Share on LinkedInShare on LinkedIn

ARTICLE · 30 SEPTEMBER 2024

BMW v. Arigna: Lessons From A Coordinated Litigation And PTAB Strategy

Finnegan, Henderson, Farabow, Garrett & Dunner LLP
Finnegan, Henderson, Farabow, Garrett & Dunner LLP
Contributor
Finnegan, Henderson, Farabow, Garrett & Dunner LLP

Finnegan, Henderson, Farabow, Garrett & Dunner LLP

Finnegan, Henderson, Farabow, Garrett & Dunner LLP is one of the world’s largest firms focusing on...

View firm profile
Explore more from Finnegan, Henderson, Farabow, Garrett & Dunner LLP

A recent dismissal in a declaratory judgment action filed by BMW of North America and Bayerische Motoren Werke marked the conclusion of BMW Group's long-fought battle against Arigna Technology (Arigna).

United StatesIntellectual Property

A recent dismissal in a declaratory judgment action filed by BMW of North America and Bayerische Motoren Werke marked the conclusion of BMW Group's long-fought battle against Arigna Technology (Arigna).

The dispute spanned multiple venues, including US district courts, the US International Trade Commission (ITC), the Federal Circuit, and the US Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO). The victory resulted from a multi-faceted legal approach that involved strategic use of both district court litigation and Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) proceedings.

This article, contributed by the Finnegan attorneys involved, outlines strategic decisions that resulted in BMW Group's victory and underscores how an integrated litigation and PTAB strategy plays a critical role in dismantling the litigation efforts of PAEs seeking to extract a settlement payment.

We operate a free-to-view policy, asking only that you register in order to read all of our content. Please login or register to view the rest of this article.

The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.

See more popular content from