• practice
• lawyers
• careers
• diversity
• Pro Bono
• news
• offices

• Introduction
• Corporate
• Litigation
  • Securities Litigation
  • Antitrust
  • White Collar Crime and Investigations
  • Mass Torts and Products Liability
  • Acquisition-Related Litigation
  • Banking Litigation
  • Insolvency and Restructuring
  • Directors' and Officers' Liability
  • Professional Liability
  • Commercial Arbitration
  • Tax Controversy
  • » Intellectual Property
  • International Litigation
• Tax
• Trusts and Estates
• International
• Pro Bono

• See Also:
• Intellectual Property
•  

Davis Polk's lawyers have represented clients in a full range of intellectual property disputes, including in the areas of patent, trademark, and copyright infringement, trade secret misappropriation, unfair competition, false advertising, and defamation. We also advise clients on litigation avoidance and are highly skilled in assessing intellectual property threats, conducting infringement and validity analyses, and counseling on design freedom and enforcement—bringing an experienced perspective to litigation, as well as to effective win-win dispute resolution.

Davis Polk's intellectual property practice provides strategic counseling for clients as to the expansion, evaluation, structuring and exploitation of their intellectual property assets. Lawyers in this practice also help support the intellectual property components of Davis Polk's broad-based transactional work and litigation matters.

• We are defending Comcast in patent litigation in the Eastern District of Texas concerning features of the Comcast Digital Voice phone service. 
• We are defending Energizer Holdings and Eveready Battery Company in patent litigation in the Southern District of California concerning plastic injection molding manufacturing processes.
• We obtained a summary judgment of noninfringement and final judgment in favor of Comcast in patent litigation in the Eastern District of Texas concerning Comcast's video-on-demand services.
• We represented Comcast in the Central District of California and the District of Delaware in connection with patent litigation concerning automated call processing technology.
• We represented VNUS Medical Technologies in patent litigation in the Northern District of California to enforce VNUS's patents relating to the surgical treatment of venous reflux disease. The matter ended in a favorable settlement for our client.
• We represented Sony Corporation in connection with the enforcement of various Sony patents relating to its consumer electronics technology.
• We represented Playtex in litigation in the Southern District of New York to enforce an injunction against false advertising claims under the Lanham Act.
• We represented AstraZeneca in obtaining the dismissal of consolidated class action antitrust lawsuits pending in the Southern District of New York. Plaintiffs alleged that AstraZeneca's regulatory submissions and enforcement of patents against prospective generic manufacturers of omeprazole (a top-selling gastro-intestinal medication) violated federal and state antitrust laws. The court granted our motion to dismiss all federal claims with prejudice, and dismissed the state law claims for lack of jurisdiction. Plaintiff's counsel filed a notice of appeal, but subsequently dismissed the appeal.
• We represented Suzuki Motor in the settlement of a lawsuit alleging unauthorized use of a quotation attributed to the Journal of the American Medical Association in national print advertisements for the Suzuki Grand Vitara. The case raised important intellectual property issues relating to product disparagement and the First Amendment.
• We represented Emerson Electric in a patent infringement action brought in the U.S. District Court for the District of Colorado by Emerson's MicroMotion subsidiary against Endress & Hauser, an Indiana-based manufacturer of process recorders and liquid and solid-level measurement devices.
• We represented Imperial Oil in litigation brought by Lubrizol, an Ohio-based fluid technology company, concerning infringement of a patent for motor oil additives.