Lauter, John J. Jr.

Your profile? Update now
Updated 03/30/10

firm image

Jones Day

222 East 41st Street

New York, NY 10017-6702

Phone: 1.212.326.3774 (Business Phone)

Fax: 1.212.755.7306 (Business Fax)

Contact Us

Websites associated with this firm:www.jonesday.com

Summary

Lawyer Overview

Jack Lauter specializes in patent litigation. He has experience in all aspects of patent infringement actions, from inception through trial and appeal or settlement. His practice also involves counseling on patent-related matters, including maximizing the value of patent portfolios, product clearance opinions, and patent validity and infringement opinions.

Prior to joining Jones Day, Jack was a partner at Pennie & Edmonds, where he worked for 30 years representing plaintiffs and defendants in cases involving patents in many different technology areas, including: medical volumetric infusion pumps (IMED Corp. v. Baxter Travenol), computer workstations (Patent Incentives v. Wang Laboratories, Data General Corp., and Apollo Computer), ultrasound imaging (Hewlett-Packard v. Acuson Corp.), transesophageal echocardiology (Advanced Technology Laboratories v. Hewlett-Packard), sheet-backed quaternary ammonium fabric softeners (Procter & Gamble Distributing Co. v. Lever Brothers and J.L. Prescott Co.), blood oximeter circuitry (BOC Group v. Hewlett-Packard), dental retention pins (Fairfax Dental (Ireland) v. IPCO Corp. (Whaledent International Div.)), dental bite wafers (Harry Shpuntoff v. Warner-Lambert and Lactona Corp.), automated circuit board testing (Hewlett-Packard v. Genrad Inc.), increased coefficient of restitution tennis rackets (Prince Manufacturing Company v. AMF Inc.), single-action ordering systems (Amazon.com v. Barnesandnoble.com), tobacco processing methods (Reynolds Leasing v. American Brands), synthetic absorbable suture packaging (American Cyanamid Company v. United States Surgical Corporation), pre-sintered agglomerated tantalum powders (Kawecki Berylco Industries v. Fansteeel, Inc.), wide format inkjet plotters (Hewlett-Packard v. CalComp), cosmetic containers (Arleen Bowman v. Avon Products and Albert and Shirley Baginski v. Avon Products), automotive exhaust aftertreatment (Litex v. Delphi Automotive Systems Corp. and Delphi Automotive Systems LLC), and Clioquinol for the treatment of Alzheimer’s disease (Prana Biotechnology, The General Hospital Corporation, Ashley I. Bush, Robert Cherny, and Rudolph E. Tanzi v. P.N. Gerolymatos S.A. and Panayotis N. Gerolymatos).

In addition, he has litigated misappropriation of trade secrets cases relating to soft contact lens disinfecting systems (Giefer GmbH v. Allergan Pharmaceuticals), equipment for producing helically wound telephone cord armor (Anaconda Co. v. Metric Tool and Die), and welding systems and controls (Dimetrics v. Welding Services).

Jack is admitted to practice before the United States Supreme Court; the U.S. Courts of Appeals for the Federal, Second, and Third Circuits; and the U.S. District Courts for the Southern and Eastern Districts of New York and the Northern District of California. He is a member of the American Bar Association (Litigation Section), the American Intellectual Property Law Association, and the New York Intellectual Property Law Association.

Areas of Practice

  • Intellectual Property
  • Patent Litigation

Representative Cases

  • Chi Mei defends against patent infringement suit involving its LCD manufacturing technology , (2009)
  • SiRF Technology continues GPS patent dispute in post-hearing ITC proceedings , (2009)

West Practice Categories

Copyrights, Intellectual Property Law, International Intellectual Property, Patent Litigation, Patents, Technology Licensing, Trade Dress, Trade Secrets, Trademarks

Qualifications

Bar Admissions

  • New York

Education

  • Fairfield University
  • Fordham University

Office Information

Address

222 East 41st Street
New York, NY 10017-6702

Phones

1.212.326.3774 (Business Phone)

Faxes

1.212.755.7306 (Business Fax)

Emails

Contact Us

Websites

http://www.jonesday.com

When viewing a listing, consider the state advertising restrictions to which lawyers and law firms must adhere, as well as our West Legal Directory disclaimers. Some lawyers publish comparative information regarding the services that they provide which may be subject to specific comparative communications restrictions.