Calvin Wingfield

Calvin has nearly two decades of experience litigating IP matters in federal district courts, the U.S. International Trade Commission, the Patent Trial and Appeal Board, the Federal Circuit, and arbitration proceedings. His practice includes litigation in the nation's most active patent venues, including the Eastern and Western Districts of Texas, the District of Delaware, and the District of New Jersey. Calvin is known for translating complex technologies into compelling narratives that resonate with judges, juries, arbitrators and business decision makers.

Clients rely on Calvin not only for his litigation experience, but also for his practical business judgment. He works closely with in-house legal and business teams to develop litigation strategies that advance broader commercial objectives, whether through early case resolution, trial, appeal, licensing or coordinated global enforcement efforts. In addition to representing clients in litigation, Calvin advises on intellectual property strategy, licensing, technology transactions and other matters where legal and business considerations intersect.

Calvin has represented companies across a broad range of industries and technologies, artificial intelligence, enterprise software, cloud computing, networking, semiconductors, medical devices, biotechnology, financial technology, telecommunications, aerospace, and advanced manufacturing. He also counsels clients on a broad range of intellectual property matters, including patent portfolio development and enforcement, trademark, copyright, and trade secret issues.

• Technology
  • Representing Bloomfire, Inc. in patent infringement case filed by VE Opening LLC involving AI enterprise search and knowledge management software. VE Opening LLC v. Bloomfire, Inc., Case No. 1:25-cv-1937  (W.D. Tex.)
  • Representing RhinoSystems, Inc. in patent assertion against competitor Michael Todd Beauty involving powered nasal irrigation devices. Michael Todd Beauty LP v. RhinoSystems, Inc., No. 1:25-cv-00747 (D. Del.)
  • Represented BFG Supply Co. LLC in a multipatent infringement case filed by Seoul Semiconductor Co. Ltd. Involving LED semiconductor and lighting technologies. Seoul Semiconductor Co. Ltd. v. BFG Supply Co. LLC, Case No. 3:25-cv-05637 (W.D. Wash.)
  • Represented Perma-Liner Industries in asserting multiple patents against competitor NuFlow involving in-situ repair of underground pipes. Perma-Liner Indus., LLC v. Nuflow Techs. U.S.A., Inc., Case No. 24-721 (D. Del.)
  • Represented Gillette in patent infringement case involving razor cartridge design. Sphere USA, LLC v. The Gillette Company, LLC, Case No. 23-1093 (D. Del.)
  • Represented defendants against trade-secret misappropriation and breach of contract allegations in multiple lawsuits filed by Corning involving cover glass manufacturing technology. Corning v. Shenzhen Xinhao Photoelectric Technology, Case No. 18-cv-06739 (N.D.N.Y.) and Dongguan Jingbo Optoelectronics, Case No. 18-cv-06866 (N.D.N.Y.)
  • Represented GE in asserting multiple patents against competitor Siemens Gamesa involving wind turbine generator control systems and software. General Electric Company v. Siemens Gamesa Renewable Energy, Inc., Case No. 21-cv-11446 (D. Mass.)
  • Represented third-party defendant IBM in a patent infringement lawsuit concerning the government’s national alert messaging technology. CellCast Techs., LLC v. United States, Case No. 15-cv-1307 (C.F.C.)
  • Represented Vizbee in a defense of patent infringement lawsuit filed in the Southern District of New York. The case settled at the plaintiff’s initiation before the claim construction hearing. Touchstream Techs., Inc. v. Vizbee, Inc., Case No. 17-cv-6247 (S.D.N.Y.)
  • Secured dismissal of patent infringement against IBM in case involving QR code technology. Coding Technologies, LLC v. IBM, Case No. 17-cv-7784 (S.D.N.Y)
  • Represented CardinalCommerce in two patent infringement cases against SecureBuy, LLC and three covered business method patent (“CBM”) reviews involving CardinalCommerce’s innovative methods and systems for authenticating e-commerce transactions. The Patent Trial Board denied institution of SecureBuy’s CBM petitions. The Patent Trial Board denied institution of SecureBuy’s CBM petitions.
  • Represented Augme in multiple patent infringement cases brought by Augme involving software for delivery of targeted advertising over the Internet, and a case involving trademark infringement.
  • Represented Bell Helicopter in two patent infringement cases involving helicopter landing gear. Secured favorable Markman rulings in both cases and settled shortly thereafter.
  • Represented defendant and patent owner International Securities Exchange in both the district court and the court of appeals in a patent infringement case involving a system for automatically trading financial instruments. Achieved favorable appellate rulings, including affirmance of the dismissal of an inequitable conduct defense and reversal of a finding that a patent claim was indefinite. Chicago Board Options Exchange, Inc. v. International Securities Exchange, LLC, No. 07-cv-623 (N.D.Ill.)
  • Represented defendant IBM in district court, on appeal, and before the U.S. Supreme Court in a dispute over ownership of 12 patents obtained by a former employee after leaving IBM. Obtained summary judgment in IBM's favor, secured affirmance by the Federal Circuit, and defeated a petition for certiorari. Picture Patents, LLC v. Aeropostale, Inc. et al., 788 F. Supp. 2d 127 (S.D.N.Y. 2011), aff’d Picture Patents, LLC v. Aeropostale, Inc. et al., No. 2011-1558 (Fed. Cir. Apr. 13, 2012)
• ITC
  • Represented the complainant Novartis in a patent litigation involving pre-filled syringe technology. In the Matter of Certain Pre-filled Syringes for Intravitreal Injection and Components Thereof, Inv. No. 337-TA-1207
  • Represented third party Pass & Seymour, Inc. in an advisory proceeding before the U.S. International Trade Commission concerning its ground fault circuit interrupters. In the matter of Certain Ground Fault Circuit Interrupters and Products Containing Same, Inv. No. 337-TA-739
  • Represented respondent GE in a patent infringement case involving light bulb ballasts. In the Matter of Certain Dimmable Compact Fluorescent Lamps and Products Containing Same, Investigation No. 337-TA-830
  • Represented respondent TPV in a patent litigation concerning televisions and flat-screen monitors. In the Matter of Certain Display Devices Including Digital Televisions And Monitors, Investigation No. 337-TA-713 (ITC 2010)
  • Represented complainant Pass & Seymour in both the U.S. International Trade Commission and on appeal to the Federal Circuit. Secured findings that six asserted patents were valid, enforceable and infringed resulting in the exclusion of 15 of 16 respondents from the market. In the Matter of Certain Ground Fault Circuit Interrupters And Products Containing The Same, Investigation No. 337-TA-615, 2009 WL 962585 (ITC 2009), aff’d in part General Proctecht Group, Inc. v. Int’l Trade Comm’n, 619 F.3d 1303 (Fed. Cir. 2010) and Pass & Seymour, Inc. v. Int’l Trade Comm’n, 617 F.3d 1319 (Fed. Cir. 2010)
  • Represented respondent Hewlett-Packard against allegation of infringement of patents relating to disk drive manufacturing. In the Matter of Certain Hard Disk Drives, Components Thereof, And Products Containing The Same, Investigation No. 337-TA-616 (ITC 2008)
  • Represented respondent Ericsson in a patent infringement case involving cellular telephony technology. In the Matter of Certain Wireless Communication Equipment, Articles Therein, And Products Containing The Same, Investigation No. 337-TA-577 (ITC 2006)
• Life Sciences
  • Represented Novartis in a patent litigation concerning pre-filled syringe technology for intravitreal injections. Novartis Pharma AG v. Regeneron Pharmaceuticals, Inc., Civil Action No. 1:20-cv-690 (N.D.N.Y.)
  • Represented AMAG in a patent litigation concerning its innovative treatment for chronic kidney disease, FERAHEME®. AMAG Pharmaceuticals Inc. v. Sandoz Inc., Civil Action No. 3:16-cv-1508 (D.N.J.)
  • Represented Cephalon in multiple patent infringement cases involving its innovative treatment for chronic lymphocytic leukemia and non-Hodgkin lymphoma, TREANDA®. After a bench trial, the United States District Court for the District of Delaware found the asserted patents valid and infringed.

• Honors & Awards (cont’d)
  • • Named in Benchmark Litigation’s 40 & Under Hot List (2021, 2022)
    • Recognized by IAM Patent 1000 for Litigation in New York (2020, 2021)
    • Named by National Bar Association Top 40 Under 40 (2019)
• Associations
  • Trustee, Foundation for Advancement of Diversity in IP Law
  • Member, Federal Circuit Bar Association
  • Member, American Intellectual Property Law Association
  • Member, New York Intellectual Property Law Association
  • Member, National Bar Association