Home2019-08-22T16:06:14-05:00

Businesses and inventors seek us out because of our depth of experience in complex litigation and dispute resolution.

Contact Us
“F&G brought a fresh and robust perspective to our complex patent litigation. They added substantial firepower to defending and enforcing my rights as an inventor in District Court, PTAB, and Federal Circuit. If someone steals your patented invention, you need F&G on your team.”
Successful Consumer Product Inventor
“After a very successful first engagement with Rob and Wil, we re-engaged the firm to help us strategize with a complex litigation matter where our national law firm attorneys struggled.  Rob’s tenacity, creativity and extra breadth helped resolve our non-litigation corporate matters quickly with a win, minimizing the long drawn out process, headache and expense.”
Director, Major Software Company

We have federal and state court litigation experience at all levels of the appellate process and across the country’s trial courts. We help clients with i complex contract and business disputes, white collar criminal defense and intellectual property. We resolve disputes on our clients’ behalf both with and without resort to the courts. In the intellectual property area, we negotiate transfers of rights, and go to court to protect patents, trademarks, copyrights, and trade secrets against improper use. We also defend attacks against product lines and support our clients’ freedom to use technologies and ideas.

“I have retained the law firm of Flachsbart & Greenspoon for a variety of legal matters over the last twelve years.  The firm handled both litigation and appellate matters on my client’s behalf.  As an inhouse attorney, I found the lawyers at the firm to be responsive and knowledgeable while providing cost effective legal counsel.  The firm has a number of very talented legal professionals.  I have no hesitation in recommending the firm to others and look forward to working with them again in the future.”

Licensing Executive

“Flachsbart & Greenspoon provided phenomenal representation throughout our action, providing the highest possible quality legal writing and oral argument.  In addition, Mr. Flachsbart’s creative and savvy case strategy allowed us to maximize our recovery in the eventual settlement.”

Financial Dispute Litigation Client

“Wil Flachsbart is a very skilled lawyer.  He is a strong advocate and easy to work with.  Wil has a wealth of legal knowledge and is not intimidated by adversaries with significant resources.  As an attorney, he is not afraid to put in the time and effort to reach a successful outcome for his clients.  Wil has been my outside counsel for a variety of matters over the last 12 years and he always obtained a favorable result on my behalf.  I cannot say the same thing about other attorneys which I retained.  If you have a challenging case, Wil Flachsbart is the attorney you should hire.”

Licensing Executive

“Robert Greenspoon is a great attorney.  He has handled many cases on the behalf of the companies with whom I have been employed for over a decade.  He is a skilled appellate attorney and his legal knowledge is unparalleled.  His advocacy has proven vital in many difficult fact scenarios and he was able to obtain rulings in my client’s favor that I felt were out of reach.  I would not hesitate in retaining Rob in the future.  He is an indispensable asset to any legal team.”

Licensing Executive
square-graphic square-graphic

News & Resources

2019: Published influential article opposing aspect of proposed reform of Patent Act because it would make “functional” patent claims too hard to protect: “Congress’ Section 101 Fix Would Create a 112(f) Problem.”

2019: Published article explaining amicus brief submitted to Supreme Court on behalf of inventor organization and numerous independent inventors: “The Supreme Court Should Grant Cert in Zup to Correct Obviousness Doctrine.”

2017: Published article to assist next USPTO director in implementing changes to restore fairness to agency patent challenges: “Seven PTAB Policy Changes for the Next USPTO Director,” many of which ended up being implemented.

2016: The firm won an agency appeal for our client in the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (App. No. 2016-1592), resulting in a precedential opinion vacating a Patent Trial and Appeal Board decision that had invalidated his patent.

Throughout 2016: Robert Greenspoon continues to post significant articles on patent policy as a contributing author to the IPWatchdog blog (author’s page here).

August 2016: Robert Greenspoon joins a panel of other experts in a Federalist Society podcast to discuss constitutional infirmities in the process of Inter Partes Review at the United States Patent and Trademark Office.

January 28, 2015: The firm filed a Brief of Amicus Curiae in MCM Portfolio LLC v. Hewlett-Packard Company (No. 15-1091), a matter pending before the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit involving the unconstitutionality of inter partes review proceedings.

October, 2014: Robert P. Greenspoon presented oral argument in the Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit in Zayed v. Associated Bank, after briefing prepared by the firm and co-counsel. On March 2, 2015, Eighth Circuit issued a decision reversing the district court’s dismissal of the lawsuit, reviving a suit by a Ponzi scheme federal receivership against Associated Bank. The suit alleges that the bank aided and abetted various wrongful acts of the Ponzi schemers.
October 31, 2014: After filing a preliminary response in the Patent Trial & Appeal Board, we obtained dismissal of a petition for inter partes review directed against a cryptography invention.

September 15, 2014: In Conair Corp. & Babyliss FACO SPRL v. Le Angelique, Inc., we obtained a temporary restraining order for our client against an importer of substantially similar hair care products.

September 4, 2014: In Conair Corp. & Babyliss FACO SPRL v. K&A Beauty, LLC, we obtained a permanent injunction for our client after entry of a final default judgment against another importer of substantially similar hair care products.

August 20, 2014: In Marvellous Day Electric v. Holiday Bright Lights, we obtained summary judgment of invalidity for our client against an international electric light manufacturer’s claim of patent infringement. Earlier in the proceedings we also obtained dismissal of all claims under state and federal unfair competition laws. None of the decisions were appealed.

June 5, 2014: We filed a civil rights action against the United States Patent and Trademark Office seeking a declaration that inter partes review proceedings are unconstitutional.

May 8, 2014: In Yowie North America, Inc. v. Candy Treasure, LLC, we obtained denial of a preliminary injunction motion in a patent and unfair competition case against our client in the confectionary industry. The case was later dismissed by settlement.

December 6, 2013: Acting as appointed counsel for a civil rights plaintiff, we obtained a jury verdict against the defendant for violating our client’s Eighth Amendment rights. The jury awarded both compensatory and punitive damages.

September 13, 2012: The firm won a patent appeal for our client 1st Media, LLC against Electronic Arts, Viacom, and Sony Computer Entertainment America in the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (App. No. 2010-1435) (reversing a judgment of inequitable conduct in full), resulting in a published opinion reinstating an infringement case regarding the Rock Band video game.

February 7, 2012: The United States Patent and Trademark Office granted the request for ex parte reexamination filed by the firm against a design patent being asserted against its client.

September 19, 2011: Patent Pilot Judges announced for the Northern District of Illinois. The program applies to all cases filed starting Sept. 19, 2011.

July 22, 2011: Federal Judiciary in Chicago gearing up for the recently announced Patent “Pilot” Program.

June 9, 2011: Supreme Court ruling in Microsoft, Inc. v. i4i Limited Partnership, et. al. confirms the clear and convincing standard for the defense of invalidity.

June 4, 2011: Robert Greenspoon and co-author Catherine Cottle published their article, “Don’t Assume a Can Opener: Confronting Patent Economic Theory with Licensing Reality,” in the Spring/Summer 2011 issue of the Columbia Journal of Law, Science and Technology.

May 31, 2011: Supreme Court ruling in Global-Tech Appliances, Inc. v. SEB S.A. on the level of intent required to find inducement of infringement makes it easier to prevail in an inducement case before a jury.

April 28, 2011: William Flachsbart appeared on the podcast “Three Moves Ahead” to discuss intellectual property aspects of strategy games, and to lend his expertise to understanding a dispute between two game companies with competing offerings.

April 7, 2011: At the DePaul University College of Law Center for Intellectual Property Law & Information Technology, Robert Greenspoon spoke on a two-person panel about the upcoming Supreme Court argument in Microsoft v. i4i. The Intellectual Property Law Association of Chicago co-sponsored the event.

March 23, 2011: At the Chicago-Kent Intellectual Property Law Society, Robert Greenspoon spoke on the differences in patent licensing and enforcement for different types of actors in the patent market. The Chicago-Kent Law & Economics Society co-sponsored the event.

March 17, 2011: The firm filed the Brief of Amici Curiae Seven Retired Naval Officers in Support of Respondents, in Microsoft Corp. v. i4i Limited Partnership (S. Ct.) (Case No. 10-290), a Supreme Court case involving the standard of proof needed to invalidate a patent.

February 10, 2011: In Lear Corp. v. Johnson Controls, Inc., the firm and co-counsel won a jury verdict for patentee Lear Corporation, after proving indirect infringement (inducement) of dependent claims under the doctrine of equivalents, where the jury awarded substantial damages for the firm’s client.

January 28, 2011: Through petition practice, the firm won dismissal of an inter partes reexamination proceeding filed against our client to cancel one of their major revenue-generating patents.

November 2010: In Intellectual Asset Management Magazine‘s November/December 2010 issue, “The Intangible Investor” columnist Bruce Berman favorably reviewed Robert Greenspoon’s article “Is the United States Finally Ready for a Patent Small Claims Court?”, published in the Spring 2009 issue of the Minnesota Journal of Law, Science and Technology.

October 19, 2010: At the Chicago Bar Association, Robert Greenspoon spoke on a three-person panel sponsored by the Intellectual Property Law Committee about the Supreme Court’s recent decision on patent-eligible subject matter in Bilski v. Doll.

July 30, 2010: The firm filed the Brief of Amici Curiae Acacia Research Corporation and 1st Media, LLC in Support of Neither Party and in Support of Returning the “Unenforceability” Defense to its Traditional Scope of “Unclean Hands,” in Therasense, Inc. v. Becton, Dickinson and Company (Fed. Cir.) (Case No 2008-1511), a Federal Circuit Court of Appeals case involving the proper scope of the inequitable conduct defense.

July 1, 2010: At the DePaul University College of Law Center for Intellectual Property Law & Information Technology, Robert Greenspoon spoke on a four-person panel about the Supreme Court’s recent decision on patent-eligible subject matter in Bilski v. Doll. The Federal Circuit Bar Association co-sponsored the event.

June 2010: Legal publisher Thomson-West selected Robert Greenspoon’s article “Is the United States Finally Ready for a Patent Small Claims Court?” as one of the best patent law review articles of 2009, and included it in the 2010 edition of Patent Law Review.

July 22, 2009: The firm filed the Brief of Amicus Curiae TeleCommunication Systems, Inc. in Support of Neither Party and for Purely Prospective Application of Any Adoption of the New Legal Test Applied Below, in Bilski v. Doll (S. Ct.) (Case No. 08-964), a Supreme Court case involving the issue of patent subject matter eligibility.

July 2009: Robert Greenspoon published his article “Is the United States Finally Ready for a Patent Small Claims Court?” in the Spring 2009 issue of the Minnesota Journal of Law, Science and Technology.

June 23, 2009: In Newegg v. Telecommunication Systems, Inc., the firm and co-counsel won transfer from a California to a Maryland court, to bring a declaratory judgment case into the client’s home district.

October 6, 2008: The firm won a patent appeal for 1st Technology, LLC against the online gaming enterprise Bodog Entertainment Group in the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (App. No. 2008-1132) (affirming per curiam without opinion), resulting in affirmance of a $50 million patent infringement judgment.

October 3, 2008: In 1st Technology v. Bodog Entertainment Group, the firm and co-counsel won a preliminary injunction against the client’s opponent, precluding the opponent from transfers of numerous intellectual property assets.

January 7, 2008: In Revenue Science, Inc. v. Valueclick, Inc., the firm won dismissal on the pleadings of a complaint that accused the client of patent infringement.

December 26, 2007: The firm won major parts of a patent appeal for our clients HyperPhrase Technologies, LLC and HyperPhrase, Inc. against Google, Inc. in the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (App. No. 2007-1125, -1176) (affirming-in-part and reversing-in-part), resulting in remand for further proceedings in the trial court.

August 2007: William Flachsbart and Robert Greenspoon published their article, “Obviousness after KSR v. Teleflex, a Private Practice Perspective,” in Intellectual Asset Management Magazine‘s August/September 2007 issue.