Source: https://ascendantip.com/about/
Timestamp: 2019-04-21 06:21:04+00:00

Document:
Defending works of the mind is a challenging task left to only the most passionate of lawyers. Intellectual property lawyers must respect the contributions and innovations of individuals and businesses, possess a deep understanding of the law and have the willingness to do everything it takes to fight for intellectual property rights.
Principal of Ascendant IP®, Charles L. Thoeming, is an intellectual property lawyer with decades of experience in law, business and chemical engineering. Offering counseling and advice predicated on responsibility, perseverance, commitment to excellence, courage, creativity and high ethical and moral standards, Charles Thoeming practices with passion and the will to do what ought to be done to further a client’s intellectual property rights.
Each case is undertaken with a distinct knowledge of client goals and expected outcomes. Working successfully on all aspects of IP law, including patents, trademarks, copyrights and trade secrets, clients have come to trust Charles Thoeming’s understanding of the complex aspects of intellectual property representation. Additionally, he specializes in patent prosecution, patent litigation, patent reexaminations and business method patent trials, trademark prosecution, trademark litigation, trademark cancellations, trademark oppositions, and IP audits.
With Ascendant IP®, you can spend more time focusing on creating and less on navigating the complexities of intellectual property law. If you’d like to schedule an appointment for a consultation, contact Ascendant IP® today.
Registered Patent Attorney – U.S. Patent and Trademark Office; U. S. Patent Trial and Appeal Board; and U. S. Trademark Office Trial and Appeal Board.
DeltaTRAK. Inc. v. Environmental Friendly Products, Inc., Case No. CV-98-0075 LKK GGH, U.S. District Court, Eastern District of California, Sacramento Division.
Dentsply International, Inc. v. Zap Lasers, LLC, Opposition No. 91184615, Trademark Trial and Appeals Board, U. S. Patent and Trademark Office.
Robert Mondavi Winery v. Animo, L.P. Opposition No. 91185778, Trademark Trial and Appeals Board, U. S. Patent and Trademark Office.
Woodmark Group v. Magers, et al., Civil Case No. C-07-03063; U. S. District Court for the Northern District of California, San Francisco Division.
Herman Goelitz Candy Co., Inc. vs. ABCO Laboratories, Inc.; Opposition No. 120,012; Trademark Trial and Appeal Board, U. S. Patent and Trademark Office.
Bell Brothers Heating and Air, Inc. vs. J. D. Greenberg Enterprises, Inc., et al., Case No. 2:12-CV-01525-KJM-EFB; U. S. District Court, Eastern District of California, Sacramento Division.
Audubon Cellars, Inc. vs. American-Nordic Trading Company, Case No. 677077; Harris County Court at Law, Houston, Texas.
GVR Public Relations Agency, Inc. v. Society of Mexican American Engineers and Scientists, Inc. and Martin Martinez; C.A. NO. H-01-4057; U. S. District Court, Southern District of Texas, Houston Division.
Pods Enterprises v. Keith Kenneally; Opposition No. 91195586; Trademark Trial and Appeals Board, U. S. Patent and Trademark Office.
SmithKline Beecham Corporation v. ABCO Laboratories, Inc.; Opposition No. 91/158,970; Trademark Trial and Appeals Board, U. S. Patent and Trademark Office.
Swiss Brands v. Brian A. Dempsey; Opposition Proceeding No. 91175614; Trademark Trial and Appeals Board, U. S. Patent and Trademark Office.
Cedric A. Martin v. Con Funk Shun, J.V.; Opposition Proceeding No. 91176478; Trademark Trial and Appeals Board, U. S. Patent and Trademark Office.
Micro Dental Laboratories v. Richard Chiu, Individually and d/b/a Microdent Ceramics, Case No. 97-21032 RMW; United States District Court, Northern District of California – San Jose Division.
Trade Secret Misappropriation, Trademark Infringement.
Improved Piping Products Inc. v. Steve Yang, Catco LLC, et al.; Contra Costa County Superior Court.
Katrina Rozelle Pastries and Deserts v. Karen Del Bonta; Contra Costa County Superior Court.
CopyPro, Inc. and WordTech Systems, Inc. v. Tiberiu Czente, et al.; Case No. C-96-03321; Contra Costa County, California Superior Court.
Transworld Services, Inc. v. BioGenex Laboratories, Inc., Case No. CIVMSC00-04699, Superior Court for the State of California, Contra Costa County.
Defense/Counterclaim for trade debt issues relating to intellectual property licensing.
William M. Drake v. William Bruce Smith, Case No. 2:05-CV-01503 MCE PAN, U.S. District Court, Eastern District of California, Sacramento Division.
Patent – Correction of Inventorship.
BioGenex Laboratories, Inc. v. Cell Marque Corporation, Case No. CV-99-3001 CW, U. S. District Court for the Northern District of California, Oakland Division.
Intermotive, Inc. vs. InPower, LLC, Case No. 2:05-CV-00844-FCD-GG;, U. S. District Court, Eastern District of California, Sacramento Division.
CNI Manufacturing, Inc. vs Phil-Tite Enterprises and Phillip Smith; Case No. CV-01-4099 EDL ADR, U. S. District Court for the Northern District of California, San Francisco Division.
MIZUHO Orthopedic Systems, Inc. vs. Steris Corporation; Civil Action No. 3:13 – CV – 01077 JSW; U. S. District Court for the Northern District of California, San Francisco Division.
MIZUHO Orthopedic Systems, Inc. vs. Maquet Cardiovascular, LLC, et al.; Civil Action No. 3:13 – CV – 01587 MMC; U. S. District Court for the Northern District of California, San Francisco Division.
National Upholstery Company v. Pat Kuleto Restaurant Development & Management Company, Patrick Kuleto, and International Upholstery Company; Case No. CV-02-4408 JL ADR; U. S. District Court for the Northern District of California, San Francisco Division.
Carver v. Velodyne Acoustics, Inc., Case Nos. C-00-1477L and C-00-1194L; U. S. District Court, Western District of Washington – Seattle Division.
Beta-Calco, Inc. vs. Scott Architectural Lighting and Scott Lamp Company, Inc.; Civil Action No. 5:13 – cv – 01543, JRA, Magistrate Judge Limbert; U. S. District Court, Northern District of Ohio – Eastern Division/Cleveland.
The Redd Group, LLC et al. vs. The Glass Guru Franchise Systems, Inc. and Daniel Frey; Civil Action No. 3:12 – CV – 04070 EJD; United States District Court, Northern District of California – San Jose Division.
Brass Smith, LLC vs. Advanced Design Manufacturing, LLC; Case No. CV10-04945 PSG (FFMX); United States District Court, Central District of California – Western Los Angeles Division.
In re U.S. Letters Patent of Steven Yatchak, Patent No. 6,588,863, Ex-parte Reexamination Application No.: 90/012,412, Patent Board of Appeals and Interferences, U. S. Patent and Trademark Office.
In re U.S. Letters Patent of Gregory E. Schafer, et al., Patent No. 6,594,565, Inter-partes Reexamination Application No.: 95/000,171, Patent Board of Appeals and Interferences, U. S. Patent and Trademark Office.

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