Skip to content
  • CAREERS
  • CONTACT US
Search
Close
anthony ostlund logo
  • PEOPLE
  • LITIGATION
    • APPEALS
    • COMPLEX COMMERCIAL LITIGATION
    • EMPLOYMENT LITIGATION
    • FRAUD AND FIDUCIARY DUTY
    • FINANCIAL LITIGATION
    • OWNER/SHAREHOLDER DISPUTES
    • PLAINTIFF CONTINGENCY CASES
    • PROFESSIONAL MALPRACTICE
    • REAL ESTATE LITIGATION
    • TRUSTS AND ESTATES LAW
  • SUCCESSES
  • NEWS
  • ABOUT
  • FEE ARRANGEMENTS
Menu
  • PEOPLE
  • LITIGATION
    • APPEALS
    • COMPLEX COMMERCIAL LITIGATION
    • EMPLOYMENT LITIGATION
    • FRAUD AND FIDUCIARY DUTY
    • FINANCIAL LITIGATION
    • OWNER/SHAREHOLDER DISPUTES
    • PLAINTIFF CONTINGENCY CASES
    • PROFESSIONAL MALPRACTICE
    • REAL ESTATE LITIGATION
    • TRUSTS AND ESTATES LAW
  • SUCCESSES
  • NEWS
  • ABOUT
  • FEE ARRANGEMENTS

$1.86 Million Verdict in Patent Infringement Trial Reinstated on Appeal

Anthony Ostlund obtains $1.86 million jury verdict in patent infringement case and prevails on appeal

 

Client Issue

Anthony Ostlund client Circuit Check, Inc. is a large manufacturing company that produces circuit board test fixtures. QXQ Inc., a competitor, copied our client’s technology, violated three of Circuit Check’s patents, and was selling infringing products to companies across the country.

 

QXQ admitted infringement, but claimed that our client’s patents were invalid. Our client placed critical importance on a win at trial. It wanted to recover damages from the infringing sales, to establish the validity of its patents, and to maintain its hard-fought competitive advantage.

 

The Anthony Ostlund Approach

Anthony Ostlund sued QXQ for patent infringement and damages for lost sales and royalties. QXQ wanted to avoid submitting the case to a jury and preferred to have a judge decide whether the patents were valid. We defeated a motion for summary judgment and argued that a jury should be permitted to decide whether the patents were valid.

 

QXQ also wanted the case tried in California, a venue far from our client’s hometown in Minnesota. We were unable to bring the case in Minnesota, but we were able to sue in Wisconsin and succeeded in keeping the case there. We argued that Circuit Check and QXQ had both sold products to the same customer in Wisconsin, and that that specific Wisconsin customer had likely provided QXQ with Circuit Check’s test boards and therefore, Circuit Check’s technology.

 

Results Achieved

Our strategic choices ended up being critically important to our client’s case. At the conclusion of a four-day jury trial in Wisconsin, the jury deliberated for less than three hours and found in favor of our client. The jury found that QXQ’s infringement had been willful and that QXQ had failed to prove that Circuit Check’s patent was invalid. The jury awarded our client $1.8 million in damages.

 

After trial, QXQ persuaded the judge to overturn the jury’s verdict and rule that the patents were invalid. Anthony Ostlund appealed that decision to the Federal Circuit Court of Appeals. The Federal Circuit reversed the judge’s decision and reinstated the jury verdict finding that the patents were valid and awarding damages for infringement.

 

Click here to read the Federal Circuit Court of Appeals order (PDF).

 

Circuit Check, Inc. v. QXQ Inc.

Back to All Successes  

“We worked hard to explain a complex patent infringement case so that the jury could easily understand our client's claim and the fairness issues at the heart of our client's case.”

 

– Courtland Merrill, Attorney for Circuit Check

related attorneys

related practices

Back to All Successes  
AO-logo-initials

90 SOUTH 7TH STREET, SUITE 3600
MINNEAPOLIS, MN 55402
P 612.349.6969       F 612.349.6996

 

© 2021 ANTHONY OSTLUND LOUWAGIE DRESSEN BOYLAN P.A.
ALL RIGHTS RESERVED.

  • 651•312•6500
  • 651•312•6618
  • People
  • Litigation
  • Successes
  • News
  • About
  • Fee Arrangements
  • Careers
  • Contact
Menu
  • People
  • Litigation
  • Successes
  • News
  • About
  • Fee Arrangements
  • Careers
  • Contact
  • PEOPLE
  • LITIGATION
    • APPEALS
    • COMPLEX COMMERCIAL LITIGATION
    • EMPLOYMENT LITIGATION
    • FRAUD AND FIDUCIARY DUTY
    • FINANCIAL LITIGATION
    • OWNER/SHAREHOLDER DISPUTES
    • PLAINTIFF CONTINGENCY CASES
    • PROFESSIONAL MALPRACTICE
    • REAL ESTATE LITIGATION
    • TRUSTS AND ESTATES LAW
  • SUCCESSES
  • NEWS
  • ABOUT
  • FEE ARRANGEMENTS
Menu
  • PEOPLE
  • LITIGATION
    • APPEALS
    • COMPLEX COMMERCIAL LITIGATION
    • EMPLOYMENT LITIGATION
    • FRAUD AND FIDUCIARY DUTY
    • FINANCIAL LITIGATION
    • OWNER/SHAREHOLDER DISPUTES
    • PLAINTIFF CONTINGENCY CASES
    • PROFESSIONAL MALPRACTICE
    • REAL ESTATE LITIGATION
    • TRUSTS AND ESTATES LAW
  • SUCCESSES
  • NEWS
  • ABOUT
  • FEE ARRANGEMENTS
search
disclaimer
Linkedin
Join Our Email List

© 2021 ANTHONY OSTLUND LOUWAGIE DRESSEN BOYLAN P.A. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED.

This website uses cookies to improve your experience. We'll assume you're ok with this, but you can opt-out if you wish. Cookie settingsACCEPT
Privacy & Cookies Policy

Privacy Overview

This website uses cookies to improve your experience while you navigate through the website. Out of these cookies, the cookies that are categorized as necessary are stored on your browser as they are essential for the working of basic functionalities of the website. We also use third-party cookies that help us analyze and understand how you use this website. These cookies will be stored in your browser only with your consent. You also have the option to opt-out of these cookies. But opting out of some of these cookies may have an effect on your browsing experience.
Necessary
Always Enabled
Necessary cookies are absolutely essential for the website to function properly. This category only includes cookies that ensures basic functionalities and security features of the website. These cookies do not store any personal information.
Non-necessary
Any cookies that may not be particularly necessary for the website to function and is used specifically to collect user personal data via analytics, ads, other embedded contents are termed as non-necessary cookies. It is mandatory to procure user consent prior to running these cookies on your website.
SAVE & ACCEPT