Unlike many law firms, Kessler Topaz is well-positioned to represent clients ranging from startups to Fortune Fifty companies because of our flexible approach to adopting alternative billing structures and contingency fee arrangements that best suit our clients' needs. Our goal is to assist companies in protecting intellectual property and achieving their business objectives while minimizing the financial impact of patent litigation, which has become increasingly expensive over the decade.

Indeed, it is common for attorneys' fees in a patent infringement action to be several million dollars. We recognize that litigation costs are substantial and sometimes prohibitive; thus, we structure arrangements that permit companies to avoid these up-front costs while also securing the highest-quality representation.

The firm has experienced trial attorneys who have managed patent infringement cases involving computer software, telecommunications technology, medical devices, electrical hardware, pharmaceutical products, mechanical pumps, instrumentation, and consumer products. Because of our experience in handling a wide-range of technologies, we can easily adapt to handle the latest technology. Further, because of our extensive litigation experience, we are well-versed on many of the ancillary issues that arise in patent litigation, such as standards-related issues.

In TruePosition v. Andrew Corporation, one of our attorneys acted as lead the trial lawyer for the plaintiff in a case involving technology for finding cell phones. Berwyn PA based TruePosition asserted that the defendant's shipments of cell phone location equipment to Saudi Arabia infringed TruePosition's patent. At trial, the jury not only awarded TruePosition $45 million in lost profits damages, but also found the defendant willful and rejected a claim that TruePosition had committed fraud in a standards body. In 2010, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit affirmed the district court's judgment, totaling nearly $50 million with interest.

In AT&T v. Microsoft, one of our attorneys represented Microsoft at trial in a case that addressed the issue of whether a software manufacturer is liable for supplying infringing software to a foreign country. In a dispute that carried multi-billion dollar implications for the U.S software industry, AT&Tasserted that Microsoft's shipment of its Windows® operating system golden master disk to foreign countries infringed a U.S. patent and that Microsoft was therefore liable for foreign sales of Windows®.  The case settled midway through trial and that settlement laid the groundwork for a landmark holding in the U.S. Supreme Court that Microsoft could not be held liable for infringing a U.S. patent based upon foreign Windows® sales. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Microsoft_v._AT&T.

In TruePosition v. Allen Telecom, one of our attorneys managed the case for Plaintiff TruePosition.  The case involved complex signal processing  technology for locating cellular telephones based on the signals sent by cellular telephones.   TruePosition asserted four patents, and the Court generally agreed with TruePositions's construction of the disputed patent terms.   After a favorable claims construction order, the case settled just before trial with TruePosition receiving a settlement valued at about $45 million dollars.

In Codman & Shurtleff, Inc. v. Integra Life Sciences Corp., one of our attorneys represented Codman & Shurtleff, Inc., a Johnson and Johnson company, against Integra's allegations that Codman's Duraform® collagen sponge infringed an Integra patent.  The case settled shortly after discovery began with a confidential settlement in a pleasing manner to defendant Codman.