Inge A. Osman

Inge’s representative experience includes:

• MFA v. Duolingo and CoStar Realty: Led successful IPRs for two major technology companies, resulting in PTAB finding all challenged claims unpatentable.
• J&J Surgical Vision v. Alcon: Represented J&J in a series of inter partes review (IPR) proceedings before the PTAB and obtained final written decisions confirming the validity of almost all (219 of 234) challenged claims across twelve patents.
• InductEV (formerly known as Momentum Dynamics): Represented InductEV in a series of proceedings dealing with wireless charging technology at the PTAB. The Latham team convinced the PTAB to take the rare move to reverse an initial decision denying IPR. Upon review, the PTAB found all challenged claims unpatentable. 
• First Quality v. Irving: Represented Irving in a jury trial victory in the United States District Court for the District of Delaware. After a week-long trial, the jury returned a verdict of non-infringement and invalidity in favor of Irving.
• AbbVie: Represented AbbVie in multiple litigations and IPR proceedings involving Humira®, the first human monoclonal antibody drug, including litigation with biosimilar challengers.
• Latch v. LET Investor Group: Represented Latch in a multi-jurisdictional dispute involving trade secret misappropriation, breach of contract, and civil RICO claims. Each of the Virginia state claims were dismissed and the remaining litigation was favorably resolved.
• Intellectual Ventures v. Symantec: Represented Symantec and Veritas in a lawsuit brought by IV alleging infringement of three patents. By the completion of summary judgment briefing, only two claims of one patent remained. Successfully obtained summary judgment of both non-infringement and invalidity based on 35 U.S.C. § 101.
• Samsung Elecs. Co. v. NVIDIA Corp.: Represented defendant NVIDIA in an eight-patent infringement suit brought by Samsung relating to mobile phones and tablet computers that contain graphics processing units. Samsung eventually dropped nearly all its patents. By the time of trial, only three patents remained. The judge declared a mistrial as to two patents, and the jury found the remaining patent not infringed.
• Certain Liquid Crystal Display Devices, Inv. No. 337-TA-749: Represented defendant AU Optronics in a multiple-patent case filed by Thomson Licensing. After a one-week trial, the ALJ issued an initial determination, finding that AU Optronics did not infringe any of Thomson’s patents, and invalidating most of the asserted claims.
• Mallinckrodt Hosp. Prods. Inc. v. Praxair Inc.: Represented defendant Mallinckrodt against an ANDA challenge to ten patents covering its successful INOmax drug product and DSIR medical device, including successfully defending multiple proceedings before the Patent Office.
• Bonutti Skeletal Innovations (Acacia) v. ConMed: Represented defendant ConMed in a patent infringement case involving nine patents and ten accused products related to medical devices in the Middle District of Florida, successfully running the table on the claim construction issues on all nine patents to obtain a favorable settlemen t.