Dennis J. Abdelnour

Dennis is a lead trial lawyer specializing in patent and other intellectual property disputes. 

He has litigated in patent-heavy forums across the country, including in the District of Delaware, the Eastern and Western Districts of Texas, the International Trade Commission, the Northern District of Illinois, the Eastern District of Michigan, the Middle District of Florida, and the Central District of California, among others. He has defended and challenged patents as lead counsel in IPR litigation proceedings before the Patent Trial and Appeal Board at the U.S. Patent & Trademark Office. 

Dennis appears frequently in appeals at the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit. He argued and won a patent appeal at the Federal Circuit that was deemed “one of the “Biggest Patent Rulings of 2019” and one of “5 Patent Cases To Watch In The Second Half of 2021” by Law360.

Dennis maintains an active pro bono docket. He recently argued a pro bono appeal before the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals. He also obtained a favorable settlement for a pro bono client in a prisoner litigation, which he led as part of his Trial Bar responsibilities in the Northern District of Illinois. In that case, Dennis first-chaired a preliminary injunction hearing, winning his client a rare mandatory injunction for badly-needed medical care.

In addition to, and as part of his litigation work, Dennis also counsels clients on all aspects of intellectual property protection, enforcement, and defense.

Before Honigman, Dennis was a litigator at Kirkland & Ellis, and before that clerked for the Honorable Timothy B. Dyk at the Federal Circuit. Dennis is a former patent examiner at the USPTO. 

Practice Areas

Industries

Representative Matters

Patent Litigation (District Court)

• Route Guidance Systems v. OnStar, LLC, No. 1-20-cv-00222 (D. Del.)
• American Axle & Manufacturing, Inc. v. Neapco Holdings, LLC, No. 1-15-cv-01168 (D. Del.)
• Enco Systems, Inc. v. DaVincia, LLC, No. 1-19-cv-00039 (E.D. Missouri)

• Janssen Biotech, Inc. v. Celltrion Healthcare Co., Nos. 1-15-cv-10698-MLW, 17-cv-11008-MLW (D. Mass.)

• Modine Manufacturing Co. v. BorgWarner, Inc., No. 1-17-cv-00467 (D. Del.)

• Dyson Inc. v. SharkNinja, No. 1:14-cv-00779 (N.D. Ill.)
• AAMP of Florida, Inc. v. Automotive Data Solutions, Inc., No.8:13-CV-2019-T-35TGW (M.D. Fla.)
• W.L. Gore v. C.R. Bard, No. 11-515-LPS-CJB (D. Del.)
• General Mills Marketing, Inc. v. Fritsch GmbH, No.11-CV-02099-PJS-JJG (D. Minn.)
• Audionics Sys. Inc. v. AAMP of Florida, Inc., No.2:12-CV-10763-MMM-JEM (C.D. Cal.); AAMP of Florida, Inc. v. Audionics Sys. Inc., No. 8:12-CV-02922-VMC-TGW (M.D. Fla.)
• AAMP of Florida, Inc. v. Metra Elec. Corp., No.8:11-CV-2439-T-23-TGW (M.D. Fla.)
• Infineon Tech. AG v. Atmel Corp., No. 11-307-RGA (D. Del.)
• Marlowe Patent Holdings LLC v. Dice Electronics LLC et al., No.2:10-CV-01199-PGS-ES (D.N.J.)
• Braun Melsungen AG v. Terumo Medical Corp., No.1:09-CV-00347-JJF-LPS (D. Del.)
• Glaxo Group Ltd. v. Teva Pharms. USA, Inc., No. 07-CV-713 (D. Del.)

Patent Office IPRs

• American Axle & Manufacturing, Inc., v. Neapco Drivelines LLC, IPR-2018-01761 (representing Patent Owner)
• Curt Manufacturing, LLC v. Horizon Global Americas Inc., IPR-2019-00625 (representing Petitioner)

Patent Litigation (ITC)

• Certain Protective Cases For Electronic Devices and Components Thereof, ITC Inv. No. 337-TA-955. Represented Complainant Otter Products LLC in action involving smartphone protective case technology.
• Certain Automated Library Devices, ITC Inv. No. 337-TA-746.Represented Respondent IBM in action involving data storage systems.
• Certain Portable Data and Mobile Communications Devices and Related Software, ITC Inv. No. 337-TA-710 (Enforcement Proceeding). Represented Complainant, a leading computer, mobile device and media player company, in ITC enforcement proceeding involving smartphones.
• Certain Flash Memory Chips and Products Containing The Same, ITC Inv. No. 337-TA-664. Represented Respondent Samsung and its downstream customers in action involving semiconductor technology.

Bankruptcy Litigation

• In re Qimonda, (Bankr. E.D. Va.) Successfully represented Objectors IBM, Infineon, and Samsung in achieving denial of Foreign Administrator’s motion to remove 365(n) protection from Chapter 15proceeding.

Intellectual Property Appeals

• Horizon Global Americas Inc. v. Curt Manufacturing, LLC, No. 20-2203 (Fed. Cir.)
• American Axle & Manufacturing, Inc. v. Neapco Holdings LLC, No. 18-1763 (Fed. Cir.)
• NuVasive, Inc. v. Medtronic Inc., Nos. 2015-1838, -1839, -1840,-1841, -1842, -1843 (Fed. Cir. 2016). Related patent appeals from PTAB involving methods and instruments for performing spinal surgery.
• Hemopet v. Hill’s Pet Nutrition, Inc., No. 2015-1218 (Fed. Cir. 2015).Appeal of summary judgment finding of invalidity due to unpatentable subject matter (nutrigenomic pet food).
• Bard Peripheral Vascular v. W.L. Gore, No. 2014-1114, 776 F.3d837 (Fed. Cir. 2015). Patent appeal involving stent graft technology.
• Modine Manufacturing Co. v. BorgWarner, Inc., No. 2014-1059 (Fed.Cir. 2014). Patent appeal involving heat exchangers used in large diesel engines.
• Thomson Licensing SAS v. International Trade Commission, No.2012-1536 (Fed. Cir. 2013). Patent appeal involving liquid crystal display technology.
• Robert Bosch LLC v. Pylon Mfg. Corp., Nos. 2011-1363, -1364, 719F.3d 1305 (Fed. Cir. 2013). En banc hearing to resolve question of appellate jurisdiction.
• Michael Jaffe v. Samsung Electronics Co., No. 12-1802, 737 F.3d14 (4th Cir. 2013). Bankruptcy appeal involving the applicability of a patent licensee’s 365(n) right to elect to retain rights under a patent license.
• A leading computer, mobile device and media player company v. International Trade Commission, No. 2012-1125 (Fed. Cir. 2012); HTC Corp. v. International Trade Commission, No. 2012-1126 (Fed.Cir. 2012) (dismissed prior to oral argument). Related patent appeals involving smartphone technology.
• Northpoint Tech., Ltd. v. DIRECTV, Inc., No. 2011-1524 (Fed. Cir.2012) (affirmed without opinion). Patent appeal involving signal-processing technology.
• Bard Peripheral Vascular v. W.L. Gore, No. 2010-1510, 670 F.3d1171, 682 F.3d 1003 (Fed. Cir. 2012) (affirmed jury verdict of liability).Patent appeal involving stent graft technology.
• Braun Melsungen AG v. Terumo Medical Corp., Nos. 2011-1400,-1428 (Fed. Cir. 2011) (dismissed prior to oral argument). Patent appeal involving medical safety IV catheter device.

False Advertising Litigation

• Sethavanish v. ZonePerfect Nutrition Co., No. 3:12-CV-02907-SC(N.D. Cal.)

National Advertising Division (NAD) and National Advertising Review Board (NARB)

• Successfully represented Verizon in various advertising disputes relating to its FiOS advanced fiber-optic network and related Internet, television and phone services.
• Successfully defended Abbott Laboratories in challenge involving Ensure nutritional shake food products.

Prior Experience

• Kirkland & Ellis, Partner, 2013-2018, Associate, 2008-2013
• United States Patent and Trademark Office, Patent Examiner, 2001-2003

Clerkships

• Honorable Timothy B. Dyk, Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, 2007-2008

Education

Admissions

Court Admissions

Awards

• Illinois Super Lawyers, Recognized as a Rising Star, 2014-2015, 2017-2019

News

Press Releases

Events

Alerts

Publications