Partnering With Our Clients To Litigate IP Claims Aggressively

​

Representative Patent, Trademark, Copyright, Lanham Act And Cybersquatting Cases:

​

• FenF, LLC v. Taylor Gifts, Inc., 2:10-CV-14351-DPH-MKM; Representing plaintiff in Michigan trademark counterfeiting and trademark infringement lawsuit regarding the mark YogaToes.

• Barnett Outdoors, LLC v. Hunter’s Manufacturing Company, Inc dba TenPoint Crossbow Technologies, 6:08-CV-01916; Representing TenPoint Crossbow Technologies in a patent infringement action in Lafayette, Louisiana.

• EMSAT Advanced Geo-Location Technology, LLC et al v. T-Mobile USA, Inc., 4:08-CV-00817; Representing defendant T-Mobile in a patent infringement action.

• FenF, LLC v. HealioHealth, Inc., et al., 5:08-cv-00404-SL: Representing plaintiff in patent, trademark and copyright infringement action regarding YogaToes® toe stretchers. Obtained permanent injunction against defendants regarding use of trademark YogaToes® and copyright infringement of Web pages.

• Becka v. Little Tikes Company, Rubbermaid, Inc. 5:97-cv-01459-DDD: Represented plaintiff, an independent inventor, in a series of patent infringement actions involving toy products. Successfully acquired judgment against defendants, who were found to infringe plaintiff’s patent. Successfully acquired licenses for plaintiff.

• Becka v.Fisher-Price, Inc. et al., 1:00-cv-00575-KMO

• Becka et al v. Chelsea & Scott, LTD. et al., 1:00-cv-02187-PRM

• Becka v. Zany Brainy, Inc. et al., 1:02-cv-00180-SO

• Becka v. Huffy Corporation, 5:08-cv-01745-SO: Represented plaintiff, an independent inventor, in a series of patent infringement actions involving toy products. Successfully acquired licenses for plaintiff.

• Becka v. Moose Mountain Marketing, LLC, 5:08-cv-01862-CAB: Representing plaintiff, an independent inventor, in a patent infringement action involving toy products.

• Soilworks, LLC v. Midwest Industrial Supply, Inc., 2:06-CV-02141-DGC: Representing defendant in action brought for declaratory judgment of no patent infringement, tortious business interference, violations of the Lanham Act, misappropriation of goodwill, and defendant counterclaimed for patent infringement, trademark infringement, violation of the Lanham Act, inter alia, for dust suppressant and soil stabilization technology. Received judgment against plaintiff for trademark infringement and finding for defendant of no tortious business interference. Case proceeding to trial.

• Veterinary Imaging Centers, Inc. v. Sound Technologies, Inc., et al., 1:02-cv-00282-DCN: Represented plaintiff in software copyright infringement action. Successfully represented plaintiff in acquiring summary judgment of copyright infringement against defendant Sound Technologies.

• Classic Video, Inc. v. Classic Teleproductions, Inc., 5:98-cv-02059-DAP: Represented plaintiff in trademark infringement action. Case settled on favorable terms before judgment could be reached.

• Katherine Collections, Inc. v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., 5:04-cv-02335-JRA: Represented plaintiff in copyright infringement action against Wal-Mart regarding Kissing Fish ornaments. Obtained temporary restraining order and preliminary injunction against Wal-Mart.

• Florists’ Transworld Delivery, Inc. v. Malek, 5:06-cv-02277-JG: Represented defendant in cybersquatting dispute of domain name. Case settled on terms favorable for defendant.

• Mr. Heater, Inc. v. CFM Corporation, et al., 1:06-cv-00577-CAB: Represented plaintiff in action alleging patent infringement. Plaintiff moved for preliminary injunction and temporary restraining order regarding sales of allegedly infringing portable heater technology. Case settled favorably for plaintiff.

• Exmark Mfg. Co., Inc. v. MTD Products Inc, et al., 8:00-cv-00225-JFB: Defended claim of patent infringement on feature for a lawn mower deck. Case settled on favorable terms.

• Dr. Morton Walker v. East Park Research, Inc., Robert Concoby, et al., 5:99-cv-00838-DDD: Represented one of several defendants in a copyright infringement action regarding a health food book. Successfully represented defendant in action and case settled during trial.

• Sandridge Food Corporation v. Garden Fresh Foods, Inc., 3:05-cv-07164-SO: Represented plaintiff in trademark infringement action regarding freshly prepared refrigerated foods. Defendant ceased use of allegedly infringing mark.

• Hunter’s Manufacturing, Inc. dba TenPoint Crossbow Technologies v. Precision Shooting Equipment, 5:06-cv-02216-JG: Successfully represented plaintiff in action against defendant for patent infringement of crossbow trigger technology.

• John Shirilla v. Photogenic Professional Lighting, Inc., 4:01-cv-02318-PCE: Represented plaintiff in patent infringement and inventorship action regarding equipment for professional photography.

• MTD Products Inc v. Rotary Corporation, 1:01-cv-02366-PRM: Represented plaintiff in patent infringement action regarding mowing blades. Case settled on terms favorable to plaintiff.

• May Industries of Ohio, Inc. v. MTD Products Inc, 1:07-cv-00111-LW: Represented defendant in patent infringement action regarding variable speed pulley technology. Case settled on terms favorable to plaintiff.

• Virkler v. Herbert Enterprises, Inc., 6:04-CV-1652-JA-DAB: Defended claim of patent infringement regarding ice cream scoops. Successfully received summary judgment of no literal patent infringement.

• MTD Products Inc v. Fisher Barton Blades, Inc., 1:03-cv-00167-DCN: Represented plaintiff in patent infringement action regarding mowing blades. Case settled on terms favorable to plaintiff.

• Waltco v. National Liftgate Parts, Inc., 5:06-cv-01480-JRA: Represented plaintiff in copyright infringement action regarding re-selling non-OEM parts for liftgates. Favorable settlement agreement reached with defendant and case dismissed.

• Nexagen, LLC v. Holly Olson, 5:06-cv-00372-JG: Represented plaintiff in action regarding copyright infringement of diet patch. Case settled on favorable terms for plaintiff.

• Glow, Inc. v. Classic Imports, Inc., 3:05-cv-07425-JZ: Represented defendant in action alleging copyright infringement and cross claims for copyright infringement. Case settled on terms favorable to defendant.

• Mr. Heater, Inc. v. Nanjing Pro-Com Electric Appliance Co., Ltd., et al., 1:07-cv-00118-SO: Represented plaintiff in action for patent infringement. Successfully settled case for plaintiff.

• MTD Products Inc v. Frederick Manufacturing Corporation, 5:03-cv-01681-PAG: Represented plaintiff in patent infringement action regarding mowing blades. Case settled on terms favorable to plaintiff.

• Fitness Quest, Inc. v. Wonderfulbuys, et al., 5:06-cv-02204-GJL: Represented plaintiff in action alleging patent, trademark and copyright infringement and violation of the Lanham Act.

• Walsh University v. Walsh College of Accountancy and Business Administration, 5:07-cv-00680-JG: Represented plaintiff in declaratory judgment action regarding no trademark infringement of the letter “w.” Case settled favorably with plaintiff continuing to use its mark.

• Schneider Saddlery, Inc. v. Best Shot Pet Products International, LLC, 1:06-cv-02602-KMO: Representing defendant in trademark counterfeiting and trademark infringement action regarding horse care products.

• B-Dry System Licensees v. B-Dry Systems, Inc.: Represented defendant in arbitration regarding patent infringement.

• GeoTech Chemical Company, LLC v. Tito Viswanathan, 5:03-cv-00686-DDD: Represented plaintiff in allegation of breach of contract regarding patent technology.

• Laukus v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., Sam’s Club, Inc., Lowe’s Home Centers, Inc., 5:07-cv-02331-SL: Represented plaintiff in action against defendants regarding trademark counterfeiting, trademark infringement and violations of the Lanham Act.

• Hypertherm, Inc. v. American Torch Tip Company, 1:05-CV-00373-JD: Representing defendant against patent infringement and representing defendant in cross action against plaintiff for violation of antitrust laws regarding plasma arc torch tips.

• Jumbert Construction Company et al v. Kuchenski Construction, Inc. et al., 5:01-cv-02410-PRM: Represented home builder in copyright infringement action regarding copyrighted architectural plans. Obtained favorable settlement on behalf of plaintiff.

• Scholz Design, Inc. v. Ken Payne Builders, Inc. et al, 5:05-cv-00114-JMM: Represented homeowner in defending against copyright infringement action. Case settled on terms favorable to home owner.

• Fitness Quest Inc. v. Turk et al., 5:07-cv-02784-SL: Representing plaintiff in action alleging trademark counterfeiting and trademark and copyright infringement against defendants regarding plaintiff’s federally registered mark, Ab Lounge®. Working with law enforcement officials regarding criminal liability of defendant.

• Fitness Quest Inc v. Dream Fitness, et al., 5:06-cv-01921-JRA: Represented plaintiff in action alleging trademark counterfeiting and trademark and copyright infringement against defendant’s regarding plaintiff’s federally registered mark, Ab Lounge®, an abdominal exercise machine. Successfully obtained an Ex Parte Seizure Order and seized counterfeit products in raid of California warehouse. Obtained approximately a seven-figure judgment against defendants.

• Fitness Quest Inc. v. Sobreo et al., 5:05-cv-02484-JG: Represented plaintiff in action alleging trademark counterfeiting and trademark and copyright infringement against multiple defendants regarding plaintiff federally registered mark, Ab Lounge®. an abdominal exercise machine. Successfully ceased all use of mark by defendants.

• Fitness Quest Inc. v. Sobreo et al., 5:06-cv-02365-JRA: Represented plaintiff in second action alleging trademark counterfeiting and trademark and copyright infringement against multiple defendants regarding plaintiff’s federally registered mark, Ab Lounge®, an abdominal exercise machine. Successfully ceased all use of mark by defendants.

• Ganzcorp Investments v. Precision Dynamometer, et al., 1:00-cv-00231-JMM: Represented defendant successfully against claims of patent infringement for dynamometers.

• Delta Systems, Inc. v. Murray, Inc. et al., 5:04-cv-00589-PCE: Represented plaintiff in action for preliminary injunction and temporary restraining order regarding patent infringement of electrical switches. Case settled favorably for plaintiff.

• Midwest Industrial Supply, Inc. v. Soilworks, LLC, 5:08-cv-01374-SO: Representing plaintiff in action regarding trademark infringement, violations of the Lanham Act, inter alia.

• Fitness Quest Inc. v. Icon Health & Fitness, Inc., 5:07-cv-01319-SL: Representing plaintiff in action alleging trademark infringement and breach of contract.

​

Trademark Trial And Appeal Board Cases:

​

• Rio Brands, Inc. v. Laukus, Proceeding No. 92048984: Representing defendant in action for cancellation of federally registered mark for “American Pride®.” Successfully acquired stay of action immediately after filing by plaintiff.

• Sandridge Food Corporation v. GC Specialty Foods, LLC, Biggs Management, Inc.: Representing plaintiff in opposition proceeding regarding the mark “Grandma’s.®.”

• Orb Audio, LLC v. mStation Corporation: Represented plaintiff in opposition regarding the mark “Station Orb.” Parties reached successful amicable resolution.

• Leena, Inc. v. Fitness Quest Inc.: Representing defendant in action for cancellation of federally registered mark for Ab Lounge®. Successfully acquired stay of action immediately after filing by plaintiff.

• ETI Sound Systems, Inc. v. C E Group, Inc.: Represented defendant in action for opposition of federal trademark application for the mark “Prodigy.” Parties reached amicable settlement such that defendant will acquire federal trademark.

• Sandridge Food Corporation v. ConAgra Brands, Inc.: Represented plaintiff in action opposing the mark “Inspired by Grandma.®. defendant withdrew trademark application.

• Ziebart International Corporation v. Z Tech Rustproofing Care Car & Accessories, LLC: Representing Z Tech in action by Ziebart opposing its mark Z Tech for car care accessories.

• Exeter Architectural Products, Inc. v. Robert Olson: Represented defendant in opposition for federal application for mark. Case resolved in favor of defendant. Mark ultimately registered.

• Volkswagen Aktiengesellschaft v. MTD Products Inc: Represented plaintiff in action regarding opposition to registration use of the mark “Beetle” for lawn mowers. Case ultimately settled with favorable settlement agreement.