Since our founding, Arch & Lake has represented companies in over 100 intellectual property disputes, including 80+ patent cases before U.S. district courts, the ITC, the PTAB, and the Federal Circuit. We are regularly engaged by high-technology companies in the United States and China to handle high-stakes patent litigation involving complex technologies, including LCD and OLED displays, sensors, smart devices, smart furniture, battery technologies, telecommunications, networking, and electronic systems.
Many of our attorneys hold advanced degrees in electrical engineering, computer science, and related technical fields, enabling us to quickly understand complex technologies and develop effective litigation strategies. We tailor our approach to each case by considering both the legal and business objectives of our clients. Recognizing the cost and time pressures associated with litigation, we also advise clients on strategic alternatives when appropriate and scale our team efficiently to meet the needs of each matter.
Featured Matters
Coordinating District Court, PTAB, Federal Circuit, and Portfolio Strategy in Electronic Shelf Label Disputes (2022–2025). When a European competitor sued our client, one of the world's largest makers of electronic shelf labels, in Europe, Arch & Lake filed a declaratory-judgment action in the Eastern District of Virginia (No. 1:22-cv-01345) before the competitor filed its U.S. action in the Eastern District of New York (SES-imagotag SA v. Hanshow America Inc., No. 1:23-cv-01667). We then strengthened the client's U.S. portfolio through strategic patent purchases and asserted it in two Eastern District of Texas actions (Hanshow Technology Co. v. SES-imagotag SA, Nos. 2:23-cv-00174 and 2:23-cv-00617). In parallel, we filed four IPR petitions, defended the client's patents against three petitions, and pursued three Federal Circuit appeals. The parties resolved the U.S. and related proceedings through a global settlement in 2025.
Invalidating and Narrowing Asserted Patents Before Trial in Motorized Furniture Litigation (2018–2023). A U.S. competitor sued our client, one of the world's largest furniture manufacturers, over recliner and cup-holder patents in Raffel Systems, LLC v. Man Wah Holdings Ltd., No. 2:18-cv-01765 (E.D. Wis.). Our post-grant review petition, PGR2019-00029, invalidated the asserted design patent under the on-sale bar, and the Federal Circuit affirmed in No. 2020-2126. Claim-construction rulings and further petitions, including IPR2019-00616 and IPR2019-00530, materially narrowed the patent issues before trial. The related disputes were resolved by settlement. The firm also represented retailer defendants and handled related district court and PTAB matters involving the client's products and suppliers.
Overturning a $6.6 Million Verdict in Automotive Diagnostics Patent Litigation (2021–2026). Our client, a leading maker of automotive diagnostic tools, was sued over tire-pressure-monitoring sensor patents in Orange Electronic Co. v. Autel Intelligent Technology Corp., No. 2:21-cv-00240 (E.D. Tex.). The jury awarded the plaintiff $6,616,397. The district court subsequently granted judgment as a matter of law of noninfringement. On our client's cross-appeal, the Federal Circuit reversed the denial of judgment as a matter of law on obviousness and held the asserted claims invalid, ending the case in the client's favor. The firm has since defended the client's affiliates in Wildcat Licensing LLC v. Autel, No. 6:23-cv-00446 (W.D. Tex.), and DataCloud Technologies, LLC v. Autel Robotics USA LLC, No. 1:25-cv-01068 (D. Del.).
Defending Multi-Forum Patent Litigation Involving Lithium Batteries (2021–2023). A German battery company asserted coin-cell patents covering batteries used in wireless earbuds against our client, one of the world's largest lithium-battery makers, in VARTA Microbattery GmbH v. EVE Energy Co., No. 2:21-cv-00399 (E.D. Tex.), consolidated with VARTA Microbattery GmbH v. Audio Partnership LLC, No. 2:21-cv-00400, with a related declaratory-judgment action in the Northern District of Illinois, No. 1:22-cv-01073. We handled claim construction, full fact and expert discovery, and pretrial motions, including an order limiting the plaintiff's willfulness expert. The matters were resolved by settlement before trial in 2023.
View More Representative Matters
Discuss a Litigation Matter
If your company is facing, considering, or seeking to avoid an intellectual property dispute, contact our team. We represent rights holders and accused parties in U.S. district courts, ITC investigations, PTAB and TTAB proceedings, and appeals.
Email: info@archlakelaw.com
Results depend on the facts and circumstances of each matter and do not guarantee a similar outcome.