Blogs, Commentary & News

Klarquist Attorneys Recognized as IP Stars by Managing Intellectual Property Magazine


Klarquist attorneys Ramon A. Klitzke IIGregory L. Maurer, and John D. Vandenberg were recently recognized as IP Stars by Managing Intellectual Property (MIP) magazine. The “IP Stars USA” list highlights the country’s leading intellectual property attorneys who have been highly recommended by their clients. Additionally, Klarquist was one of only three Oregon firms ranked as “highly recommended” by the publication. MIP‘s independent research is based on a weighted system of peer and client feedback, combined with a review of information obtained from surveys conducted with law firms and their clients in more than 80 jurisdictions around the world. Click here to see what MIP and its sources had to say about us.

Klarquist Obtains Partial Summary Judgment Win for Operation Technology, Inc. (ETAP) Invalidating 138 Patent Claims


Operation Technology, Inc. (ETAP) won partial summary judgment invalidating all 138 asserted patent claims in four patents, in a lawsuit filed by Power Analytics Corp. The patents are in the field of modeling electrical systems. ETAP, founded in 1986 by Dr. Farrokh Shokooh, is a technology leader in modeling, design, analysis, optimization, monitoring, control, and automation software for electrical power systems.

Hon. John A. Kronstadt, U.S. District Court for the Central District of California, ruled that all asserted claims are invalid under the abstractness exclusion to patent eligibility under section 101 of the Patent Act. The claims are invalid in part because none exceeded “the abstract idea of evaluating and reacting to prediction deviations,” the Court ruled.

Klarquist attorneys Salumeh R. Loesch, Garth A. Winn, Kristin L. Cleveland, Klaus H. Hamm, Sarah E. Jelsema, and John D. Vandenberg represent ETAP in this action. Also representing ETAP are David W. Kesselman and Trevor V. Stockinger of Kesselman Brantly Stockinger LLP. Joining the motion was co-defendant Schneider Electric USA, Inc., represented by attorneys from Jenner & Block LLP.

View Judge Kronstandt’s July 13, 2017, Order and decision.

Klarquist Attorneys Named to 2017 Oregon Super Lawyers® Lists


Klarquist is proud to have Ramon A. Klitzke II, Jeffrey S. Love, and John D. Vandenberg named to the 2017 Oregon Super Lawyers® list. No more than five percent of the lawyers in Oregon are selected by Super Lawyers. Additionally, Mark W. Wilson was selected for inclusion in the 2017 Oregon Rising Stars℠ list, which recognizes no more than 2.5 percent of Oregon attorneys.

The annual survey is published by Thomson Reuters, and surveys of attorneys throughout the country as well as in depth research and peer reviews are used to complete the selection process. Super Lawyers can be found online at

Klarquist Beats the Odds, Goes 4/4 in Defeating IPR Challenges to Nautilus Elliptical Patents


Klarquist scored a key victory for client Nautilus, Inc., fending off four IPR petitions filed by rival exercise equipment company Icon Fitness. The denied petitions attempted to challenge four Nautilus patents relating to elliptical machines. Nautilus is asserting those patents against Icon in district court litigation, alleging infringement by the NordicTrack FreeStride Trainers. Klarquist also represents Nautilus in that litigation, which commenced in May 2016 in the Western District of Washington. The four petition denials are particularly significant given that the Patent Trial and Appeal Board grants more than 70% of such petitions. Klarquist attorneys Andrew M. Mason, John D. Vandenberg, and Garth A. Winn represented Nautilus at the PTAB.

Klarquist Ranked Among Top Five Performing Law Firms in IPR Disputes


Klarquist was ranked among the top five firms nationwide for representing petitioners and patent owners in inter partes review disputes according to a recent case study by Patexia, an online patent research platform. These findings are based on a review of the performance and results obtained on the patent owner and petitioner sides of IPR proceedings.

Patexia noted that Klarquist represented petitioners in 37 IPR cases from 2012 through 2016. Klarquist prevailed in 30 of these cases, earning the firm an impressive 81% success rate and a ranking as one of the top five successful firms in the nation for representing petitioners before the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB). Additionally, Klarquist was ranked among the top five firms overall for representing both petitioners and patent owners in IPR disputes.

To see Patexia’s full list of top performing firms in IPR, click here.

Klarquist Secures Another PTAB Win for Microsoft


Microsoft prevailed as the petitioner over Smart Skins in an inter partes review decision involving a mobile device cover with attached peripherals. The Patent Trial and Appeal Board ruled all six claims under review unpatentable as obvious.

The Board held that the interrelated teachings of two prior art patents, made obvious the challenged patent claims.

Microsoft was represented by Klarquist attorneys John D. Vandenberg and Todd M. Siegel.

Link to the decision.

Klarquist and Attorneys Receive Top Rankings in the 2017 IAM Patent 1000


Klarquist received top national rankings in the 2017 edition of Intellectual Asset Management (IAM) magazine’s IAM Patent 1000: The World’s Leading Patent Practitioners. Klarquist was once again recognized as the sole occupier of IAM Patent’s “Gold” top tier in Oregon.

Four Klarquist attorneys, Scott E. Davis, Jeffrey S. Love, William D. Noonan, M.D., and John D. Vandenberg, also received individual recognition. Additionally, Mr. Vandenberg was the only individual in Oregon recognized as “Highly Recommended” by the publication.

IAM Patent noted:

“First class” is the unanimous client verdict on Klarquist Sparkman, the runaway IP leader in Oregon. One satisfied customer relates: “Of all the law firms and lawyers I use in the world, Klarquist is right at the top.”

The IAM Patent 1000 includes top patent firms and professionals in key jurisdictions around the globe. The rankings are culled from extensive interviews and are based on depth of expertise, market presence, and the level of work on which attorneys are typically engaged. Read what IAM Patent and its sources had to say about us here.

Klarquist Obtains Terminating Sanctions for OmniGen Research and Prince Agri Products in Trade Secrets Suit


Oregon animal nutrition company OmniGen Research and parent company Prince Agri Products prevailed on a motion for terminating sanctions due to the destruction of evidence in a suit against a former employee accused of stealing trade secrets. Klarquist argued that scientist Yongqiang Wang had misappropriated confidential information by trying to sell knock-offs of OmniGen’s feed additives in China through his businesses, Bioshen and Mirigen. The Court found for OmniGen and Prince on all liability issues, and will now proceed to determine damages.

Klarquist attorneys Klaus H. Hamm and Scott E. Davis argued on behalf of OmniGen and Prince Agri Products at the Oregon U.S. District Court. View Judge McShane’s opinion and order. The case was also the subject of an online Capital Press article, a KATU news article, and a Zapproved e-discovery blog post.

Klarquist Receives Top Tier Ranking from Chambers USA


Klarquist has received a top tier ranking from Chambers USA for 2017. Klarquist is recognized as one of two top tier intellectual property law firms in Oregon. In addition, three Klarquist attorneys, Scott E. Davis, William D. Noonan, M.D., and John D. Vandenberg, received individual recognition for intellectual property.

Sources say:

You feel safe when a case is in their hands. They always perform, and they’re basically beyond compare with anyone else I have worked with in the country.”

“I love the firm. With every attorney I have worked with, I’ve had nothing but good experiences, and the people are quite impressive.

Read what Chambers USA and some of our clients said about us here.

27-Year Expansive Patent Venue Reign Ends


The Supreme Court ruled 8-0 that a domestic corporation’s residence — for purposes of the special federal “venue” statute governing where parties may be sued for patent infringement — is only its State of incorporation. The Court had so ruled 60 years ago, but the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit later ruled in 1990 that the earlier decision was no longer controlling. Today, the Supreme Court disagreed. The Court ruled in a short opinion, in effect, that Congress had done nothing to change the Court’s 1957 interpretation of “residence” in this statute.

This ruling will be felt most strongly in the Eastern District of Texas, where approximately 40% of all patent infringement lawsuits have been filed in recent years under the Federal Circuit’s expansive view of venue in patent lawsuits.

But it will not end all uncertainty concerning “venue” in patent lawsuits. Courts now will be asked to decide disputes over the second prong of the patent venue statute:  “Any civil action for patent infringement may be brought in the judicial district where the defendant resides, or where the defendant has committed acts of infringement and has a regular and established place of business.” There are many older decisions on where a company has a “regular and established place of business,” and those will be dusted off and litigated in the months and years ahead.

In the Supreme Court, Klarquist filed an amici brief on behalf of four of the country’s most prominent financial services member organizations, asking the Court to rule as it today ruled. See link to the brief.

The case is TC Heartland LLC d/b/a Heartland Food Products Group v. Kraft Food Groups Brand LLC. The four amici are American Bankers Association, The Clearing House, Financial Services Roundtable and Consumer Bankers Association. They are represented by Klaus H. Hamm and John D. Vandenberg.

Link to the decision.