Mark H. Remus
Overview
Clients trust Mark Remus to solve their patent disputes quickly, efficiently, and strategically. He has served as lead counsel on numerous patent infringement litigation matters, and he has successfully represented clients in jury trials, bench trials, and appeals to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit and the U.S. Supreme Court. Intellectual Asset Management (IAM) magazine writes that Mark is “[a]lways one of the best lawyers in the courtroom, he has an even temperament for litigation and is precise in everything he does,” calling him “quite a force to be reckoned with.” Clients recognize Mark for being “always well-prepared and conscientious” and “tough when the situation requires it.”
Career & Education
- University of Illinois, B.S., with distinction, chemical engineering, 1994
- University of Illinois College of Law, J.D., cum laude, 1997
- Supreme Court of the United States
- U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO)
- U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois
- U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit
- U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, Trial Bar
Mark 's Insights
Client Alert | 3 min read | 04.23.24
The Federal Circuit’s recent decision in Luv n’ Care v. Laurain provides a cautionary tale for patentees. Disclosing prior art to the Patent and Trademark Office (PTO) is not enough to insulate against a finding of inequitable conduct, particularly where a patentee mischaracterizes that prior art and the PTO’s patentability determination may have differed had the patentee accurately described the prior art. Misconduct by the patentee during litigation can also lead to a finding of unclean hands that bars the patentee from relief for alleged infringement against the opposing party in that litigation.
Client Alert | 5 min read | 01.31.24
Firm News | 9 min read | 08.17.23
Client Alert | 2 min read | 08.14.23
Representative Matters
- Led a trial team through a seven-week bench trial that resulted in the district court invalidating a patent on a $1 billion-per-year drug. The district court’s decision was affirmed on appeal.
- After a two-week jury trial, achieved a complete victory for his patent owner-client on multiple counts of patent and trademark infringement. The district court subsequently found the infringer in contempt of a post-trial injunction and awarded attorney’s fees for willful infringement. The total judgment was over $12 million on just $2 million in accused sales. In awarding attorney’s fees, the district court noted that the “high level of Plaintiffs’ attorneys’ trial practice skills was a significant factor in achieving a favorable result for the Plaintiffs.”
- Represented numerous pharmaceutical companies in Hatch-Waxman bench trials concerning myriad drugs and technologies.
- Represented manufacturer in trade secret misappropriation case against a competitor that hired a former employee. The case was successfully resolved when the defendant agreed to redesign the accused products to remove the misappropriated subject matter.
- On behalf of an industrial equipment manufacturer, successfully persuaded the Federal Circuit to reverse a decision by the Patent Trial and Appeal Board that the challenged patent was valid.
- In a case that reached the Supreme Court, represented a worldwide offshore drilling contractor in a patent infringement case involving an offshore drilling apparatus. The case made two trips to the Federal Circuit Court of Appeals and then settled on appeal to the Supreme Court after the Court referred the case to the Solicitor General for review and comment.
Mark 's Insights
Client Alert | 3 min read | 04.23.24
The Federal Circuit’s recent decision in Luv n’ Care v. Laurain provides a cautionary tale for patentees. Disclosing prior art to the Patent and Trademark Office (PTO) is not enough to insulate against a finding of inequitable conduct, particularly where a patentee mischaracterizes that prior art and the PTO’s patentability determination may have differed had the patentee accurately described the prior art. Misconduct by the patentee during litigation can also lead to a finding of unclean hands that bars the patentee from relief for alleged infringement against the opposing party in that litigation.
Client Alert | 5 min read | 01.31.24
Firm News | 9 min read | 08.17.23
Client Alert | 2 min read | 08.14.23
Recognition
- Intellectual Asset Management: IAM Patent 1000, 2015 – 2016, 2020–2021; IAM Patent Litigation: Illinois, 2013–2014
- Euromoney Expert Guide to the World's Leading Patent Law Practitioners, 2017–2020
- LMG Life Sciences Star, 2013–2020
- Crain’s: Notable Gen X Leaders in Law, 2019
- Illinois Super Lawyers: Intellectual Property Litigation, 2013–2021
- The Best Lawyers in America: Litigation—Intellectual Property, 2016–2021; Litigation—Patent, 2019–2021
- Forty Illinois Attorneys Under 40 to Watch, 2006
Mark 's Insights
Client Alert | 3 min read | 04.23.24
The Federal Circuit’s recent decision in Luv n’ Care v. Laurain provides a cautionary tale for patentees. Disclosing prior art to the Patent and Trademark Office (PTO) is not enough to insulate against a finding of inequitable conduct, particularly where a patentee mischaracterizes that prior art and the PTO’s patentability determination may have differed had the patentee accurately described the prior art. Misconduct by the patentee during litigation can also lead to a finding of unclean hands that bars the patentee from relief for alleged infringement against the opposing party in that litigation.
Client Alert | 5 min read | 01.31.24
Firm News | 9 min read | 08.17.23
Client Alert | 2 min read | 08.14.23
Insights
Mark 's Insights
Client Alert | 3 min read | 04.23.24
The Federal Circuit’s recent decision in Luv n’ Care v. Laurain provides a cautionary tale for patentees. Disclosing prior art to the Patent and Trademark Office (PTO) is not enough to insulate against a finding of inequitable conduct, particularly where a patentee mischaracterizes that prior art and the PTO’s patentability determination may have differed had the patentee accurately described the prior art. Misconduct by the patentee during litigation can also lead to a finding of unclean hands that bars the patentee from relief for alleged infringement against the opposing party in that litigation.
Client Alert | 5 min read | 01.31.24
Firm News | 9 min read | 08.17.23
Client Alert | 2 min read | 08.14.23
