LiLaw Successfully Defended CrownBio in Patent Infringement Case

(April 2015) LiLaw Inc. defended Crown Biosciences, Inc. in the case AntiCancer, Inc. v. Pfizer, Inc. & Crown Biosciences, Inc., case No. 11 CV 0107 (S.D. Cal.). AntiCancer’s suit alleges that Crown infringed a U.S. patent on rodent animal models used for biomedical researches based on a contract research project that Crown conducted for the pharmaceutical giant Pfizer, Inc. Pfizer was sued together as a co-defendant with Crown. Crown initially filed a motion for judgment on the pleading, based on the fact that Crown’s research was conducted in China and outside the jurisdictional limit of the U.S. patent law. The United States District Court, Southern District of California, granted the motion, but with leave to amend. Crown later filed a motion for summary judgment, based on the same ground that the research at issue was conducted in China. AntiCancer decided that it could not overcome the motion for summary judgment and voluntarily dismissed the case against Crown.

LiLaw Stopped Usurpation of the trademark ACRO Biosystems

(March 2015) ACRO Biosystems Co. Ltd.(“ACRO”)’s former distributor and subsidiary attempted to usurp the ACROBiosystems trademark by registering the mark in the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office. LiLaw filed an opposition on behalf of ACRO before the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board (“TTAB”) in a proceeding entitled ACRO Biosystems Co. Ltd. v. ACROBiosystems USA, LLC, Opp. No. 91212675 (TTAB). The Board first granted ACRO’s motion to compel discovery and then granted ACRO’s motion for summary judgment, which prevented the usurpation of the mark by ACROBiosystems USA LLC, pending potential appeal.

LiLaw Successfully Defended Unigate in Copyright Infringement Case

(December 2014) LiLaw Inc. was engaged in October 2013 to defend Unigate Enterprise, Inc. and other co-defendants (collectively “Unigate”) in a copyright infringement case, Design Data Corporation v. Unigate Enterprise, Inc., Case No. CV-12-4131-WHO (N.D. Cal.). On August 6, 2014, the Court granted Unigate’s Motion for Summary Judgment (2014 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 108632). On September 11, 2014, the Court entered judgment in favor of Unigate. LiLaw has thus secured the complete victory for Unigate, pending plaintiff’s appeal before the Ninth Circuit of Court of Appeals.

LiLaw Obtained Good Results for OSD Audio and in a Patent Infringement Case

(July 2014) LiLaw Inc. defended OSD Audio and its vendor in a patent infringement case in Highgrade Tech. Co., Ltd. v. OSD Audio, et al., Case No. 3:13-cv-01881. In this case, Highgrade claims that OSD and Amazon sold television and computer display mounts that infringed Highgrade’s patents. LiLaw successfully defended OSD and Amazon (with co-counsel for Amazon). The case settled favorably for OSD and Amazon.

LiLaw Successfully Defended Client Orient Semiconductor Electronics.

(June 2011) In the case Maxim Integrated Products, Inc. v. Orient Semiconductor Electronics, Inc., Case No. 1-09-cv-151270 (Cal. Supr. Ct., Santa Clara County), LiLaw represents Orient Semiconductor Electronics, Inc. (“OSE”). On behalf of OSE, LiLaw specifically appeared in the case to challenge personal jurisdiction. On May 25, 2011, the Court granted OSE’s Motion to Quash Subpoena for Lack of Personal Jurisdiction. The deadline for appealing this decision has now passed, which means LiLaw has successfully defended OSE in this case.

The America Invents Act Substantially Amends U.S. Patent Law.

On September 16, 2011, President Obama signed into law the Leahy-Smith America Invents Act (H.R. 1249). The America Invents Act (“AIA”) is the most significant amendment of the U.S. patent laws in 60 years. Under the AIA, the United States finally adopted the “first to file” international standard which awards patent to the inventor who files the patent application first, therefore abolishing the interference proceeding. As another sign of conforming to the international standard, the AIA allows prior use outside United States as prior art.

In patent infringement litigation, the AIA eliminates the best mode defense. It also raises the bar for joining multiple defendants in a single lawsuit, requiring a degree of commonalities among the defendants which is more than simply infringing the same patent. The AIA also codifies the Federal Circuit’s case law on opinion of counsel, making it clear that the failure of an infringer to obtain the advice of counsel or present such advice at trial cannot be used to prove willful infringement.

The AIA also creates a new post grant review procedure to replace the current inter parte reexamination. The post grant review will have a higher standard, requiring a reasonable likelihood that the requester would prevail with respect to at least 1 of the claims challenged in the request.


The results portrayed here were dependent on the facts of the individual cases and the results will differ if based on different facts.


For more information, please contact Dr. Jim Li’s office by phone at 888-842-0851 or see our website

About Lilaw Inc.

Lilaw is a Silicon Valley law firm focusing on litigation and intellectual property. The founder of Lilaw, Jim Li, Ph.D., was a partner and shareholder with two international law firms. Lilaw is located in 5050 El Camino Real, Ste. 200, San Jose, California.