Source: http://davidlilenfeld.com/tag/trademarks/page/2/
Timestamp: 2019-04-22 14:04:45+00:00

Document:
David Lilenfeld, founding partner of Lilenfeld PC, was named Georgia Trend’s 2012 Legal Elite in Intellectual Property law. "Legal Elite" are based on votes cast by thousands of Georgia attorneys.
In its 2006 decision eBay Inc. v. MercExchange, L.L.C. (547 U.S. 388), the United States rejected a long-standing general rule in patent infringement cases. That general rule had trial courts favoring granting permanent injunctions (i.e., orders requiring a party to refrain from certain activities) against alleged patent infringers. This favor developed because irreparable harm -- a requirement in most other types of cases in which a permanent injunction is sought -- was presumed to exist in if the court (or jury) found patent infringement. The new rule, according to this case, has trial courts applying the traditional, four-factor permanent injunction used in most case to patent infringement cases. In other words, irreparable harm is no longer presumed; rather, it has to be proven.
David Lilenfeld, founder of Lilenfeld PC, moderated a panel discussion in which the participants discussed how the MercExchange case has changed the way permanent injunctions are sought and the frequency with which they are granted. The panel also features Ronald T. Coleman Jr., of Parker Hudson Rainer & Dobbs; Ann G. Fort, of Sutherland; and Frank G. Smith III, of Alston & Bird.
Here Diane Bogino of Georgia Business Network Directory interviews Atlanta-based intellectual property lawyer David Lilenfeld, founder of Lilenfeld PC.
More and more, legal departments are moving their work from large, big-name law firms to small, boutique firms like Lilenfeld PC. While the recession prompted much of this movement, I am now observing that this is a lasting practice for efficiency-minded in-house counsel.
Boutique law firms such as ours are flourishing because clients are turning to different law firms for different tasks. This practice allows legal departments to match specific tasks to the right lawyers. For example, a new client came to us recently specifically because most of the litigation we handle involves trademark infringement claims.
Legal departments are recognizing the benefits of splitting work between firms with different focuses and using small, boutique firms that offer the right fit for each individual matter. In-house attorneys also acknowledge that the work produced by small firms is as good as (or better than) what they receive from large, big-name law firms. Small firms like ours also have far fewer conflicts, can make decisions regarding representation in hours instead of days and are equipped to provide personalized service.
Technology has also made small firms more competitive with large ones. Software, for example, speeds up document production and review, while, cloud computing makes sharing documents, invoices and case developments fast and efficient.
Lilenfeld PC focuses entirely on intellectual property, and its highest hourly billing rate is $325, a rate 40 to 50 percent lower than that of large-firm counterparts. Our clients receive the same level of expertise as clients of large firms but at a lower price. Since we have less overhead, we have lower rates, which helps our clients manage budgets and increases the volume of business we receive.
Consider talking with us about your intellectual property needs.
Fed Cir.’s reverses N.D.Ga. grant of summary judgment to defendant in patent infringement case, ruling the trial court had authority to correct an obvious drafting error in a claim. Here is the opinion.
Judge Timothy C. Batten’s (N.D.Ga.) 23-page “Instructions to Parties and Counsel" is an excellent manual on finer points of federal civil procedure. Good read for all fed court litigators.
Some of these principles are in play in the below trademark infringement lawsuit," said David Lilenfeld, founder of Lilenfeld PC, an Atlanta-based intellectual property law firm.
May 2, 2011. For the reasons discussed below, the motion is DENIED.
the order on terminating sanctions can be found in that order.
1 owned a gyroscope manufacturing company, Condor Pacific Industries, Inc.
7 2007, Plaintiff acquired BAE.
12 Condor I’s former facilities in Westlake Village, California.
26 thereby misappropriating Plaintiff’s trade secrets.
3 Counts III and V. (Docket No. 144.) Plaintiff also sought monetary sanctions.
8 as a result of the discovery abuses.
9 Thereafter, Plaintiff moved for entry of permanent injunction. (Docket No.
28 secrets and unfair competition.
20 this lawsuit (i.e., identified in Attachment A to the FAC).
27 3 Plaintiff elected to discontinue, without prejudice, Counts IV and VII.
7 Plaintiff lost as a result of the jury’s finding that Plaintiff was not harmed.
17 under Count III should be adjudicated by the Court.
2 never raised any objection to these instructions.
7 entitled to damages and prejudgment interest. Coupons, Inc. v. Stottlemire, 588 F.
19 23 Cal. 4th 116, 127 (2000).
6 warrant restitution. Krantz v. Bt Visual Images, 89 Cal. App. 4th 164, 178 (Cal.
7 App. 1st Dist. 2001).
14 cannot claim that it has suffered “injury in fact” for purposes of § 17204.
26 Cal. Civ. Code § 3426.3.
28 CytoDyn of New Mexico, Inc. v. Amerimmune Pharmaceuticals, Inc., 160 Cal.
6 see also, Sargent Fletcher, Inc. v. Able Corp., 110 Cal. App. 4th 1658, 1665 (Cal.
4 AIS argues that harm to plaintiff is not an element of a CUTSA claim. (Mot.
19 14.) In support of this argument, Plaintiff cites to Dealertrack, Inc. v. Huber, 460 F.
22 secret.” Dealertrack, which is non-binding on this Court, did not cite any California case for this proposition. Plaintiff also cites to Diodes, Inc. v. Franzen, 260 Cal. App.
25 Oculus Innovative Sciences, Inc. v. Nofil Corp., 2007 WL 4044867, *6 (N.D. Cal.
7 public interest would not be disserved by a permanent injunction.” eBay, Inc. v.
8 MercExchange, LLC 547 U.S. 388, 391 (2006).
14 “No.” (Id.) In retrospect, the question posed to the jury could have been clearer.
27 remedies, legal or equitable.
8 operate a business that will be decimated if a permanent injunction is granted.
2 national security in analyzing whether a permanent injunction is warranted).
4 injunction is not warranted.
8 date of this Order.
9 IT IS SO ORDERED.

References: v. 
 V. 
 v. 
 v. 
 § 17204
 § 3426
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v.