Source: https://www.brookskushman.com/our-team/member/thomas-cunningham/
Timestamp: 2019-04-22 22:06:41+00:00

Document:
Tom's litigation practice involves all aspects of intellectual property and Tom has litigated cases on behalf of both plaintiffs and defendants in federal courts all over the country. Tom`s cases have involved a wide range of technologies from automotive and locomotive developments to flashlights, biotechnology, numerous consumer products, dietary supplements and computer software. Tom has also defended clients accused of violating the Digital Millennium Copyright Act.
Tom has an active practice advising clients on the management and licensing of intellectual property. He has also worked closely with clients to help them avoid the intellectual property of others, including actively participating in designing around patents.
Tom builds the trust of his clients by maintaining close contact. He believes that to adequately counsel his clients, it is necessary to develop a full understanding of the clients` business and its goals. By doing what he promises and following up on a regular basis, Tom has been successful in building long-term relationships with his clients.
Trial counsel in successful patent litigation defending flashlight manufacturer in the Eastern District of Wisconsin with over $30 million at stake; patent was declared unenforceable for inequitable conduct before the PTO and attorneys' fees were rewarded.
Represented Fortune 50 automobile manufacturer in successful patent litigation in the Northern District of Florida with over $25 million at stake; patent was declared invalid.
Represented Fortune 50 automotive manufacturer in successful trademark litigation resulting in finding of infringement on summary judgment. The finding was affirmed by the Sixth Circuit.
Represented large consumer product manufacturer as plaintiff in successful trade dress litigation in the Eastern District of Michigan resulting in favorable settlement.
Represented Swiss floral association in trademark infringement action in the Eastern District of Michigan resulting in favorable settlement.
Representing patent holder in patent infringement action against Fortune 50 software developer in the Eastern District of Texas.
Outside the office, Tom enjoys spending time with his three boys, including both coaching and watching them in various athletics. He also enjoys following Michigan and Detroit sports.
Ameranth, Inc. v. Domino’s Pizza, Inc., Case No. 3:11-cv-01810 (S.D. California 2018) – Successfully defended Domino’s Pizza in a patent infringement suit relating to menu generation and synchronization of data for mobile devices. Obtained summary judgment of unpatentability on a patent asserted against Domino’s and 30 other parties. Also served as counsel for Covered Business Method proceedings where the Patent Trial and Appeal Board held three other asserted patents unpatentable.
INNOVATION VENTURES, LLC d/b/a LIVING ESSENTIALS, v. N.V.E., INC. – Jury Trial (E.D. Michigan 2016): Trial counsel for plaintiff in trademark infringement action involving plaintiff`s 5 hour ENERGY shot. The jury found that defendant N.V.E. infringed plaintiff’s trademark by its sale of a competing product named “6 Hour Power.” The jury awarded $10.6 million in damages. Jury also awarded an additional $11.5 million for disgorgement of profits N.V.E. made on the infringing products, which is subject to further review. The jury also fully rejected the claims brought by N.V.E. which included a $60 million false advertising claim.
GeoTag, Inc. v. Domino’s Pizza Inc, Case No. 10-cv-o572 (E.D. Tex 2014): Successfully defended Domino’s Pizza in a patent infringement action in East Texas. Plaintiff brought suit against over 600 defendants for patent infringement. After the other defendants settled, Domino’s was sole defendant left in case. Court granted summary judgment of non-infringement in favor of Domino’s on five difference grounds.
RawCar Group, LLC v. Grace Medical et. al. Case no. 13-cv-01105 –AKB (S.D. Cal. 2014): Successfully represented plaintiff in patent infringement action on two patents. Court found both patents valid and infringed on summary judgment. At trial, jury awarded damages and found defendants willful.
DietGoal, Inc. v. Domino’s Pizza, Inc., Case No. 2:12-cv-430-RAJ (E.D. Virginia 2014): Successfully defended Domino’s in patent infringement action. Patent declared invalid as not directed to patentable subject matter.
PJC Logistics, LLC v. General Motors and OnStar, Case No. 12-cv-00234-DWF-SER (D. Minn 2013): Counsel for GM and OnStar in MDL in Minnesota. Successfully defended patent infringement claim.
In re Certain Automotive Navigational Systems, Investigation No. 337-TA-814 (International Trade Commission 2012): Counsel for Ford Motor Co. in successful defense of patent infringement action at the ITC.
Latentier, LLC v. International Paper Co., 725 F.Supp.2d 795; 2010 WL 1952855, (E.D. Wis. 2010) (NO. 08-C-501): Counsel for International Paper in successful defense of patent infringement action.
Sunbeam Products, Inc. v. HoMedics, Inc. , Case No. 08-cv-376 (W.D. Wis. 2010): Represented HoMedics in patent infringement action in Wisconsin. Successfully moved for summary judgment of non-infringement. The decision was affirmed after Sunbeam appealed to the Federal Circuit.
Great American Restaurant Company v. Domino’s Pizza, Case No. 07-cv-00052, 2008 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 32495 (E.D. Texas April 21, 2008): Counsel for Domino’s in successful defense of various trademark claims relating to Domino’s sale of its Brooklyn-style pizza.
Armament Systems & Procedures v Zen Design Group, Case No. 00-C-1257 (E.D. Wis. 2007): Lead counsel in successful patent litigation defending flashlight manufacturer in the Eastern District of Wisconsin with over $30 million at stake; patent was declared unenforceable for inequitable conduct before the PTO and attorneys’ fees were rewarded.
Domino’s Pizza PMC v. Caribbean Rhino, Inc., 453 F.Supp.2d 998 (E.D. Mich. 2006): Successfully enforced Domino’s trademarks rights relating to improper use of pizza cards.
FTD, Inc. v. Fleurop Interflora, Case No. 01-70954 (E.D. MI 2006): Successfully represented Swiss floral association, Fleurop Interflora, in trademark infringement action in the Eastern District of Michigan resulting in favorable settlement.
Benedict v. General Motors, Case No. 01-73026 (E.D. MI. 2004). 184 F. Supp.2d 11997 (2002): Successfully defended General Motors patent litigation in the Northern District of Florida with over $25 million at stake; patent was declared invalid on summary judgment.
General Motors v. The Wildside, Case No. 00-cv-483 (E.D. MI 2002): Successfully represented General Motors in trademark litigation resulting in finding of infringement on summary judgment. The finding was affirmed by the Sixth Circuit.
Hilgraeve Corporation v. Symantec Corporation, No. 97-40370 (E.D. Mich.): Counsel for plaintiff in a patent infringement action involving anti-virus software. Helped secure a $62.5 million settlement for our client on the eve of trial.

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