Extranet Access  |  Contact Info  |  866.222.0112

When you're serious about intellectual property... UseBrinks

Bradley G. Lane

Practice Summary

Mr. Lane is a trial lawyer specializing in intellectual property litigation, with an emphasis on patent and trade secret matters, related antitrust and licensing matters, and counseling in domestic and international patent prosecution, patent clearance opinions, and oversight of international patent clearance studies. He has experience in jury and bench trials, and Federal Circuit appeals. Mr. Lane currently serves as vice-chair of the Pro Bono Committee at Brinks.

Honors/Distinctions
  • Illinois Super Lawyers, Intellectual Property Litigation, 2006-2012
  • Leading Intellectual Property Lawyer, Leading Lawyers Network, Law Bulletin Publishing Company, 2004, 2005, 2007, 2009-2011
  • Managing Editor, University of Michigan Journal of Law Reform, 1988
  • James Scholar, University of Illinois - Urbana-Champaign, 1985
Representative Matters
View All
  • Edwards Lifesciences LLC, and EndoGAD Research Pty Ltd. v. Medtronic, Inc., Medtronic AVE, Inc., Cook Incorporated, and W.L. Gore & Associates, Inc., 2003 - 2009 (N.D. California, San Francisco; Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit). Mr. Lane represented Cook in this patent infringement action filed by Edwards Lifesciences based on four patents concerning endovascular stent grafts for the treatment of abdominal aortic aneurysms and thoracic aortic aneurysms. Case was resolved favorably to the client on summary judgment of noninfringement, and Mr. Lane authored the successful appeal brief that affirmed the summary judgment in all respects. Decision reported at: 582 F.3d 1322 (Fed. Cir. 2009). 
  • Black & Decker, Inc. v. Shanghai Xing Te Hao Industrial Co., et al., 2003 (Northern District of Illinois, Chicago). Mr. Lane represented Shanghai Xing Te Hao in defending against allegations of patent infringement as to certain power tools. Because of a motion to dismiss filed on behalf of the client, the matter was limited to jurisdictional discovery and thereafter settled on terms favorable to the client. Reported decision at: 66 BNA Pat., Trademark & Copyright J. 237 (6/20/03). 
  • American Axle & Mfg. v. Visteon Corporation, 2002 (Eastern District of Michigan, Detroit). Mr. Lane was part of a team representing Visteon based on alleged patent infringement relating to various Visteon universal joint products. This matter was dismissed with prejudice on all counts in favor of our client, Visteon. 
  • Cook Biotech Inc. v. Organogenesis Inc., 2002 (Southern District of Indiana, Indianapolis). Mr. Lane was part of a team representing Cook Biotech against its principal competitor on a new product line based on an implantable collagen matrix product originating from porcine small intestine submucosa. In the case, Cook Biotech sought damages and an injunction. Within five months of the litigation, Organogenesis sought bankruptcy protection. 
  • Sidel v. Uniloy Milacron Inc., 2001 (Northern District of Georgia, Atlanta). Mr. Lane was responsible for defending Uniloy Milacron in a preliminary injunction motion based on alleged patent infringement. Following a hearing and extensive briefing, the Court agreed with the position advocated on behalf of Uniloy Milacron that a preliminary injunction was unwarranted and that Uniloy Milacron would likely succeed in defending against the allegations. The lawsuit settled thereafter on terms favorable to our client, Uniloy Milacron. Decision reported at: 61 USPQ2d 1480 (N.D. Ga. 2001).  
  • Bio-Technology General Corp., et al. v. Genentech, Inc., 2000 (Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit). Mr. Lane was part of a team assisting Genentech in the appeal of this case, and he assisted in drafting the brief filed in the Federal Circuit. The technology at issue involved Genentech’s U.S. Patent No. 4,601,980 directed to a method for directly expressing human growth hormone. The appeal was resolved in Genentech’s favor. Reported decision at: 60 USPQ2d 1430 (Fed. Cir. 2000). 
  • Panduit Corp. v. Randall D. Gritters and Storm Products Company, 2000 (Illinois State Circuit Court, Chicago). Mr. Lane was responsible for this case filed by Panduit against one of Panduit’s former employees, and his new employer Storm Products. In the case, Panduit sought to enforce an employment agreement that included noncompetition and confidentiality obligations executed by the former employee. The case was filed in chancery court, and included claims for breach of contract, trade secret misappropriation and tortious interference with contractual relations. Mr. Lane was responsible for filing the motion for temporary restraining order that resulted in an agreed consent judgment order that included certain injunctive provisions favorable to our client, Panduit. 
  • AMP Incorporated and The Whitaker Corporation v. Teradyne, Inc., 1998 – 2000 (Middle District of Pennsylvania, Harrisburg). Mr. Lane was part of a team representing AMP and Whitaker in this action filed against Teradyne. AMP and Whitaker sued Teradyne for trade secret misappropriation, unfair competition, unjust enrichment, and patent infringement. The patents at issue were U.S. Patent No. 4,846,727 for a reference conductor for improving signal integrity in electrical connectors, and U.S. Patent No. 5,342,211 for a shielded back plane connector. The case involved issues relating to Teradyne’s VHDM product line. The case also involved counterclaims filed by Teradyne for alleged infringement of U.S. Patent No. 5,860,816 for an electrical connector assembled from wafers, as well as for alleged breach of contract, and interference with prospective contractual relations. Mr. Lane headed up the liability part of the case, and also assisted with the damages case. Mr. Lane examined by deposition a majority of Teradyne’s fact and expert witnesses. After discovery was completed, and dispositive motions filed, the case settled on terms favorable to AMP and The Whitaker Corporation. A subsequent interference provoked by Teradyne was also handled by Mr. Lane, and resulted in an opinion by the Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences on preliminary motions that concluded the interference in favor of the client. 
  • Tec Air, Inc. v. Denso Manufacturing Michigan and Denso Corporation, 1992 – 1999 (Northern District of Illinois, Chicago; Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit). Mr. Lane was one of a team of trial lawyers representing Tec Air in a patent infringement case against Denso Corp. and Denso Mfg. Michigan. He was involved in all aspects of the case, including liability and damages. This was a hard fought lawsuit that spanned over seven years. The case involved two patents owned by Tec Air relating to fan assemblies used with radiators and condensers in automobiles. The case was tried in three phases, before two separate juries (involving approximately seven weeks of trial time), and resulted in three jury verdicts – infringement, validity and damages – all in favor of our client Tec Air. In the final phase, the jury returned a damages verdict for $25.2 million in favor of Tec Air; this award was increased to more than $40 million with prejudgment interest. The jury verdict was identified in the National Law Journal as one of the three largest patent infringement verdicts of 1997. Denso appealed, and the judgment was affirmed by the Federal Circuit in all respects. Mr. Lane was responsible, together with other members of the Tec Air team, for writing the appellate briefs filed by Tec Air. Reported decisions include: 33 U.S.P.Q.2d 1451 (N.D. Ill. 1994); 1995 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 11140 (N.D. Ill. 1995); 1995 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 18891 (N.D. Ill. 1995); 1996 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 14292 (N.D. Ill. 1996); 1997 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 1081 (N.D. Ill. 1997); 49 U.S.P.Q.2d 1944 (N.D. Ill. 1998); and, 192 F.3d 1353 (Fed. Cir. 1999).
Publications
  • "A Proposal to View Patent Claim Nonobviousness from the Policy Perspective of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 52(a)," Author, 20 University of Michigan Journal of Law Reform 1157 (1987)
  • Contributing Editor, various articles and end notes, Licensing Law and Business Report (1990-1994)
Presentations
  • "Remedies for Infringement of United States Utility Patents," International Intellectual Property Law Symposia, University of Oxford, June 2007
  • "E-Discovery Amendments to the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure," Recent Developments in IP Litigation, Chicago, Illinois, September 2006
  • "New Patent Reform Legislation in the U.S." International Intellectual Property Law Symposia, University of Victoria, July 2006
  • "Trade Dress and Other Design Protection in the United States," International Intellectual Property Law Symposia, University of Oxford, June 2005
  • "Claim Construction: New Strategies in Light of Phillips," Managing the Risks of IP Litigation, Chicago, Illinois, October 2005
Memberships & Affiliations
View All
  • American Bar Association, 1989-Present
  • American Intellectual Property Law Association, 1989-Present
  • Chicago Bar Association, 1989-Present
  • Federal Circuit Bar Association, 1992-Present
  • Intellectual Property Law Association of Chicago, 2001-Present
  • Intellectual Property Owners Association, 1997-Present
  • ITC Trial Lawyers Association, 2008-Present
  • Tau Beta Pi, 1984-Present
Civic Activities
  • University of Illinois Industrial & Enterprise Systems Engineering
    Alumni and Industry Advisory Board
  • Public Interest Law Initiative of Chicago
    Board of Directors and Treasurer
  • Legal Aid Society
    Advisory Board to the Legal Aid Bureau of Metropolitan Family Services
Legal Experience
  • Brinks Hofer Gilson & Lione, Chicago, Illinois
    Shareholder, January 1996-Present
    Associate, June 1988-December 1995
    Law Clerk/Summer Associate, June 1986-August 1986
  • Fish & Neave, New York, New York
    Law Clerk/Summer Associate, May 1987-August 1987
Non-Legal Experience
  • USG Corporation, Chicago, Illinois
    Engineer, May-August 1983, May-August 1984, January-August 1985
Press Releases