Eric L. Broxterman is a litigator with years of experience in all facets of intellectual property law. Clients turn to him for trusted counsel regarding patent prosecution, infringement/invalidity opinions, IP transactional issues, and procurement of intellectual property.
Eric’s clients range from Fortune 500 companies to smaller firms in a variety of industries, including these:
In addition to his patent experience, Eric has worked on a number of cases concerning false advertising, trademark, and copyright issues.
Eric leverages his technical training and experience to benefit his clients. After earning his engineering degree, Eric worked as a mechanical engineer, designing and manufacturing components for commercial and government aircraft engines.
Following law school, Eric served as a law clerk for the Honorable Kathleen O’Malley in the Northern District of Ohio. Prior to joining Fitch Even, he developed his intellectual property litigation practice at a large multi-practice law firm where he was involved in both jury and bench trials.
Limestone, Inc. v. Micron, Inc., et al. (C.D. Cal 2015). Currently representing plaintiff in patent infringement action against Micron, Dell, Lenovo, Kingston, OCZ Storage Solutions, PNY Technologies, Transcend, and Acer relating to memory chips that incorporate DRAM technology.
SOTA Semiconductor LLC v. NVIDIA, Inc., et al. (C.D. Cal. 2014). Currently represents plaintiff in patent infringement action against NVIDIA, Acer, ASUS, Hewlett-Packard, Lenovo, and Microsoft relating to microprocessors integrated in mobile phones.
Transcenic, Inc. v. Google, Inc., et al. (D. Del. 2011–15). Pursued claims of infringement against Google, Microsoft, and AOL under patent relating to spatially referenced street-level imagery for Web mapping applications. Obtained favorable Markman ruling leading to settlements with two defendants. Defeated Google's non-infringement and invalidity summary judgment motions, and obtained summary judgment against lack of ownership defense. Prevailed on Google's Daubert challenge to novel damages model apportioning search advertising revenue to accused Street View feature of Google Maps. Case settled on the eve of trial.
TK Holdings Inc. v. CTS Corporation and CTS Automotive Products (E.D. Mich. 2008–14). Pursued declaratory judgment claims of non-infringement and invalidity of patents relating to automotive seat weight sensors. Obtained summary judgment rulings that client’s sensors do not infringe and that the asserted patents are invalid for multiple reasons.
Waters Industries v. Outdoor Cap Co., Inc. (N.D. Ill. 2013–14). Defeated defendants’ motion to transfer action to different venue. Obtained favorable settlement that resulted in present and future licensing revenue.
Waters Industries, Inc. v. JJI International, Inc. (N.D. Ill. 2012–13). Counseled client regarding pursuit of patent infringement claims against competitor relating to light-emitting diodes. Obtained favorable settlement that resulted in present and future licensing revenue.
LG Electronics v. Whirlpool Corporation (N.D. Ill. 2008). False advertising case regarding the use of “steam” to describe Whirlpool’s dryer. Jury returned a verdict that Whirlpool had violated the Uniform Deceptive Trade Practices Act.
AstraZeneca LP, et al. v. Barr Laboratories, Inc. (D. Del. 2008). Patent infringement action regarding client Barr Laboratories’ ANDA to make a generic version of Entocort®, a capsule used to treat mild to moderate Crohn’s disease affecting the ileum and/or ascending colon. Obtained favorable settlement that allowed client to launch generic product prior to expiration of patents.
C2 Communications Tech., Inc. v. AT&T, et al. (E.D. Tex. 2006). Patent infringement case regarding VOIP technology. Obtained favorable settlement for client Verizon.
Bayer Schering AG, et al. v. Barr Laboratories, Inc. (D. N.J. 2006). Patent infringement action regarding client Barr Laboratories’ ANDA to make a generic version of the oral contraceptive Yasmin®. Obtained favorable district court decision of patent invalidity after multi-week bench trial. Verdict was affirmed on appeal.
Abbott Diabetes Care, Inc. v. DexCom, Inc. (D. Del. 2005). Counseled client on pursuit of patent infringement claims against competitor involving seven patents relating to medical devices, systems, and methods for monitoring glucose levels in humans. After a seven-year-long stay pending multiple reexaminations, the case settled.