Tomlinson and O'Connell - Intellectual Property and Complex, General and Business Litigation

News
Recent and Current Case Updates

Tomlinson & O'Connell at the Designer's Showhouse

On April 28, 2007, Tomlinson & O'Connell hosted an evening at the Designer's Showhouse. Firm Personnel and Clients participated in the event, which raised money for the Oklahoma Symphony. Pictures of this event can be found here.

Jury Finds Willful Infringement of Client's Patent

In the case of Wald v. Mudhopper Oilfield Services, Inc., a federal court jury in Oklahoma City deliberated just over an hour before finding that two defendants willfuly infringed a patent owned by client H. Lester Wald. Gary Peterson of Tomlinson O'Connell represented Wald. The jury awarded money damages for the infringement of the patent, which relates to a polymeric treatment agent for oil and gas wells.

Patent Infringement Defense for Client Upheld by Federal Circuit

Federal Circuit upholds finding of material misrepresentations and clarifies standard for inequitable conduct in Tomlinson & O'Connell's successful defense of patent infringement claim.

In the case of Digital Control Inc. v. The Charles Mach. Works, 437 F.3d 1309 (Fed. Cir. 2006), Tomlinson O'Connell successfully proved inequitable conduct on the part of the patent holder and invalidated three of plaintiff's patents at the trial court. The case was settled at that point except for an appeal by plaintiff of the trial court's ruling. The Federal Circuit upheld the trial court's finding of a material misrepresentation and remanded the case for additional findings on the materiality of prior art omissions and intent by the trial court. The case was promptly settled on remand.

During discovery Tomlinson O'Connell found that the patent holder had filed a false 121 declaration to obtain the patent over the rejection due to a prior invention of the defendant. It was also discovered that a significant item of prior art was withheld from the examination process, in spite of the inventor's admission that he knew of it. Selection of Byrnes & Keller of Seattle, Washington was a key factor in obtaining this result. In the appeal, the Federal Circuit clarified that an inventor is held both to the reasonable examiner standard as well as to the revised rules of the patent office found at (citation). Key experts for the defendant were Dr. Ron Rhoton, electrical engineer and Hon. Gerald Mossinghoff, formerly Commissioner of the United States Patent and Trademark Office.

Product Defect Liability Claim Against Client Dismissed by California State Court

California State Court grants a non suit at close of plaintiff's evidence in brain damage case involving product liability claims against Tomlinson O'Connell client.

In the case of Von Arx v. The Charles Machine Works, Inc., the trial court in Vista, Ca granted judgment for the defendants, including Tomlinson O'Connell's client, the Charles Machine Works, Inc. at the conclusion of plaintiff's evidence. The court found that plaintiff's evidence did not support a claim of defective product against Tomlinson O'Connell's client. Plaintiff's expert made several admissions on cross examination during the trial that the court found eliminated plaintiff's ability to proceed to the jury with their claims. The role Kurt Yeager of Thompson & Colgate , Riverside, CA, was extremely important to the final result. Witnesses for defendant included Mike Anderson, owner of Ditch Witch of Southern California, and Richard Lambert, employee of the defendant.

Software Dispute Resolved Through Mediation in Los Angeles