Arch & Lake LLP represents technology companies, manufacturers, and brand owners in patent, trademark, trade secret, and copyright disputes before U.S. district courts, the U.S. International Trade Commission, the Patent Trial and Appeal Board, the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board, and the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit. Since 2018, the firm has represented clients in more than 100 intellectual property disputes and proceedings, frequently on behalf of Chinese and other international companies asserting or defending intellectual property rights in the United States. Where appropriate, we coordinate litigation with patent prosecution, continuation strategy, portfolio development, and patent acquisitions. The featured matters below illustrate our experience across technologies and forums. Additional representative matters are available below. Some engagements are confidential and are not identified.
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.
Coordinating an International ITC Defense Involving OLED Display Technology (2022–2026). Counsel for respondents, including a leading Chinese display-panel manufacturer, Certain Organic Light-Emitting Diode Display Modules and Components Thereof, Inv. No. 337-TA-1378. Section 337 investigations proceed on an accelerated schedule and frequently require extensive fact and expert discovery across multiple jurisdictions. In the 1378 investigation, the firm took and defended dozens of fact and expert depositions in Hong Kong, Korea, and the United States and presented the client's fact and expert witnesses at the evidentiary hearing. The investigation and related disputes with the complainant were resolved by settlement.
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 Additional Representative IP Matters
Discuss an IP Matter
If your company is evaluating, enforcing, or defending intellectual property rights—or facing a patent, trademark, copyright, trade secret, ITC, PTAB, or TTAB matter—contact our team to discuss the next steps.
Email: info@archlakelaw.com
Results depend on the facts and circumstances of each matter and do not guarantee a similar outcome.