Edward R. Reines

Reines is co-head of Weil, Gotshal & Manges’ national patent litigation practice. Over the last year, he was immersed in protecting valuable intellectual property behind genetic and prenatal tests, printing technology and crude oil pipeline lubricants.

In a battle over patents that are the backbone of a rapidly expanding genetic testing industry using sophisticated techniques to turn chips into mini-laboratories, Reines persuaded federal jurors in Delaware to find in favor of his client Bio-Rad Laboratories Inc. The life sciences diagnostic products maker was pressing claims against rival 10X Genomics Inc. in a seven-patent infringement suit.

After an afternoon of deliberations in November, the jurors held that all of Reines’ client’s patents are valid and infringed, and that the infringement was willful. They answered 100 verdict questions in Bio-Rad’s favor and awarded the company the amount Reines requested: $24 million.

“I explained that this was a fundamental invention that used tiny, nano-sized droplets of water, flowing through a stream of oil in a tiny chip, to perform complex DNA reactions,” Reines said. “I was teaching the technology of microfluidics through simplified but accurate analogies.” Bio-Rad Laboratories Inc. v. 10X Genomics Inc., 15-CV00152 (D.Del., filed Feb. 12, 2015).

Reines said the other side fought hard. “They were really lawyered up, two firms, 15 to 20 lawyers against our five. But we were optimistic that we were playing a strong hand on behalf of a very impressive client. Juries are better educated than many think, and we embraced that to show why our case had merit.”

When his firm’s new client Groupon Inc. lost a $82.5 million jury verdict on claims it infringed four of IBM’s e-commerce patents, Reines was called on to replace former counsel. The verdict, originally asking $167 million for Groupon’s allegedly having built its online coupon business on IBM’s patents, had some problems, Reines said.

“This was a crash cleanup project. And it was critical, because that verdict was subject to trebling and the patents in question had a lot of life in them yet. It was a huge exposure for Groupon.”

Reines said he was able to show that IBM’s aggressive behavior in seeking damages led to issues that cast doubt on whether the verdict could stand. “In the end, they settled for $57 million,” he said. International Business Machines Corp. v. Groupon Inc., 16-CV00122 (D.Del., filed March 2, 2016).

“It was a good year,” Reines summed up. “I can’t complain.”

— John Roemer