.S. Patent No. 7,990,092 (“Blower Motor for HVAC Systems”); status: instituted.

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; 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 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 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.
• 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." Forced Pragmatus to dismiss all infringement claims against Volkswagen royalty free after obtaining Markman ruling.
• 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. Affirmed by the Federal Circuit on October 8, 2013.
• Spread Spectrum Screening LLC v. Eastman Kodak Company et al., 1:10-cv-01101-RWG (N.D. Illinois, 2010), representing Heidelberg USA, Inc. Resolution resulting 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. Faced with two motions for summary judgment of non-infringement, Geotag dismissed all claims against Rolex Watch royalty fee.
• 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 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 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 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 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).