Source: https://www.uspatentlaw.us/Litigation
Timestamp: 2019-04-22 14:08:14+00:00

Document:
Patent and trademark infringement litigation can be very expensive. If not handled properly, litigants to infringement cases may face judgments of tens of millions of dollars and permanent injunctions preventing them from manufacturing, importing, retailing and marketing all of their the products or services. If you have been sued in the courts or tribunals of the U.S. Government for infringement, let our intellectual property attorneys help you. We provide expeditious, cost-effective representation to all of our clients, no matter where in the world you may be located.
Emergency Motion to Stay Preliminary Injunction (2017) (Patent Infringement).
Memorandum in Opposition to Defendant's Motion for Partial Summary Judgment (2015).
Oral Argument on Motion for Summary Judgment (2015) (Trademark Infringment).
The costs of litigating patent infringement cases can be enormous due to the complex technical and legal issues litigation presents. The below chart (coutesty of PTAB Blog) shows the average patent litigation costs in 2015 in the United States. Even the smallest cases, average costs exceed $600,000. We try to offer must more cost-effective representation in patent infringement matters in the State of Utah.
We can serve as local counsel for out-of-state firms needs pro hac vice admission into the State of Utah, and employ a number of strategies to defend rights in infringment lawsuits, from reexamination proceedings to antitrust counterclaims.
Halo Board v. Equalia, LLC (Case No. 17-1658) U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (patent infringement matter settled on favorable terms).
Equalia, LLC v. Kushgo, LLC (Case No. 2:16-cv-2851) U.S. District Court for District of Nevada (patent infringement matter settled on favorable terms).
Skywalker Holdings v. YJ IP (Case No. 1:16-CV-64) U.S. District Court for the District of Utah, Central Division (representing defendant in patent infringement matter).
Robinson v. DEFY Waterflight (Case No. 2:16-CV-833) U.S. District Court for the District of Utah, Central Division (representing defendant in patent infringement matter).
Denmel Holdings v. BlueLounge (Case No. 2:15-CV-87) U.S. District Court for the District of Utah, Central Division (represented defendant in patent infringement action, settled on favorable terms).
MeridainLink v. DH Holdings (Case No. CMB2013-00008) U.S. Patent and Trademark Office Trademark (USPTO) Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) (represented complainant in post-grant review proceeding before the PTAB).
American Covers v. Rok Imports (Case No 2:12-CV-279) U.S. District Court for the District of Utah, Central Division (represented defendant in patent infringement matter in which defendant successfully dismissed).
Denis Reah v. Electronics Show Place (Case No. 2:09-CV-601) U.S. District Court for the District of Utah, Central Division (represented defendant in patent infringement case successfully dismissed for lack of jurisdiction).
Planet Blue v. Harmonix (Case No. 1:99-MC-9999) U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware (represented defendant in patent infringement matter).
Planet Blue v. OC3 Entertainment (Case No. ) U.S. District Court for the District of California, Northern Division (represented defendant in patent infringement matter).
West Coast Trends v. Ogio International (Case No. 6:10-CV-688) U.S. District Court for the District of Utah (represented plaintiff in patent infringement matter settled on favorable terms).
Universal Trim Supply v. K & K Companies (Case No. 2:09-CV-18) U.S. District Court for the District of Utah, Central Division (represented defendant in patent infringement matter settled without payment).
International Marketing v. Bradley Morris (Case No 1:10-CV-26) U.S. District Court for the District of Utah, Central Division (prevailed representing Plaintiff with case dismissal).
Phi-ten USA v. Rocky Mountain School of Baseball (Case No. 1:10-CV-145) U.S. District Court for the District of Utah, Central Division (represented plaintiff in trademark infringement matter).
Bad Apple, LLC v. Linear Magnitude, Inc. (Case No. 2:17-cv-76) U.S. District Court for the District Utah (settled on favorable terms).
Associated Recovery v. Butcher (Case No. 2:16-CV-126) U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Texas (represented plaintiff in cybersquatting matter involving 200 domains).
Sater v. Kriss (Case No. 2:16-CV-932) U.S. District Court for the District of Arizona (cybersquatting matter).
Savage Companies v. Savage Logistics (Case No 2:16-CV-265) U.S. District Court for the District of Utah, Central Division (representing defendant in trademark infringement matter).
Savage Logistics v. Savage Companies (Case No. 4:15-CV-5015) U.S. District Court for the District of Washington (representing plaintiff in trademark infringement matter).
Bullex v. JinHakYoo (Case No. 2:10-CV-668) U.S. District Court for the District of Utah (prevailed representing plaintiff in cybersquatting matter with injunction).
RMV Enterprises v. <ksoftware.com> (Case No. 1:12-CV-335) U.S. District Court for the District of Virginia (prevailed representing plaintiff in in rem cybersquatting matter).
Carpenter v. myschool (Case No. 1:15-CV-212) U.S. District Court for the District of Virginia (represented defendant in cybersquatting matter lost on summary judgment days before trial).
Innovative Staffing v. ISHR (Case No. 2:14-CV-927) U.S. District Court for the District of Utah, Central Division (representing defendant settled on favorable terms).
Fashion C.C. v. Apple Computer (Case No. 2:10-CV-195) U.S. District Court for the District of Utah, Central Division (representing plaintiff settled with permanent injunction).
Strong College Students v. CHHJ Franchising (Case No. 2:12-CV-1156) U.S. District Court for District of Arizona (represented plaintiff in cybersquatting matter lost on summary judgment).
EZQuest v. Baorui (Case No. 2:12-CV-730) U.S. District Court for the District of Utah (prevailed representing plaintiff in cybersquatting matter and secured preliminary injunction).
Goulding v. Hill (Case No 2:14-CV-905), U.S. District Court for the District of Utah, Central Division (cybersquatting case representing Plaintiff terminating with transfer of the disputed domains).
Web Entertainment Limited v. y8.org (Case No. 1:14-CV-1416) U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia (represented defendant in settled cybersquatting matter).
TruckMaster Logistics Systems v. Internet Enterprises (Case No. 2:09-CV-374) U.S. District Court for the District of Utah, Central Division (settled on favorable terms for defendants).
Matthew Crowder v. Heavy Lifting (Case No. ) U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California (cybersquatting case).
Park City Transportation v. Park City Limousines (Case No. 2:15-CV-24) U.S. District Court for the District of Utah, Central Division (representing defendant in trademark infringement matter).
RentMaster v. Shain Trading Corporation (Case No 2:10-CV-319) U.S. District Court for the District of Utah, Central Division (represented plaintiff in cybersquatting case dismissed for lack of personal jurisdiction).
FPS Games v. Kyle Meyers (Case No. 91208378) U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) Trademark Trial and Appeal Board (TTAB) (represented respondent and prevailed in cybersquatting/trademark opposition proceeding).
Innovative Staffing v. ISHR (Case No. 91214407) U.S. Patent and Trademark Office Trademark (USPTO) Trademark Trial and Appeal Board (TTAB) (represented respondent and prevailed in cybersquatting/trademark opposition proceeding).
Alamo v. Wagmar Technologies (Case No. 91227082) U.S. Patent and Trademark Office Trademark (USPTO) Trademark Trial and Appeal Board (TTAB) (represented respondent and settled in cybersquatting/trademark opposition).
Strong College Student Moving v. Freidman (Case No. 92058063) U.S. Patent and Trademark Office Trademark (USPTO) Trademark Trial and Appeal Board (TTAB) (represented complainant in trademark opposition).
Fashion C.C. v. Little (Case No. 91217375) U.S. Patent and Trademark Office Trademark (USPTO) Trademark Trial and Appeal Board (TTAB) (represented complainant in trademark opposition).
Elevation Distillery v. Salt Lake Distillery (Case No. 91217045) U.S. Patent and Trademark Office Trademark (USPTO) Trademark Trial and Appeal Board (TTAB) (represented complainant in trademark opposition settled on favorable terms).
Oceanside Capital v. AB (Case No. 91205819) U.S. Patent and Trademark Office Trademark (USPTO) Trademark Trial and Appeal Board (TTAB) (represented complainant in trademark opposition settled).
Under Armor v. Gatlin (Case No. 91203875) U.S. Patent and Trademark Office Trademark (USPTO) Trademark Trial and Appeal Board (TTAB) (represented respondent in trademark opposition).
Scimone v. Tinnus (Case No. 92051876) U.S. Patent and Trademark Office Trademark (USPTO) Trademark Trial and Appeal Board (TTAB) (represented complainant in trademark opposition).
Savage Logistics v. Savage Companies (Case No. 91221522) U.S. Patent and Trademark Office Trademark (USPTO) Trademark Trial and Appeal Board (TTAB) (represented complainant in trademark opposition).
The nature of copyright lawsuits in the U.S. is changing as the graph below shows. Copyright infringement cases increasingly stem from online use. Actions against users of BitTorrent are increasingly common. We contact us if you are the defendant to one of these actions or in need or pursuing one.
Trade secret cases often arise from the movement of engineers within technology industry, but also employees, salesmen and independent contractors who move from one location to another. We provide representation to trade secret owners who need to protect their trade secrets from misappropriation by other parties using the judiciary.
For information on representation in domain name disputes or Internet litigation matters, visit our Domain Name Disputes page.
Litigation can be very stressful and expensive. It is often difficult for non-specialist attorneys to determine whether or not a infringement has occured. Microsoft, Apple Computer, Sun Microsystems, Medtronic, Research in Motion, and Nintendo are just a few of the companies that have settled infringement disputes for hundreds of millions of dollars. Toshiba paid a $425 million judgment to Lexar for violating trade secrets. Pfizer's rights for Viagra were ruled invalid in China and Microsoft faces similar concerns over its Office product in South Korea. We can help you determine whether or not a competitor, importer, or manufacturer is infringing your rights. As a holder, you have the right to exclude others from utilizing your ideas, and may have rights against those who have encouraged or induced others to infringe those rights.
Certain types of trademarks disputes may be best litigated in Utah, even if you are corporation organized elsewhere. Utah sits in the Tenth Federal Circuit, one of the only circuits to recognize a trademark holders' right to stop other organizations or individuals from misappropriating trademarks in cost-per-click (CPC) advertising on the Internet. If one or more of your competitors are bidding in Overture or Google Adwords on keywords in which you have rights, such as your corporate name or wordmarks, please contact us. We may be able to help you put a stop to this behavior and to recover damanges you have suffered as a result of it. We may also be able to help you enforce rights you have in trademarks, trade secrets, patents, and other intellectual properties.
if you have been accused of patent or trademark infringement, we can help you explore your options and determine whether or not a federal district court is likely to rule that infingement is taking place. We will help you for an affordable amount, and consult with you initially free of charge. If you decide to retain us, the rates are here.f you have been accused of infringement, we can help you explore your options and determine whether or not a federal district court is likely to rule that infingement is taking place. We will help you for an affordable amount, and consult with you initially free of charge. If you decide to retain us, the rates are here.
Click here for information on domain name disputes.
Fees shown herein are subject to change at anytime. Additionally fees may appy for rush services.

References: v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v.