Close X
Attorney Spotlight

How does Jessie Zeigler anticipate the intersection of privacy and smart technology will impact the future of litigation? Find out more>

Search

Close X

Experience

Search our Experience

Experience Spotlight

Primary Care Providers Win Challenge of CMS Interpretation of Enhanced Payment Law

With the help and support of the Tennessee Medical Association, 21 Tennessee physicians of underserved communities joined together and retained Bass, Berry & Sims to file suit against the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services to stop improper collection efforts. Our team, led by David King, was successful in halting efforts to recoup TennCare payments that were used legitimately to expand services in communities that needed them. Read more

Tennessee Medical Association & Bass, Berry & Sims

Close X

Thought Leadership

Enter your search terms in the relevant box(es) below to search for specific Thought Leadership.
To see a recent listing of Thought Leadership, click the blue Search button below.

Thought Leadership Spotlight

Healthcare Private Equity Compliance Checklist

The complex and ever-changing healthcare regulatory and enforcement environment, including increased focus on the role of private equity firms in their portfolio companies, make compliance a top priority for private equity firms investing in healthcare companies. The best way to limit your exposure as a private equity firm is to avoid a compliance misstep in the first place. Additionally, an effective and robust compliance program for your portfolio healthcare company makes it much more attractive to potential buyers and helps you avoid an unexpected and costly investigation or valuation hit down the road. Download the Healthcare Private Equity Compliance Checklist to assess whether your portfolio company's compliance program is up-to-date.

Click here to download the checklist.

Defense of Patent Infringement Against Patent Troll

Client Type: Private Company

Members of the intellectual property litigation group successfully resolved a patent infringement suit filed by a prolific patent troll in the online retail industry against our client, one of the world's largest manufacturers of outdoor camping gear. In early 2013, the troll filed a series of patent infringement suits against our client and a group of similarly situated online retailers in the Eastern District of Texas asserting patents claiming web-based technology related to online product brochures. The troll had successfully asserted the same patents against a car company in a related case filed several years earlier, obtaining an $11.6 million dollar jury verdict that was affirmed on all counts by the Federal Circuit. The troll leveraged the earlier verdict to extort six and seven figure settlements from more than 150 subsequent defendants. The troll attempted to do the same to our client and its co-defendants; however, our defense team in coordination with the joint defense group formulated a novel invalidity argument to contest the validity and enforceability of the asserted patents, which proved to be a game changer in the ongoing settlement discussions. The defense group filed a 12(c) motion challenging the troll's patents based on ineligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. § 101. Upon filing of this motion, the troll's settlement demands significantly decreased in the face of the novel challenge to its patent portfolio. Our team ultimately negotiated a settlement on behalf of our client for a fraction of the troll's original settlement demand.

You Also May Be Interested In:

Related Professionals

Related Services

Notice

Visiting, or interacting with, this website does not constitute an attorney-client relationship. Although we are always interested in hearing from visitors to our website, we cannot accept representation on a new matter from either existing clients or new clients until we know that we do not have a conflict of interest that would prevent us from doing so. Therefore, please do not send us any information about any new matter that may involve a potential legal representation until we have confirmed that a conflict of interest does not exist and we have expressly agreed in writing to the representation. Until there is such an agreement, we will not be deemed to have given you any advice, any information you send may not be deemed privileged and confidential, and we may be able to represent adverse parties.