Our patent litigation practice weds technologists with trial attorneys. For over 40 years—with the creation of the Federal Circuit Court of Appeals—a dedicated group of Schiff Hardin attorneys has represented patentees, accused infringers, inventors and third parties in matters involving patents. 

Today, our team of more than 25 attorneys and technology professionals practices patent strategy and counseling in virtually every technology area. We work in a wide range of industries—electronics, computerized and technical products, pharmaceuticals, medical devices, Internet/e-commerce, communications and household goods, to name a few.  Our Hatch-Waxman and Biosimilars practice is regarded as one of the best in the world.

From our seven offices across the U.S., we protect our clients’ most valuable IP business assets regardless of where the case is or who is on the other side.


We are proud of our victories, whether they are record-setting verdicts, valuable injunctions, early resolutions before matters are filed, or successful motions to dismiss.  Our Patent Litigation team has recorded wins on motions, in trial, and before the U.S. Patent Trial and Appeal Board. 

We are motivated by successes large and small.  We have been at the forefront of precedent-setting cases, including those on Section 101 patentability.  We have worked as close adjuncts to in-house counsel in day-to-day counselling on litigation management and avoidance.

Value and Velocity 

We understand that not every case needs to go to trial. We understand that not every case requires a stable of Nobel-prize winning experts. We work up a matter based on where it fits a client’s business objectives. 

We litigate with a comprehensive understanding of our clients’ business needs and implement strategies that are tailored to achieve their goals. We manage cases in a way that is most effective and economical for the big picture, whether in hard-nosed litigation or quick and efficient dispute resolution before an issue matures to litigation.  

Bottom line: our clients count on us and we deliver. 

  • Experience

    Recent representative patent litigations include:


    • Uniloc USA, Inc. and Uniloc Luxembourg S.A. v. Allscripts Healthcare Solutions, Inc., Case No. 6:14-cv-00631 (E.D. Tex. 2014). We are currently defending Allscripts Healthcare Solutions in a patent infringement action involving methods for organizing, recording and displaying medical patient care information.
    • NMT Medical, Inc. v. W.L. Gore & Associates, Inc., Case No. 1:08-cv-790 (D. Del.). Our team successfully represented W.L. Gore in a patent infringement case related to a medical device used to treat atrial septal defects.
    • Biotex, Inc. v. Heidelberg Engineering, Inc., Case No. 3:11-cv-00309 (S.D. Tex.). We represented Heidelberg in a case involving glaucoma detection systems.
    • Caliper Life Sciences, Inc. v. Carestream Health, Inc., Case No. 4:10-cv-02079 (N.D. Cal.). We successfully represented Carestream Health in a case involving genetic tagging methods used in cancer research.
    • Carestream Health, Inc. v. Caliper Life Sciences, Inc., Case No. 10-cv-00381 (W.D. Wis.). We represented Carestream Health in case involving its medical imaging systems with cross-registration capabilities.
    • AntiCancer, Inc. v. Carestream Health, Inc., Case No. 07-cv-1004 (S.D. Cal.). We represented Carestream Health, defending its patented medical imaging and fluorescent molecular tagging methods used in cancer treatment and research.

    E-commerce and Financial Services

    • Innovative Automation LLC v. Scholastic Storia Inc. and Scholastic Book Stores Inc., Case No. 2:14-cv-00775 (E.D. Tex. 2014). We represented Scholastic in a patent infringement action involving a method for duplicating and transferring electronic files for e-books.
    • eDekka LLC v. Scholastic Inc., Case No. 2:14-cv-481 (E.D. Tex. 2014). Our team represented Scholastic in an e-commerce patent infringement action involving online “shopping cart” technology.
    • IPDEV Co. v. Ameranth, Inc., Case No. 14-CV-01303 (S.D. Cal. 2014). We represented IPDEV in an interference action involving Internet online order systems.
    • buySAFE, Inc. v. Google Inc., Case No. 3:13-cv-781 (E.D. Va. 2013). Our team represented buySAFE in a patent infringement action involving methods for monitoring and analyzing consumer behavior data to predict consumer demand in relation to offering a third-party transactional guarantee.
    • RPost Holdings, Inc., RPost Communications Ltd. and RMail Ltd. v. Infogroup, Inc., et al., Case No. 2:12-cv-00517 (E.D. Tex. 2013). We represented Scholastic Inc. in a patent infringement action involving electronic mail marketing services and technologies that allow users to track, report and analyze data regarding electronic messages.
    • Princeton Digital Image Corporation v. Scholastic Corporation, et al., Case No. 1:13-cv-00410 (D. Del. 2013). Our team represented Scholastic Corporation in an e-commerce patent infringement action involving JPEG image coding to produce various-sized JPEG images of products sold through Scholastic’s online e-commerce website, including enlarged views of those products.
    • ComplementSoft, LLC v. SAS Institute, Inc., Case No. 1:12-cv-07372 (N.D. Ill. 2012). We represented ComplementSoft in a patent infringement action involving a system and method for generating, modifying and maintaining software source code through a graphical user interface software development tool.
    • Brandywine Communications Technologies, LLC v. Consolidated Communications Holdings, Inc., Case No. 1:12-cv-01784 (D. Del. 2012). We defended Consolidated Communications in a patent infringement action involving data communication devices and related methods.
    • GlobeTecTrust LLC v. Consolidated Communications Holdings, Inc., Case No. 1:12-cv-01239 (D. Del. 2012). We defended Consolidated Communications in a patent infringement action involving fiber optic network systems and technology.
    • Ameranth, Inc. v. Pizza Hut, et al., Case No. 11–CV-1810 (S.D. Cal. 2011). Our Patent Litigation team is currently defending QuikOrder, Inc. in a patent infringement action involving information management and synchronous communications systems.
    • Bed Bath & Beyond v. Sears, Case No. 08-cv-5839 (D. N.J. 2008). We defended Sears in a patent infringement action involving online gift registries.

    Commercial, Industrial and Consumer Goods

    • International Printer Corp. v. Brother International Corp., et al., Case No. 2:07-cv-00361 (E.D. Tex). We represented Kodak in a case involving patented systems and methods used in printing and accounting networks.
    • Rosco, Inc. v. Velvac, Inc., Case No. 1:11-cv-00117 (D. Del.).  We represented Velvac in a case involving a vehicle mirror assembly. 
    • Dwayne Glowner v. Muller Martini Mailroom Systems, Inc., Case No. 8:09-cv-01768 (M.D.Fla.). We represented Muller Martini in a case involving patented high-speed inserting systems for newspaper publishing.
    • Ergotron, Inc. v. Rubbermaid Commercial Products, LLC, Case No. 0:10-cv-02010 (D. Minn.). Schiff Hardin represented Rubbermaid Medical Solutions in a case involving  computer devices for hospitals.
    • In re Katz Interactive Call Processing Patent Litigation, Case No. 2:07-ML-1816 (RGK) (E.D. Tex. & C.D. Cal.). Our team secured a favorable settlement for Global Crossing Telecommunications, Inc. in the largest Multi-District Litigation (MDL) patent case in history involving interactive call processing and digital teleconference patents.
    • GE Lighting Solutions, LLC v. Technical Consumer Products, Inc., Case No. 5:12-cv-03127 (N.D. Ohio). We are representing Technical Consumer Products, Inc. in an ongoing patent infringement case involving light-emitting diode (“LED”) light bulbs.
    • DataTern, Inc. v. Abbott Laboratories, et al., Case No. 2:11-203 (E.D. Tex.). We represented PepsiCo Inc. in patent infringement case concerning systems for enabling access to relational databases from object oriented programs.
    • e.Digital Corporation v. Avid Technology, Inc., et al., Case No. 2:08-cv-93 (E.D. Tex.). Our team secured a favorable settlement for Olympus America Inc. in a patent infringement case involving handheld record and playback devices with flash memory.
    • Network-1 Security Solutions, Inc. v. Alcatel-Lucent USA Inc. et al., Case No. 6:11-cv-492 (E.D. Tex.). We successfully represented NEC Corporation and NEC Corporation of America in a patent infringement case involving Power over Ethernet (PoE) products and the IEEE 802 standard.
    • Cameron Industries, Inc. v. Walmart Stores, Inc., et al., Case No. 1:09-cv-6671 (S.D.N.Y.). We represented Walmart against copyright infringement claims involving fashion designs. The case settled favorably for Walmart.
  • Awards & Honors

    • Chambers USA
      • Intellectual Property, Illinois (2018-2021)
    • The Legal 500 U.S. – Practice Groups Recommended
      • Patents: Litigation (2021)
    • LMG Life Sciences – Hatch-Waxman Impact Case of the Year (2020)
    • Managing Intellectual Property - IP Stars in Illinois, Patent Contentious (2016-2021)
    • IAM Patent 1000: The World’s Leading Patent Professionals (2017, 2019-2021)
    • BTI – Industry Power Rankings Clientopia, Pharmaceuticals (2016-2017)
    • U.S. News – Best Lawyers® “Best Law Firms” – Metropolitan Tier 1
      • Patent Law, Chicago (2022)