Calvin Wingfield

Calvin E. Wingfield

Partner
Calvin E. Wingfield
New York
+1 212 459 7049

Calvin Wingfield is a partner in the firm's Intellectual Property Litigation practice. Mr. Wingfield uses his science background and legal experience to implement innovative strategies in matters involving complex technologies. He has particular experience in patent litigation, trade secret litigation, intellectual property counseling, and portfolio development and enforcement. He has handled cases on behalf of plaintiffs and defendants covering a diverse range of technologies and industries, including optical devices; electronics and electrical devices; computer systems; databases and data storage; networking architecture; telecommunications and wireless technology; financial systems; aircraft and pharmaceuticals.

In a breach of contract and patent dispute, Mr. Wingfield successfully secured for Pass & Seymour, Inc. summary judgment of non-infringement on one asserted patent and a jury verdict of patent invalidity due to obviousness on the other asserted patent. The trial was held in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York, Leviton Mfg. Co., Inc. v. Pass & Seymour, Inc., Case No. 17-cv-46 (E.D.N.Y).

Mr. Wingfield has been ranked “Commended” by IAM Patent Litigation 1000 in 2020 and 2021. He was recognized in Benchmark Litigation’s 2021 and 2022 40 & Under Hot List, and in 2019 by the National Bar Association as a Top 40 Under 40. In 2016, Mr. Wingfield was Goodwin’s 2016 fellow to the Leadership Council on Legal Diversity (LCLD).

Mr. Wingfield served on the Law360 Editorial Board for Diversity and Inclusion. He also co-chairs the firm’s Committee on Racial and Ethnic Diversity and serves on the firm’s Partnership Committee.

Experience

Mr. Wingfield’s representative matters include:

Technology Clients

  • Continuous Composites, Inc. v. MarkForged, Inc., Case No. 21-998 (D. Del.).  Mr. Wingfield represents defendant MarkForged in a patent infringement lawsuit and seven co-pending post-grant proceedings involving 3D printing technology.
  • Gabara v. Facebook, Inc., Case No. 19-cv-9890 (S.D.N.Y.). Mr. Wingfield represented Facebook in a multi-patent litigation involving aspects of Facebook Messenger and 3D Photos. The district court granted Facebook’s motion to dismiss for failure to claim patent-eligible subject matter.
  • CellCast Techs., LLC v. United States, Case No. 15-cv-1307 (C.F.C.). Mr. Wingfield represented third-party defendant International Business Machines Corporation (IBM) in a patent infringement lawsuit concerning the government’s national alert messaging technology.
  • Touchstream Techs., Inc. v. Vizbee, Inc., Case No. 17-cv-6247 (S.D.N.Y.). Mr. Wingfield represented Vizbee in a defense of patent infringement lawsuit filed in the Southern District of New York. The case settled at the plaintiff’s initiation before the claim construction hearing.
  • CardinalCommerce Corporation. Mr. Wingfield represented CardinalCommerce in two patent infringement cases against SecureBuy, LLC and three covered business method patent (“CBM”) reviews involving CardinalCommerce’s innovative methods and systems for authenticating e-commerce transactions. The Patent Trial Board denied institution of SecureBuy’s CBM petitions.
  • Williamson v. Citrix et al., No. 11-cv-02409 (C.D. Cal.). Mr. Wingfield represented IBM as a member of the trial and appellate team in a patent infringement case involving web conferencing software technology. The Federal Circuit sat en banc and made a new law concerning means-plus-function claims, which provides grounds to challenge functional claims in software patents and has been recognized as one of the most important patent law decisions of 2015.Subsequently, the Federal Circuit affirmed the invalidity of the patent as directed to unpatentable subject matter under 35 U.S.C. § 101.
  • Augme Technologies, Inc. Mr. Wingfield represented Augme in multiple patent infringement cases brought by Augme involving software for delivery of targeted advertising over the Internet, and a case involving trademark infringement.
  • Bell Helicopter Textron Inc. Mr. Wingfield represented Bell Helicopter in two patent infringement cases involving helicopter landing gear. The district courts in both cases issued Markman rulings favorable to Bell Helicopter and both cases settled shortly thereafter.
  • Chicago Board Options Exchange, Inc. v. International Securities Exchange, LLC, No. 07-cv-623 (N.D. Ill.). Mr. Wingfield represented defendant and patent owner International Securities Exchange in both the district court and the court of appeals in a patent infringement case involving a system for automatically trading financial instruments. In the first appeal from this case, the appellate court vacated the district court’s grant of summary judgment of non-infringement and affirmed the district court’s dismissal of Chicago Board Options Exchange’s inequitable conduct defense. In the second appeal from this case, the appellate court vacated the district court’s finding that a computer-implemented means-plus-function claim was invalid as indefinite.
  • Picture Patents, LLC v. Aeropostale, Inc. et al., 788 F. Supp. 2d 127 (S.D.N.Y. 2011), aff’d Picture Patents, LLC v. Aeropostale, Inc. et al., No. 2011-1558 (Fed. Cir. Apr. 13, 2012). Mr. Wingfield represented defendant IBM in the district court, court of appeals and the U.S. Supreme Court. The district court granted summary judgment in favor of IBM concerning the ownership of 12 patents obtained by a former employee after leaving IBM. The court of appeals summarily affirmed that determination, and the U.S. Supreme Court denied certiorari.

ITC Matters

  • In the Matter of Certain Pre-filled Syringes for Intravitreal Injection and Components Thereof, Inv. No. 337-TA-1207. Mr. Wingfield was a member of the team that represented the complainant Novartis in a patent litigation involving pre-filled syringe technology.
  • In the matter of Certain Ground Fault Circuit Interrupters and Products Containing Same, Inv. No. 337-TA-739. Mr. Wingfield represented third party Pass & Seymour, Inc. in an advisory proceeding before the U.S. International Trade Commission concerning its ground fault circuit interrupters. This case raised an issue of first impression as to whether the manufacturer could intervene in an enforcement action against its distributor.
  • In the Matter of Certain Dimmable Compact Fluorescent Lamps and Products Containing Same, Investigation No. 337-TA-830. Mr. Wingfield was a member of the team that represented respondent GE in a patent infringement case involving light bulb ballasts.
  • In the Matter of Certain Display Devices Including Digital Televisions And Monitors, Investigation No. 337-TA-713 (ITC 2010). Mr. Wingfield was a member of the team that represented respondent TPV in a patent litigation concerning televisions and flat-screen monitors.
  • In the Matter of Certain Ground Fault Circuit Interrupters And Products Containing The Same, Investigation No. 337-TA-615, 2009 WL 962585 (ITC 2009), aff’d in part General Proctecht Group, Inc. v. Int’l Trade Comm’n, 619 F.3d 1303 (Fed. Cir. 2010) and Pass & Seymour, Inc. v. Int’l Trade Comm’n, 617 F.3d 1319 (Fed. Cir. 2010). Mr. Wingfield was a member of the trial and appellate team that represented complainant Pass & Seymour in both the U.S. International Trade Commission and on appeal to the Federal Circuit. All six asserted patents were held valid, enforceable and infringed after the hearing before the Commission. The decision was affirmed-in-part resulting in the exclusion of 15 of 16 respondents from the market.
  • In the Matter of Certain Hard Disk Drives, Components Thereof, And Products Containing The Same, Investigation No. 337-TA-616 (ITC 2008). Mr. Wingfield was a member of the team that represented respondent Hewlett-Packard against allegation of infringement of patents relating to disk drive manufacturing.
  • In the Matter of Certain Wireless Communication Equipment, Articles Therein, And Products Containing The Same, Investigation No. 337-TA-577 (ITC 2006). Mr. Wingfield was a member of the team that represented respondent Ericsson in a patent infringement case involving cellular telephony technology.

Pharmaceutical Clients

  • Novartis Pharma AG v. Regeneron Pharmaceuticals, Inc., Civil Action No. 1:20-cv-690 (N.D.N.Y.). Mr. Wingfield represented Novartis in a patent litigation concerning pre-filled syringe technology for intravitreal injections.
  • AMAG Pharmaceuticals Inc. v. Sandoz Inc., Civil Action No. 3:16-cv-1508 (D.N.J.).Mr. Wingfield represented AMAG in a patent litigation concerning its innovative treatment for chronic kidney disease, FERAHEME®.
  • Cephalon, Inc. Mr. Wingfield represented Cephalon in multiple patent infringement cases involving its innovative treatment for chronic lymphocytic leukemia and non-Hodgkin lymphoma, TREANDA®.After a bench trial, the United States District Court for the District of Delaware found the asserted patents valid and infringed. The case is currently under submission at the Federal Circuit.

Professional Activities

Mr. Wingfield is a board member of the Metropolitan Black Bar Association, a member of the Publications and Amicus Committees of the New York Intellectual Property Law Association, and a member of the National Bar Association.

Credentials

Education

JD2006

Emory University School of Law

BSComputer Science2003

Morehouse College

(cum laude)

Admissions

Bars

  • New York

Courts

  • Federal District Courts of New York
  • U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit

Recognition & Awards

Mr. Wingfield’s recognition includes:

  • The Legal 500 Patent Litigation: Full Coverage 2022
  • The IAM Patent 1000 DC Metro Area Litigation 2022
  • Benchmark Litigation’s 40 & Under Hot List 2022
  • Benchmark Litigation’s 40 & Under Hot List 2021
  • The IAM Patent 1000 New York Litigation 2021
  • The Legal 500 Patent Litigation: Full Coverage 2021
  • The IAM Patent 1000 New York Litigation 2020
  • National Bar Association Top 40 Under 40 2019