Frank A. Angileri

President

Michigan OfficeP (248) 226-2829

vCard
person photo

Frank is the President of Brooks Kushman and focuses his practice on intellectual property litigation and post-grant proceedings. He is well-known by clients and colleagues for his strategies to solve clients’ most challenging IP issues.

With over 25 years of experience, Frank has successfully tried patent, trademark, trade secret and copyright cases in Federal Courts nationwide, the Courts of Appeals for the Sixth and Federal Circuits, and the International Trade Commission. As a registered patent attorney, Frank is authorized to practice before the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office.

“Frank is an extremely smart and cool-headed litigator who doesn’t get side-tracked by the emotions that litigation can bring out in people. He thinks through matters sensibly and rationally.” – IAM Patent 1000

Frank has been lead counsel for a wide variety of clients, from individuals to major corporations, in intellectual property and commercial litigation matters.  His litigation experience spans across various technologies and industries including, automotive, consumer electronics, industrial technologies, food and beverage, and home appliances.

Frank’s practice also includes post-grant proceedings.  He works with clients to challenge or defend patents through administrative trial procedures created under the America Invents Act (AIA). In addition to counseling clients, he has been a vital component to developing Brooks Kushman’s Post-Grant Proceedings practice by mentoring and training other attorneys.

Early on in his career, Frank served as a law clerk to the Hon. Glenn L. Archer, Jr., former Chief Judge of the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit.

Frank also serves on the Board of Directors for Challenge Detroit, a revitalization effort designed to attract and retain new talent into the City of Detroit.

Representative Matters

Ford Motor Company v. TMC Fuel Injection, LLC (PTAB) – Representing Ford as a defendant in a patent lawsuit involving fuel injection technologies.  BK employed IPR proceedings to obtain admissions regarding claim scope that led the district court to grant summary judgment of non-infringement, which the Federal Circuit affirmed.

Ford Global Technologies, LLC v. New World International, Inc. (Jury Trial – N.D. Texas): Trial counsel for plaintiff Ford in a patent lawsuit involving thirteen design patents. Obtained favorable summary judgment, claim construction, and other pre-trial rulings. The jury found willful infringement of all thirteen patents and against all invalidity challenges and awarded Ford the defendants’ total profits from the infringement. Obtained an award of almost $3 million in profits and attorneys’ fees as well as the entry of a permanent injunction.  Case No. 3:17-cv-03201

In the matter of Certain Automotive Parts (ITC): Trial counsel for Ford Motor Company in a design patent lawsuit directed to vehicle replacement parts. Obtained infringement finding and upheld validity of seven design patents and obtained a General Exclusion Order preventing any infringing parts from entering the United States. Inv. No. 337-TA-557

Ameranth, Inc. v. Domino’s Pizza, Inc. (Summary Judgment – S.D. California): Successfully defended Domino’s Pizza in a patent infringement suit relating to menu generation and synchronization of data for mobile devices. Obtained summary judgment of unpatentability on a patent asserted against Domino’s and 30 other parties. Also served as counsel for Covered Business Method proceedings where the Patent Trial and Appeal Board held three other asserted patents unpatentable.
Case No. 3:11-cv-01810

Automotive Body Parts Assoc. v. Ford Global Technologies, LLC (Summary Judgment – E.D. Michigan): Obtained summary judgment for Ford Global on plaintiff’s declaratory judgment claims concerning Ford Global’s design patents. Case No. 2:15-cv-10137

Ford Motor Company v. Paice LLC (PTAB): Represented Ford during the pendency of the 22 inter partes review proceedings challenging the validity of hundreds of claims across five separate patents.  Managed proceedings through final written decision where the Patent Trial and Appeal Board held 273 patent claims were unpatentable. Case No. IPR2014-00571, IPR2014-00904, IPR2015-00722, IPR2015-00790

Paice LLC v. Ford Motor Company Representative (Federal Circuit): Successfully represented Ford in numerous appeals challenging the Patent Trial and Appeal Board decisions that had found hundreds of patent claims as being unpatentable. Case No. IPR2016-1412, IPR2016-1746, IPR2017-1387, IPR2017-1263

In re Certain Hybrid Electric Vehicles (ITC):  Trial counsel for Ford Motor Company in multi-patent investigation directed to hybrid electric vehicles. Settlement after trial. Case No. 337-TA-1042

I.E.E. International Electronics & Engineering, S.A. and IEE Sensing, Inc. v. TK Holdings Inc. and Takata-Petri A.G. (Summary Judgment – E.D. Michigan): Successfully defended IEE companies in patent infringement suit relating to capacitive occupant sensors. Obtained summary judgment of non-infringement of four asserted patents. Case concluded in a favorable settlement for our client in the amount of $1.1 Million. Case No. 10-cv-13487

RawCar Group, LLC v. Grace Medical et. al. (Jury Trial – S.D. California): Successfully represented plaintiff in patent infringement action on two patents. Court found both patents valid and infringed on summary judgment. At trial, jury awarded damages and found defendants willful. Case No. 13-cv-01105

GeoTag, Inc. v. Domino’s Pizza Inc. (Summary Judgment – E.D. Texas): Successfully defended Domino’s Pizza in a patent infringement action in East Texas which also involved over 600 defendants. After the other defendants settled, Domino’s was sole defendant left in case. Court granted summary judgment of non-infringement in favor of Domino’s on five different grounds. Case No. 10-cv-0572

Omega Patents, LLC v. General Motors LLC and OnStar, LLC (Settlement – N.D. Georgia):  Lead counsel for GM and OnStar in successful resolution of case. Case No. 12-cv-01192

Lear Corporation v. TS Tech USA Corporation, et al. (Settlement – S.D. Ohio): Lead counsel for Lear in action for enforcement of Lear patents. Case No. 11-cv-00245

Qaxaz v. BMW of North America, LLC, et al. (Settlement – D. Delaware): Lead counsel for Ford in successful resolution of patent claim. Case No. 11-cv-491

Tenneco Automotive Operating Company, Inc., v. Kingdom Auto Parts; Prime Choice Auto Parts (Federal Circuit): Lead counsel for Kingdom Auto Parts on appeal where Kingdom`s district court victory was affirmed. Case No. 08-cv-2276; 09-cv-1920

Latentier, LLC v. International Paper Co. (Summary Judgment – E.D. Wisconsin & Federal Circuit): Lead counsel for International Paper in successful defense of patent infringement action. Case No. 08-cv-501

Great American Restaurant Company v. Domino’s Pizza (Jury Trial – E.D. Texas): Lead counsel for Domino`s in successful defense of various trademark claims relating to Domino`s sale of its Brooklyn-style pizza. Plaintiff withdrew claims during trial. Case No. 07-cv-00052

In re Certain Automotive Parts (ITC): Lead counsel for Ford Motor Company in its successful enforcement of eight design patents, covering automotive parts for 2005 Ford Mustang, against seven foreign and domestic manufacturers and distributors of aftermarket parts. Inv. No. 337-TA-651

Nartron Corporation v. Borg Indak (Federal Circuit): Lead counsel for Nartron on appeal, where the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit reversed a lower court and found for Nartron on Borg Indak’s challenge to inventorship. Case No. 12-cv-1292

ST Sales Tech Holdings, LLC v. Ford Motor Company (Summary Judgment – E.D. Texas): Lead counsel for Ford in successful defense of patent infringement action. Case No. 6-07-cv-346

z4 Technologies v. Microsoft Corp. (Federal Circuit): Argued appeal where the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit affirmed a $140 million judgment in favor of client z4 Technologies. Microsoft sought certiorari before dismissing its Petition. Case No. 507 F.3d 1340

Ford Motor Company and Greenleaf LLC v. Technology Solutions Company (Jury Trial – Wayne County Circuit Court ): Obtained a $2.3 million dollar verdict and judgment on behalf of Ford and a former Ford subsidiary in a breach of warranty action against a software supplier. Case No. 01-123853-CK

AgentWare Systems, Inc. v. Ford Motor Company (Jury Trial – E.D. Michigan): Defended Ford in trade secrets case relating to computer software for assembly line visualization. AgentWare sought $400 million from Ford in damages. The court and the jury found for Ford, rejecting AgentWare’s claims. Case No. 02-CV-71959 DT

UltraPrecision v. Ford Motor Company (Federal Circuit): On behalf of Ford, defeated unjust enrichment and inventorship claims. Case No. 411 F.3d 1369, 338 F.3d 1353

Juicy Whip Inc. v. Orange Bang, Inc. (Federal Circuit): Enforced Juicy Whip`s patent on beverage dispenser technology, including three successful precedent setting appeals, on issues of patent utility, invalidity standards, and damages. Case No. 382 F.3d 1367; 292 F.3d 728; 185 F.3d 1364

Robotic Vision Systems, Inc. v. View Engineering, Inc. (Federal Circuit): Successfully defended View Engineering against nine asserted patents relating to laser scanning technology. Obtained precedent setting Rule 11 sanctions and award of attorneys` fees on behalf of defendant client. Case No: 249 F.3d 1307; 208 F.3d 981

Benedict v. General Motors (Summary Judgment – E.D. Michigan): Successfully defended General Motors patent litigation in the Northern District of Florida with over $25 million at stake; patent was declared invalid on summary judgment. Case No. 01-cv-73026; 184 F. Supp.2d 11997

Omega Patents, LLC v. Lear Corp. (Settlement – M.D. Florida): Counsel for defendant Lear Corporation in patent infringement lawsuit involving vehicle remote start technology. The case concluded in a favorable settlement. Case No. 6-07-cv-1422

Organizations and Affiliations

Founding President, Michigan Intellectual Property Inn of Court 2012-2013.

Intellectual Property Owner’s (IPO) Association – Trade Secrets Committee

PTAB Bar Association

Federal Bar Association

Federal Circuit Bar Association

Licensing Executives Society (LES)

American Intellectual Property Law Association

Michigan Intellectual Property Law Association

Recognitions

“Strategy 300: The World’s Leading IP Strategists,” Intellectual Asset Management, 2020-2021

“Lawyer of the Year,” Best Lawyers, 2013, 2016-2018, 2020-2022

“Leading Lawyer,” Leading Lawyer Magazine, 2014-2019

“Michigan Litigator of the Year,” Managing Intellectual Property, 2015-2017

“IAM Patent 1000 Recommended Individual,” Intellectual Asset Management, 2014 – 2021

“IP Star,” Managing Intellectual Property, 2013-2022

“Leading Individuals,” Chambers USA, 2017-2020

Best Lawyers in America, 2007-2022

“Leader in the Law,” Michigan Lawyers Weekly 2015

Michigan Super Lawyers, Intellectual Property, 2007-2021

“Top Lawyer,” DBusiness Magazine, 2009, 2011-2013, 2015-2017, 2019-2022

Press Releases

    Client Alerts

      Webinars

        Media Coverage

        Featured, “How District Court Trademark Litigation Played Out in 2020,” Managing IP, February 2021

        Featured, “Fed. Circ. Won’t Rethink Upholding Ford F-150 Design Patents,” Law360, September 2019

        Featured, “Federal Judge Shortages Take Toll on Business Litigation,” Bloomberg BNA, August 2016

        Featured, “Ford Wins More Hybrid Vehicle Patent Appeal Board Reviews,” Law360, November 2015

        Featured, “USPTO Rules For Ford In Dispute Over Hybrid Vehicle Tech,” Law360, September 2015

        Featured, “Stakeholders Provide Suggestions to Prepare for Changes in Practice After Patent Reform,” BNA – Patent, Trademark & Copyright Law Daily, September 2011

        Featured, “Nine Supreme Court Cases In-House Counsel Should Be Watching,” Inside Counsel, November 2010

        Publications

        Quoted, “Redrawing the Drawing Board:  Patent Attorneys Gear Up for Major Changes,” Michigan Lawyers Weekly, September 2011

        Quoted, “Stakeholders Provide Suggestions to Prepare for Changes in Practice After Patent Reform,” BNA – Patent, Trademark & Copyright Law Daily, September 2011

        Quoted, “Something Fierce:  Legal Departments Confront Today’s Rough-and-Tumble IP Arena,” Inside Counsel, January 2011

        Quoted, “The Nine:  Copyright – Costco v. Omega,” Inside Counsel, November 2010

        Presentations

        Panelist, “Alice & Mayo: How CAFC & District Courts Treat 101 Absent Congressional Intervention,” Patent Masters™ Litigation 2021, IPWatchdog, June 2021 

        Moderator, “State of Play: Who Owns What and What are the Implications,” Auto IP Event, Intellectual Asset Management and Brooks Kushman P.C., September 2020

        Co-Presenter, “2018-2019 Supreme Court Intellectual Property Review” BK Webinar, July 2019

        Panelist, “IAM Boardroom: PTAB,” Intellectual Asset Management, Chicago, IL, May 2018

        Panelist, “Ex Parte and Inter Partes Patent Appeals Concerning Obviousness” The Intersection of the PTO Practice and the Courts, Federal Circuit Bar Association, April 2017

        Panelist, IP in the Auto Industry Conference, May 2016

        Speaker, Inside Counsel Super Conference, May 2015

        Panelist, “6 Mistakes Start-Ups Commonly Make,” Accelerate Michigan Innovation Competition, November 2014

        Speaker, “Enforcement of Trademark Rights,” Federal Bar Association Law Clerk Program, October 2011

        Moderator, “Acquire, Enforce & Defend Global Intellectual Property,” Crain’s General & In-House Counsel Summit, May 2011

        Education

        J.D., University of Chicago

        B.S., Mechanical Engineering, University of Michigan

        Admissions

        U.S. District Court, Eastern District of Michigan  

        U.S. District Court, Western District of Michigan 

        U.S. District Court, Eastern District of Wisconsin

        U.S. District Court, Northern District of Illinois  

        U.S. District Court, Eastern District of Texas

        U.S. District Court, Northern District of Ohio

        U.S. Supreme Court  

        Michigan Supreme Court 

        U.S. Court of Appeals – 5th Circuit

        U.S. Court of Appeals – 6th Circuit 

        U.S. Court of Appeals – 8th Circuit 

        U.S. Court of Appeals – Federal Circuit 

        United States Patent and Trademark Office 

         

        Practice Area and Industries