Source: https://www.grsm.com/lawyers/r/reid-e-dammann
Timestamp: 2019-04-22 08:02:53+00:00

Document:
Reid Dammann is a Partner in the Los Angeles and San Diego offices of Gordon & Rees practicing in the area of Intellectual Property, Internet and Technology law. Mr. Dammann represents clients in both the procurement and enforcement of intellectual property. Mr. Dammann’s background and graduate work in computer science and electrical engineering adds value to his ability to counsel clients in a wide range of technical matters, transactions, and disputes. He handles intellectual property cases, primarily involving patents, trademarks, including false advertising, false designation of origin, trademark counterfeiting, trade secret, and unfair competition claims, under the Lanham Act, the related Digital Millennium Act, California Business and Professions Code Section 17200 (unfair competition) et seq. and 17500, copyrights, and misappropriation, customs seizures and international trade, some cases involving a wide range of technologies and industry sectors including communications, computer related technologies, electronics, Internet technologies, semiconductor, software, mechanical devices and consumer products.
Mr. Dammann has both brought and defended intellectual property related cases in various courts including the Central District of California, Southern District of California and the Eastern District of Texas. He has experience in reexamination proceedings in the United States Patent and Trademark Office, often as a result of pending patent litigation. He has also represented clients in ex parte and inter partes proceedings in the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board and the Patent Trial and Appeal Board in the United States Patent and Trademark Office. Mr. Dammann also counsels on domain name disputes and has represented clients before National Arbitration Foundation in Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) Uniform Dispute Resolution Policy (UDRP) proceedings. He further renders patent clearance, validity and patentability opinions, due diligence investigations, and is experienced in drafting a wide variety of intellectual property agreements including software licenses and development agreements.
While in law school, Mr. Dammann was a recipient of the Santa Clara High Technology Law Scholarship and was a Technical Editor of the Santa Clara Computer & High Technology Law Journal.
The Green Pet Shop Enterprises, LLC v. Maze Innovations, Inc, Northern District of Illinois, 1:15-cv-01138. Represented plaintiff in a patent infringement action resulting in infringement and validity of the asserted patents.
Imagine That International, Inc. v. CS Tech US et al, Southern District of California, 3:15-cv-01558. Represented Defendant in a patent infringement action resulting in settlement for a nominal amount after presentment of motion for summary judgment on prior sale grounds.
USB Technologies, LLC v. PNY Technologies, Inc et al, Central District of California, 2:16-cv-05259. Represented Defendant in a patent infringement action resulting in dismissal.
Limestone Memory Systems, LLC v. PNY Technologies, Inc et al, Central District of California, 8:15-cv-00656. Represented Defendant in a patent infringement action resulting in dismissal.
iCitizen Corporation v. CitySourced, Inc., Middle District of Tennessee, 3:13-cv-01435, Represented Defendant in a trademark infringement suit resulting in payment to Defendant to acquire rights involved.
TraderPlanet.com, LLC v. The Foundation for the Study of Cycles, Inc., Middle District of Florida, 8:13-cv-03120. Represented Defendant in a trademark infringement suit resulting in payment to Defendant to acquire rights involved.
Orange Circle Studio Corporation v. Graphique De France, Ltd et al, Central District of California, 8:13-cv-01597. Represented Defendant in a copyright infringement case, resulting in dismissal.
Blue Spike, LLC v. Airborne Biometrics Group, Inc., Eastern District of Texas, 6:13-cv-00112. Represent Airborne Biometrics Group, Inc in defense of patent infringement action concerning patents relating to “signal abstracting,” identifying digital information and material, including video, audio, graphics, multimedia, and text based information, encompassing techniques known as “signal fingerprinting,” “acoustic fingerprinting,” or “robust hash functions.” Successful defense and dismissal of patent infringement case with no payment to plaintiff.
Imagine That International, Inc. v. Contech Enterprises, Inc. et al., Southern District of California, 3:12-cv-01153. Represented Defendant in a patent infringement suit resulting in settlement due to a strong assertion of invalidity.
IP Power Holdings Limited v. Bam Brokerage Inc et al, Central District of California, 8:11-cv-01234. Represented Plaintiff in a patent infringement case resulting in a judgment of infringement.
Tang v. Tofasco of America, Inc. et al, Western District of Arkansas, 5:11-cv-05112. Represented Defendant in a patent infringement case.
563704 B.C., Ltd. v. Reebok International, Ltd. et al., 2:11-cv-02642, Central District of California Represented Plaintiff in patent infringement matter.
Mizzetti v. Macadamia Natural Oil, LLC, 1:10-cv-01681, Northern District of Georgia. Represented Defendant in misappropriate of image, name, and likeness.
Ambato Media, LLC v. Clarion Co., Ltd et al, 2:09-cv-00242, Eastern District of Texas. Represented Defendant in a patent infringement suit, resulting in a favorable settlement.
Traffic Information, LLC v. Sony Electronics Inc. et al, 2:09-cv-00191, Eastern District of Texas. Represented Defendant in a patent infringement suit, resulting in settlement.
ICHL LLC v. BFG Technologies, Inc. et al., 2:09-cv-00191, Eastern District of Texas. Represented Defendant in a patent infringement suit, resulting in settlement.

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