top of page

Protecting Defendants

From Non-Practicing Entities

Non-practicing entities (“NPEs”), asserting highly dubious patents that likely do not read on the products alleged to infringe, have become the scourge of American business. While Congress attempts to address this problem via legislation, there are still many NPEs that are continuing to sue in the hopes that targets will make a business decision that a settlement would be less costly than continuing with litigation.


At Radulescu LLP, we believe that it is possible to reduce the costs of these nuisance suits considerably, and reverse the incentives for NPEs to sue our clients. For example, we have obtained early summary judgments of non-infringement, which became the basis for motions for our client's attorneys’ fees.

Here are a couple of examples:

Mears Technologies v. Finisar. Counsel for Finisar in an Eastern District of Texas patent infringement action brought by Mears Technologies relating to optical fiber switches. Judge Gilstrap granted a summary judgment of non-infringement in favor of Finisar. 


Finisar Corp. v. Cheetah Omni, LLC. Counsel for plaintiff Finisar Corp. in declaratory judgment patent infringement action in the Eastern District of Michigan involving optical communication technology. Obtained injunction against Cheetah Omni from prosecuting co-pending infringement claims against Finisar’s customers in the Eastern District of Texas. Obtained a claim construction ruling that resulted in admission of non-infringement.

bottom of page