BASF v. Arnold, et al., E.D. Ark., No. 04-CV-0311

In this case, our firm secured a $2.5 million consent judgment for willful patent infringement against more than twenty co-defendants in a case involving patented traits in rice seed. The settlement allowed all producers to continue using the product according to stringent guidelines of quality control to ensure the integrity of the technology remained at peak performance.

Jones v. Walls, et al., N.D. Okla., No. 07-CV-107-GKF-PJC

We defended against patent infringement claims having original demand against our client of $16,000,000. In connection with a multi-day jury trial, we invalidated the underlying patent using admissions of inventor, Jones, during his trial testimony. 

On directed verdict, the Court made specific factual finding of inequitable conduct on the part of the inventor, Mr. Jones, and ruled the patent invalid pursuant to Secs. 102 and 103. After situating earlier-stated counterclaims for fraud in the procurement of the patent and following directed verdict, the firm advanced the counterclaims on theory of Handgards and Walker-Process (Sham Litigation) anti-trust liability. Before the case was given to the jury on these sham litigation counterclaims, Jones settled in our client’s favor by executing a consent judgment of $200,000 payable to our client, S.A. Walls, to help recoup cost to defend the baseless suit.

Crooked Stirrups

These stirrups survived a patent infringement lawsuit and the plaintiff in the case paid our attorneys' fees for a frivolous case. S.A. Walls is a craftsman who had trust in the legal system to confirm that he did not infringe.