Smith & Nephew, Inc. v. Arthrex, Inc.

This case involved patent infringement and was tried in the United States District Court in Marshall, Texas. Young & Associates represented the Defendant, Arthrex. Smith & Nephew was seeking a $9.4 million award. Ultimately a no cause for action was entered by the Federal Circuit.

Teleflex, Inc. v Ficosa North American Corp.

This case involved patent infringement. The firm represented Plaintiff Teleflex, a publicly traded multinational client. The Federal jury awarded Teleflex a large monetary verdict and the Judge issued a Permanent Injunction against Defendant, a Spanish company that had been competing with Teleflex.

The infringed technology involved the worldwide market for flexible transmission cables. This four-week jury trial in U.S. District Court in Detroit, Michigan pitted Young & Associates against the law firm of Jones, Day, Reavis & Pogue.

Smith & Nephew, Inc. v Arthrex, Inc.

This case was tried twice in United States District Court in Portland, Oregon. Young & Associates represented the Defendant Arthrex. In the first trial, the jury was hung 7-1 in favor of the Defendant. In the second trial, Smith and Nephew obtained a $15 million verdict. The case was reversed on a successful appeal to the Federal Circuit and the verdict vacated.

MAI Systems Corporation v Peak Computer, Inc., et al.

This case involved copyright infringement allegations for computer operating systems. The firm represented Plaintiff MAI Systems. The Court ruled that when a computer is turned on, the transfer of the data from the hard drive to the RAM is equivalent of making a copy, and only the owner or licensee could do it. This created a significant problem for aftermarket service companies.

It triggered efforts to pass a new law beginning in the U.S. House by Rep. Joseph Knollenberg (R.-Bloomfield Hills, Mich.) to revise the Copyright Act so that it would permit the “rightful possessor” of the program to copy it for that purpose. Mr. Young acted as lead lobbyist for the ultimately successful efforts to amend the Copyright Act.


IMPCO sued GFI (represented by Young & Associates), a manufacturer of alternative fuel systems, for patent infringement. Although IMPCO, a leading alternative fuel systems manufacturer headquartered in California, had a strong patent infringement case against GFI, GFI was able to raise substantial questions as to the validity of IMPCO’s patent. As a result, IMPCO decided to settle the case by dismissing its lawsuit against GFI.