Austen’s practice focuses on disputes involving intellectual property law, corporate law and commercial law.
His patent litigations involve a range of products, including mechanical devices, financial solutions and pharmaceutical products. Austen has handled trademark litigations in a variety of fields, including the fashion and apparel industry and the interior design industry. He also serves as Delaware counsel to corporations in patent infringement cases in the District of Delaware.
- Tile Tech, Inc. v. Appian Way Sales, Inc., et al., C.A. No. 2:17-cv-01660-JLR (W.D. Wash. 2017) –represented defendants/counterclaimants in patent infringement and false advertising case involving cylindrical-shaped pedestal devices used in connection with the paving of subsurfaces. Part of a team that developed key prior invention and on sale bar defenses, and false advertising and patent infringement counterclaims, leading to a very favorable settlement for the defendants.
- In the Matter of Certain High-Potency Sweeteners, Processes for Making Same, and Products Containing Same, Investigation No. 337-TA-1030 (U.S. International Trade Commission 2017) – represented Respondent Vitasweet and obtained a dismissal/withdrawal of the Complaint due to issues regarding the invalidity of the asserted patent relating to a process for manufacturing acesulfame potassium.
- In the Matter of Certain Footwear Products, Inv. No. 337-TA-936 (U.S. International Trade Commission 2014) – represented U.S. distributor of fashion footwear company in high profile Section 337 Investigation involving allegations of trade dress infringement and dilution. Served as second chair on trial team that obtained post-trial initial determination that all accused shoes being sold by the client were not infringing. In 2019, on remand from the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, obtained post-remand initial determination that all accused shoes at issue in the case were not infringing.
- In the Matter of Certain Woven Textile Fabrics and Products Containing Same, Inv. No. 337-TA-976 (U.S. International Trade Commission 2015) – represented textiles company in Section 337 Investigation involving allegations of infringement of a patent relating to high thread-count cotton/polyester blend fabrics; obtained favorable settlement for the client.
- The Sliding Door Company v. KLS Doors LLC and Cox USA, C.A. No. 13-196 (C.D. Cal. 2013) – part of a team that obtained a favorable settlement for defendants following a favorable claim construction ruling in a patent and trade dress infringement case relating to a sliding door system.
- Nano-Second Technology Co. Ltd. v. Dynaflex Int’l et al., C.A. No. 2:10-09176 (C.D. Cal. 2013) – part of a team that obtained a favorable settlement for defendants following a favorable summary judgment ruling on invalidity in a case involving a patent directed to gyroscopic wrist exercisers.
- Memory Integrity v. LG Electronics, C.A. No. 13-1806 (D. Del. 2013) – served as Delaware counsel for LG Electronics in a patent infringement case involving microprocessor technology.
- Pfizer, Inc. v. MSP Singapore Company, C.A. No.11-713 (D. Del. 2011) – served as Delaware counsel for defendant in a patent infringement case involving a New Drug Application for ezetimibe-atorvastatin tablets.
- Elan Pharma International Ltd. et al. v. Anchen Pharmaceuticals Inc. et al., C.A. No. 8:09-cv-01193 (C.D. Cal 2009) – represented patent holders in a patent infringement case involving an Abbreviated New Drug Application for a generic version of Luvox.
Before Fox Rothschild
Prior to joining the firm, Austen was an associate at Morris, Nichols, Arsht & Tunnell LLP in the Intellectual Property Litigation practice group. During law school, he served as a judicial intern and law clerk for Chief Judge Joseph H.H. Kaplan of the Baltimore City Circuit Court. Austen also was an articles editor for the Maryland Law Review.