Candice Decaire practices intellectual property law, with expertise in patent and trade secret protection. Ms. Decaire has counseled and represented clients in litigation, appeals, arbitration, ITC investigations, and inter partes review proceedings concerning diverse technologies such as computer hardware and software, biologics, pharmaceuticals, carpet, thermal imaging/night vision equipment, "bullet proof" armor, industrial bearings, aircraft equipment, and medical devices. Ms. Decaire also advises clients about strategies for protecting and profiting from intellectual property and data, with particular focus on the Internet of Things and wearable tech, including assessment and mitigation of risks of infringement or misappropriation, and data privacy and security issues. Ms. Decaire helps biotech and other clients with IP and licensing policies, strategies, and agreements, including as to due diligence and investigation of validity and freedom to operate.
Ms. Decaire was recognized by The Best Lawyers in America® in 2018 and 2019 for Commercial Litigation.
B/E Aerospace and Zodiac Aerospace are fierce competitors in the market for aircraft interiors, including lavatories. B/E and Zodiac have been engaged in a series of messy disputes regarding their competing lavatories. One of those disputes concerns a B/E patent to a lavatory with a curved forward wall purportedly allowing airlines to squeeze more seats onto airplanes. Our team scored a victory for Zodiac, convincing the Patent Trial and Appeal Board in an inter partes review proceeding to invalidate 29 of the 33 challenged claims.
Handled patent and general intellectual property strategy and advised biotech client at the forefront of immunotherapy for cancer and infectious diseases.
Lead counsel for the plaintiff, a leader in the development and manufacturing of porous plastic and porous fiber products, in patent infringement litigation. Soon after filing the suit, we filed a motion for preliminary injunction, engaged in expedited discovery and had a hearing date for an evidentiary hearing on the motion. At the same time the case was proceeding, our client was engaged in confidential negotiations for an asset sale transaction that included the operating business and the patent involved in the litigation that made the resolution of the case an important consideration in closing that transaction. Against that backdrop, we were able to negotiate a settlement of the lawsuit with the defendant on terms that pleased not only our client but the third party with which our client was negotiating and enabled our client to close its significant asset sale transaction.
Handled ANDA litigation and advised on opinion work for one of the world's largest pharmaceutical companies.
In only the second appeal of a final written decision of the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) in an inter partes review, the Federal Circuit affirmed the PTAB's decision holding that two patents claiming a zooming web browser are invalid as obvious.
SoftView LLC v. Kyocera Corp. and Motorola Mobility LLC, Nos. 2014-1599, 2014-1600 (Fed. Cir. Feb. 9, 2015).
Represented respondent in successful appeal to the International Trade Commission of administrative law judge’s ruling finding a violation of Section 337 of the Tariff Act. The Commission reversed the administrative law judge’s holding, finding that the respondent had not infringed the complainant’s intellectual property rights. This decision was upheld on appeal to the Federal Circuit.
Represented Pepsi-Cola Co. and PepsiCo in a patent infringement suit brought by Coca-Cola in the Northern District of Georgia involving bag-in-box technology used to store and dispense syrup used to create soft drinks in soda fountains. The court granted Pepsi’s Motion for Summary Judgment, finding that the technology was substantially different from what was described in the Coke patent. PepsiCo’s use of this technology did not infringe Coke’s technology described in the asserted patent, and therefore, did not infringe the patent. The Coca Cola Co. v. PepsiCo Inc., et al., 500 F. Supp.2d 1364 (N.D. Ga. 2007).
Served as lead counsel in various patent infringement matters, successfully asserting and defending patents relating to bone screws and other orthopaedic devices.
The firm served as lead counsel for a leading manufacturer of carpet tiles in four cases, consolidated for pretrial purposes, concerning the client's allegations of patent infringement, and the accused infringers' claims of invalidity, unenforceability, and patent misuse, as well as allegations that our client infringed a patent. After discovery revealed invalidity issues, the firm succeeded in obtaining dismissal of the infringement allegations against our client. The Markman ruling on our client's patent, which issued after additional briefing by the parties on draft orders from the court, was favorable to our client. Our client successfully rebuffed its opponents' attempts to obtain summary judgment invalidating the patent. The case ultimately settled on the eve of trial, on confidential terms favorable to our client.
The firm served as lead counsel on behalf of CoxCom, Inc. in two suits brought by Rembrandt in the Eastern District of Texas and other districts on nine patents related to the technology involved in the delivery of cable services. We persuaded the judicial panel on multi-district litigation to consolidate, for pre-trial purposes, numerous proceedings and transfer the matter to the District of Delaware. A Markman order from the first case in the series was subsequently vacated by the transferee judge, thus limiting the plaintiffs to a single claim construction. Case pending. (Originally assigned to Judge Ward; transferred to Judge Davis). Rembrandt Techs., LP v. Charter Commc'ns, Inc., No. 06-223 (E.D. Tex. filed June 1, 2006), In re Rembrandt Techs. LP Patent Litig., No. 07-01848 (D. Del. filed June 21, 2007).
Represented Smith & Nephew Endoscopy-Andover in a patent infringement litigation brought by KarlStorz Endoscopy-America Inc. that included several patents directed to systems for controlling operating room equipment. Case settled.
Karl Storz Endoscopy-Am., Inc. v. Stryker, Inc., No. 07-02702 (W.D. Tenn. filed Nov. 2, 2007).
Defending Motorola Mobility LLC in the District of Delaware. Intellectual Ventures filed a patent infringement action against Motorola accusing certain smartphones and tablets of infringing six different patents directed toward (1) back-lit LCD screens, (2) distributing software updates, (3) transporting content to mobile devices, (4) portable computer/docking stations, (5) allocation of wireless bandwidth, and (6) file transfer systems. (Judge Robinson).
Intellectual Ventures I LLC, et al. v. Motorola Mobility, LLC, Civ. No. 11-908 (D. Del. filed Oct. 6, 2011).
Insights View All
University of Georgia School of Law, J.D. (1998) magna cum laude, Order of the Coif
Smith College, A.B., Art History and Architecture Ada Comstock Scholar
U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Georgia (2000)
U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Georgia (2003)
U.S. District Court for the District of Colorado (2003)
U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit (2003)
U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (2005)
U.S. District Court for the Western District of Wisconsin (2009)
U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Georgia - Honorable Anthony A. Alaimo
Alumnae Association of Smith College, Member
Georgia Bar Association, Diversity Committee, Member
Georgia Lawyers for the Arts, Member
Intellectual Property Owners’ Association, Corporate IP Management Committee, Member
International Association of Privacy Professionals, Member
Mother Attorneys Mentoring Attorneys, Member
Life Science Washington, Member
Washington Technology Industry Association, Member
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.