Source: https://www.olshanlaw.com/practices-Intellectual-Property-Litigation.html
Timestamp: 2019-04-20 14:21:15+00:00

Document:
Protection of intellectual property rights is often time-sensitive, and motions for preliminary injunctions are therefore common in such cases. As a result, Olshan has significant experience in litigating these types of disputes on short notice. Olshan has extensive experience in plenary hearings involving testimony of witnesses on motions for preliminary injunctions, a common event in intellectual property cases. We can promptly evaluate a client’s rights and likelihood of success, assemble a team of attorneys appropriate to the demands of the case and develop and execute a litigation strategy under tight time constraints. The Olshan philosophy is to use only that number of attorneys as is necessary for an effective job. However, our firm is large enough where we have the critical mass to staff larger cases, but small enough where we can still efficiently litigate smaller matters.
The Firm has also developed relationships with many reputable and leading experts which are often critical to winning an intellectual property case. Beyond the preliminary injunction stage, we are able to take the case all the way through trial. Our Litigation Group often tries two or three significant matters each year, and its leading partners have cumulatively tried more than fifty cases to judge or jury.
Olshan successfully represented the defendant in a trademark infringement suit, procuring denial of the motion for a preliminary injunction and subsequently dismissal of the action without paying anything to plaintiff or ceasing use of the mark in issue. The Firm was able to accomplish these results after successfully meeting the demands of an expedited discovery schedule ordered by the Court and three days of hearings involving the testimony of more than six fact witnesses and a testifying expert. The Firm also promptly located and retained an independent expert who conducted an objective study and, on the basis of the study, provided an expert report critical to the outcome. The case was reported on by the New York Times and New York Post.
We successfully represented the plaintiff in a trade dress infringement action that was commenced within days of first debriefing the client and resulted in the defendant agreeing to a consent injunction and paying attorneys’ fees just before the hearing on plaintiff’s motion for a preliminary injunction was about to commence.
After a multi-day factual hearing, we procured in federal court a preliminary injunction against a former executive’s competition with the Firm’s client-plaintiff thereby protecting trade secrets and other confidential commercial information of the client. Thereafter, the case resulted in a highly favorable settlement for the client.
Olshan is regularly called upon by leading manufacturers and members of the fashion industry to enforce their rights against counterfeiters. The firm has brought many cases against counterfeiters in the federal court, and has procured numerous injunctions and seizure orders against counterfeiters and recovered millions of dollars for clients from counterfeiters.
Olshan has represented a leading publicly traded entertainment company in multiple litigations and arbitrations where defendants infringed our client’s trademarks and copyrights.
Nike, Inc. v. Eastern Ports Custom Brokers, Inc., No. 11 CV 4390 (D.N.J. 2011) (CC).
Nike, Inc. v. ARI Customs House Brokers, Inc., et al., No. 11 CV 3043 (D.N.J.. 2011) (CC).
Nike, Inc. v. James A. Solan, Jr., et al., No. 10 CV 5486 (D.N.J. 2010) (JL).
Nike, Inc. v. Cathy Chiu Lam CHB Inc. d/b/a Asian Jade Customs Brokerage, et al., No. 10 CV 1163 (E.D.N.Y. 2010) (JW).
Lemon v. Harlem Globetrotters Intern., Inc., Nos. CV 04-0299 PHX DGC, CV 04-1023 PHX DGC, 2006 WL 3524379 (D. Ariz. December 06, 2006).
Nike, Inc. v. Top Brand Co., Ltd., No. 00 Civ. 8179 (KMW)(RLE), 2006 WL 2884437 (S.D.N.Y. October 06, 2006).
Glow Industries, Inc. v. Lopez, 273 F. Supp. 2d 1095 (C.D.Cal. 2003).
GTFM, Inc. v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., No. 98 Civ. 7724 (RPP), 2000 WL 335558 (S.D.N.Y. March 30, 2000).
Tommy Hilfiger U.S.A., Inc. v. Wholesale Club, Inc., 166 F.3d 1201 (2d Cir. 1998).

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