Renae Bailey Wainwright joined the firm in 2006 and concentrates her practice on patent law, with emphasis on preparing and prosecuting patent applications, counseling clients on intellectual property issues, including licensing and acquisition of patent rights and rendering freedom to operate analyses and patentability opinions, and litigating patent infringement cases. Ms. Wainwright practices in a wide range of technologies, including: complex mechanical devices such as theft deterrent devices, utility meters, and machines for heat treating thread; pharmaceuticals; medical devices and implants; consumer products; merchandising displays; textiles; lighting technologies; pool care; and fastening and architectural products. Ms. Wainwright also has substantial experience protecting and enforcing rights in ornamental and distinctive product designs developed by clients in areas such as lighting and fastening and architectural products.
Ms. Wainwright was recognized as a Georgia "Rising Star" in 2012 and 2013 in the area of Intellectual Property Litigation, and most recently in 2014, 2015 and 2016 for Intellectual Property, by Super Lawyers magazine.
Served as lead counsel on behalf of Molnlycke Health Care Group AB in a patent infringement suit against two competitors in the Northern District of Georgia involving silicone-based wound dressings. The court entered a favorable claim construction ruling for our clients, and the case settled while summary judgment motions were pending after the manufacturer of the accused products removed them from the U.S. marketplace.
Molnlycke Health Care Group AB v. Ossur & Medline, No. 06-1027 (N.D. Ga. filed Apr. 28, 2006).
Represented the action of a former tenant before the Clayton County Magistrate Court and the Clayton County State Court seeking the return of a security deposit from a management company and its principle who wrongfully withheld the security deposit. After trial in Clayton County State Court, obtained a judgment against the management company and its principle for three times the amount of the security deposit plus court costs.
The firm served as lead counsel on behalf of Quintiles Transnational Corp. in a patent infringement suit relating to electronic data capture technology in clinical trials. We obtained a favorable resolution of this case for our client. Datasci, LLC v. Quintiles Transnational Corp., No.08-01679 (D. Md. filed June 26, 2008).
Provide patent procurement and counseling services to YKK Corporation of America, an industry leader in the development of fastening and architectural products, and energy efficient designs. The company offers technically innovative products such as zippers, hook and loop fastening systems, webbings, metal snaps and buttons, plastic buckles, and energy efficient window systems. The firm takes an active role in shaping the company’s overall patent and trademark strategy, including identifying and protecting innovations, as well as evaluating and designing around third-party intellectual property rights.
Brought action for a Declaratory Judgment in the United States District Court for the District of Delaware against Applied Interact LLC after Delta Air Lines Inc. ("Delta") rejected Applied Interact’s license request. This action sought a declaration that the three patents-in-suit were invalid and not infringed. Quest Net Tech (“Quest”) subsequently acquired the rights to the patents from Applied Interact and the complaint was amended to include Quest. The case was dismissed after we secured a favorable settlement agreement on behalf of Delta. (Judge Robinson). Delta Air Lines Inc. v. Applied Interact LLC et al., No. 1:09-cv-00941 (D. Del. filed Dec. 8, 2009).
Counselled petitioner ScentAir in 2013 inter partes review challenging validity as to two patents of competitor Prolitec related to liquid diffusion methods and systems. The USPTO's Patent Trial and Appeal Board ruled in favor of client ScentAir in 2014, finding all challenged claims unpatentable. The Federal Circuit affirmed both rulings in 2015.
U.S. Patent and Trademark Office Patent Trial and Appeal Board, Case Numbers IPR2013-00179 and IPR2013-00180.
U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, Appeal Nos. 2015-1017 and 2015-1020. http://www.law360.com/articles/734448/fed-circ-backs-ptab-s-air-freshener-patent-invalidation
Defended ScentAir against competitor Prolitec in E.D. Wisconsin patent infringement case filed in 2012 related to commercial scent diffusion products (Case No. 12-CV-483-RTR). Successfully petitioned for inter partes review of both patents-in-suit, resulting in stay of litigation in 2013. In 2014 the USPTO Patent Trial & Appeal Board invalidated both patents and denied Prolitec's motion to amend. The Federal Circuit upheld both decisions in 2015. http://www.law360.com/articles/734448/fed-circ-backs-ptab-s-air-freshener-patent-invalidation
The firm served as lead counsel for Biotec Pharmacon, ASA, a Norwegian pharmaceutical company, in patent infringement litigation initiated by patent owner Biothera, a Minnesota corporation, in the District of Minnesota in Minneapolis. The 14 patents involved in the litigation relate to, among other things, beta glucan compositions for immunotherapy. The District Court granted summary judgment of non-infringement as to 12 of the 14 patents, and the case subsequently settled. Biopolymer Eng'g, Inc. v. Immunocorp, No. 05-536 (D. Minn. filed Mar. 14, 2005).
Provide comprehensive patent portfolio management services for Rock-Tenn Company. Although historically, the company’s main focus has been on packaging, recently a significant emphasis has been placed on development and expanding market share for retail oriented consumer product displays in a separate division within the company. The firm has worked closely with the key technical and business personnel in the new division to form strategies that protect their innovations, control costs and achieve strategic corporate goals. Also, the firm has counseled the company relative to exploration into potential new areas for growth and provided guidance relative to protection of and clearance for crucial elements of new product lines.
Provides patent procurement and counseling services to Smith & Nephew, an industry leader in the development of advanced medical devices and implants. The company offers technically innovative products in areas such as orthopedic reconstruction and trauma, endoscopy, advanced wound management and biologics. Provide counsel and advice in all aspects of the company's business, including helping shape its overall patent strategy. As part of this, the firm takes an active role in identifying and protecting innovations, as well as evaluating third-party intellectual property rights. Further, the firm provides counseling in connection with the company’s patent licensing and acquisition activities and has represented the company in several patent infringement matters.
Insights View All
Emory University School of Law, J.D. (2006) with honors, Order of the Coif
Northwestern University, B.S., Industrial Engineering (2003)
magna cum laude
U.S. Patent and Trademark Office
Georgia Supreme Court (2007)
Georgia Court of Appeals (2007)
U.S. District Court for the District of Georgia (2007)
Georgia Superior Court (2006)
While we are pleased to have you contact us by telephone, surface mail, electronic mail, or by facsimile transmission, contacting Kilpatrick Townsend & Stockton LLP or any of its attorneys does not create an attorney-client relationship. The formation of an attorney-client relationship requires consideration of multiple factors, including possible conflicts of interest. An attorney-client relationship is formed only when both you and the Firm have agreed to proceed with a defined engagement.
DO NOT CONVEY TO US ANY INFORMATION YOU REGARD AS CONFIDENTIAL UNTIL A FORMAL CLIENT-ATTORNEY RELATIONSHIP HAS BEEN ESTABLISHED.
If you do convey information, you recognize that we may review and disclose the information, and you agree that even if you regard the information as highly confidential and even if it is transmitted in a good faith effort to retain us, such a review does not preclude us from representing another client directly adverse to you, even in a matter where that information could be used against you.