Calvin E. Wingfield

Calvin Wingfield is a partner in Goodwin's Intellectual Property Litigation practice. Calvin is an experienced litigator and trial lawyer who represents technology companies in complex disputes in federal courts, the US International Trade Commission, the Patent Trial and Appeal Board, the Federal Circuit, and arbitration proceedings. In addition, Calvin counsels clients on various intellectual property matters, including patent portfolio development and enforcement; trademark, copyright, and trade secret matters; and complex technology transactions. Calvin has handled matters covering a range of technologies and industries, including 3D printing; computer software, e-commerce, social media, medical devices, optical devices; electronics and electrical devices; computer systems; databases and data storage; networking architecture; telecommunications and wireless technology; financial systems; aircraft and pharmaceuticals.

In his litigation matters, Calvin leverages his broad litigation experience and passion for storytelling to develop and implement innovative strategies and craft trial positions that simplify complex technical concepts in ways understood by judges and juries. In a breach of contract and patent dispute, Calvin 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. Leviton Mfg. Co., Inc. v. Pass & Seymour, Inc., Case No. 17-cv-46 (E.D.N.Y).

Since 2020 Calvin has been ranked “Commended” by IAM Patent Litigation 1000 . 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, Calvin was Goodwin’s 2016 fellow to the Leadership Council on Legal Diversity (LCLD).

Calvin co-chairs the firm’s Committee on Racial and Ethnic Diversity and serves on the firm’s Partnership Committee. Calvin also is the partner sponsor for the firm’s HBCU Scholarship Program.

Calvin’s representative matters include:

Technology Clients

• Gabara v. Facebook, Inc., Case No. 19-cv-9890 (S.D.N.Y.). Calvin 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.). Calvin 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.). Calvin 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. Calvin 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.). Calvin 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. Calvin 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. Calvin 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.). Calvin 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). Calvin 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. Calvin 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. Calvin 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. Calvin 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). Calvin 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). Calvin 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). Calvin 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). Calvin 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.). Calvin 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.). Calvin represented AMAG in a patent litigation concerning its innovative treatment for chronic kidney disease, FERAHEME®
• Cephalon, Inc. Calvin 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

Calvin is a trustee of the Foundation for Advancement of Diversity in IP Law, a member of the Federal Circuit Bar Association, a member of the American Intellectual Property Law Association, a member of the New York Intellectual Property Law Association, and a member of the National Bar Association. Calvin is a former board member of the Metropolitan Black Bar Association (2016-2021).

Calvin’s recognition includes:

• The Legal 500 Patent Litigation: Full Coverage (2021-2023)
• The IAM Patent 1000 DC Metro Area Litigation (2022, 2023)
• Benchmark Litigation’s 40 & Under Hot List (2021, 2022)
• The IAM Patent 1000 New York Litigation (2020, 2021)
• National Bar Association Top 40 Under 40 (2019)
• Benchmark Litigation Future Star (2003)