Source: https://www.mayerbrown.com/en/people/m/mancini-a-john-p
Timestamp: 2019-04-23 06:06:50+00:00

Document:
John Mancini is a partner in Mayer Brown’s New York office and a member of the global Intellectual Property practice, which was named IP Practice Group of the Year for 2017 by Law360. John has served in various firm management roles, including a prior tenure as global co-chair of the Intellectual Property practice and as a past member of the firm’s Global Partnership Board. John's practice focuses on litigating copyright, trademark, trade dress, trade secret and patent disputes in courts across the country, as well as before the Copyright Royalty Board (CRB), the United States International Trade Commission (ITC), the United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) and the USPTO Trademark Trial & Appeal Board (TTAB). John has successfully tried numerous complex intellectual property cases to successful bench and jury verdicts, all as lead counsel. In his practice, John has represented both public and private companies in a wide range of industries, with a particular concentration on the representation of technology, media and telecom companies, such as Google, YouTube, LG, Spotify and AT&T.
John has been at the forefront of numerous disputes that have shaped intellectual property law, especially disputes involving the convergence of new media, the Internet and new technologies. John has particular expertise in the digital media space and has represented digital distribution companies in various disputes with content owners, particularly in the music industry. For his various litigation victories for notable clients in these areas, John has received numerous awards and accolades. Notably, in 2013, John was named an Intellectual Property MVP by Law360, which recognizes a select few leading IP lawyers in the country. In 2015, he was named an IP Star by Managing Intellectual Property. In 2016, he was named an Intellectual Property Trailblazer by The National Law Journal in their award series that recognizes attorneys who are innovative legal practitioners. John was inducted into The Legal 500 Hall of Fame for Trade Secret Litigation after being recognized by that publication as a Leading Lawyer in that field for several consecutive years. John has also been recognized in Copyright Litigation by The Legal 500, where he was described as "approachable and experienced" and "an excellent negotiator and advocate." John is also ranked in New York Super Lawyers, Managing Intellectual Property and IAM 1000. In 2018, John was recognized by World Trademark Review 1000 as a "fierce litigator," and was "also praised for his fair and reasonable approach to reaching a good resolution."
Represented Google and YouTube in defense of related cases for alleged copyright infringement relating to videos posted by users on YouTube. Won summary judgment in a landmark decision that held the Digital Millennium Copyright Act's "safe harbor" provision protects YouTube against liability for the presence of allegedly infringing videos on the site. (Viacom v. YouTube, Inc. (USDC SDNY)).
Represents Spotify in defense of a copyright class action on behalf of a putative class of music composers who allege that Spotify infringes the copyrights of music composers by making their compositions available through their digital music service without proper licenses. (Ferrick v. Spotify USA Inc., (USDC SDNY)).
Represents Spotify in a proceeding to determine the royalty rates for streaming of musical compositions. This proceeding will determine the royalty rate to be paid by all interactive music services, including Spotify, for the mechanical license fees to be paid to music publishers for the embedded composition in songs streamed on their services. Determination of Rates and Terms for Making and Distributing Phonorecords. Docket No. 16-CRB-0003-PR (2018-2022) (CRB).
Represented Google and its subsidiary, YouTube, in Memphis, Tennessee in the successful defense of copyright and trademark infringement claims, based on the posting of a YouTube video that allegedly infringed the copyrights and trademarks of a rapper. The claims were fully dismissed pursuant to a successful Twombly motion, which decision was affirmed on appeal. (Pamela Moses v. YouTube, Inc. et al. (USDC WD Tenn.)).
Represents Google in defense of a copyright litigation case that implicates issues relating to Section 115 mechanical licenses and relates to claims that Google (and other online music retailers) infringes the copyrights of music composers by making their compositions available through their online digital media stores without proper authorization. (Blagman v. Google (USDC SDNY)).
Represented Cablevision in a suit brought by Viacom for alleged breach of its licensing and distribution agreements, copyright infringement, trademark infringement, unfair competition and declaratory judgment concerning Cablevision’s application to display cable content on the iPad. (Viacom International Inc., et al. v. Cablevision Systems Corporation and CSC Holdings, LLC (USDC SDNY)).
Represented Nespresso USA in a trademark and trade dress infringement, cybersquatting and false designation of origin under the Lanham Act against Africa America Coffee Trading Co. d/b/a Libretto alleging that Libretto offered “Nespresso Compatible” capsules for use with Nespresso’s machines by designing its capsules and packaging to be nearly identical to Nespresso’s famous trade dress and to use “Nespresso” among its website code to direct people to its website. Won a permanent injunction enjoining Libretto from using Nespresso’s trademarks and trade dress or any marks that may be calculated to falsely imply sponsorship by or affiliation with Nespresso, ordering the destruction of all unauthorized goods bearing Nespresso’s trademarks or trade dress, and finding that Libretto engaged in its infringing acts willfully. (Nespresso USA, Inc. v. Africa America Coffee Trading Co. LLC, (USDC SDNY)).
Represented Entertainment One in defense of claims for trademark infringement, trademark dilution and unfair competition arising out of a recent rebranding effort to adopt "E1 Entertainment" as its new trade name. Won finding of no confusion in connection with motion for preliminary injunction, which finding was affirmed on appeal. (E! Entertainment Television, Inc. v. Entertainment One GP Limited d/b/a E1 Entertainment, et al. (USDC CDCA)).
Represented Modern Luxury Media (a subsidiary of Cumulus Media) in an action for trademark infringement, trademark dilution and unfair competition against Celebrity Cruises. Modern Luxury alleged infringement of its famous MODERN LUXURY trademark based on Celebrity Cruises’ use of an identical mark in advertising and marketing, as well as Celebrity Cruises’ application to register a trademark in THAT’S MODERN LUXURY. After extensive litigation, the case settled on terms favorable to Modern Luxury. (DM Luxury, LLC v. Celebrity Cruises, Inc. (USDC NDIL)).
Represented Nestle USA and Dreyer's Grand Ice Cream in defense of trademark infringement claims brought relating to the use of Weight Watchers Points trademarks on packaging and websites for its Lean Cuisine and Skinny Cow lines of products. (Weight Watchers Int'l v. Nestle USA, Inc. (USDC SDNY)).
Represents d.light design, Inc., a for-profit enterprise that designs solar-powered lights for families without electricity, in a proceeding pending in the Northern District of California. d.light has sued 10 different Chinese-based manufacturers that were marketing and selling knockoff versions of d.light’s products, thereby infringing d.light’s design patent, trade dress, and trademark rights. (d.light design, Inc. et al v. Boxin Solar Co., Ltd (USDC NDCA)).
Represented Ion Media Networks, a division of Paxson Communications, in defense of claims for trademark infringement brought by Positive Ions, Inc. over use of the mark ION. (Positive Ions, Inc. v. Ion Media Networks, Inc., Paxson Communications Corp., and Does 1-10 (USDC CDCA)).
Represented Faiveley USA in the prosecution of trade secret misappropriation, unfair competition and unjust enrichment claims against Wabtec Corporation related to tread brakes for railway cars. Won summary judgment on liability and won jury verdict of approximately $20 million, one of the largest reported in a New York trade secrets case. (Faiveley USA, et al. v. Wabtec Corporation (USDC SDNY)).
Represented Avago Technologies Limited, Avago Technologies U.S., Inc. and Avago Technologies Wireless in a patent, trade secret misappropriation, copyright infringement and antitrust action pertaining to film bulk acoustic resonators - electronic devices used in cellular telephones. (TriQuint Semiconductor Inc. v. Avago Technologies Limited, Avago Technologies U.S., Inc. and Avago Technologies Wireless, IP (USDC D. Arizona)); (Avago Technologies Limited, et al v. Robert Aigner et al (USDC M.D. Fla)).
Represented Sit-Up, Limited, a division of Virgin Media, in the prosecution of trade secret misappropriation and breach of contract claims involving the alleged theft of its “secret sauce” for a new and innovative approach to a home shopping television entertainment channel. (Sit-Up, Limited v. IAC Corp and Home Shopping Network (USDC SDNY)).
Represented Design Ideas in defense of claims brought for trade secret misappropriation, trademark infringement and unfair competition relating to the use of the “GEL GEMS” trademark for decorative window clings and the allegedly secret formula for manufacturing such products. (Geliman, S.A. v. Design Ideas, Limited (USDC SDNY)).
Successfully represented Pernod Ricard before the US International Trade Commission (ITC). In the first case under the ITC’s new pilot program intended to streamline Section 337 investigations, the ALJ and ITC found that the Complainant, Lamina Packaging, failed to satisfy the domestic industry requirement and terminated the proceeding within the first 100 days. (In the Matter of Certain Products Having Laminated Packaging, Laminated Packaging, and Components Thereof (ITC Investigation No. 337-TA-874)).
Successfully represented Nestlé in a patent infringement matter involving a fat composition allegedly suitable for causing certain cholesterol benefits in the blood serum. Obtained a favorable claim construction ruling from Judge Richard Posner (sitting by designation), which led to a stipulation of non-infringement. (Brandeis Univ. v. Nestlé USA (N.D. Ill.)).
Successfully defended Kellogg’s in a patent case involving a patent for a fat composition allegedly suitable for causing certain cholesterol benefits in the blood serum. Won a series of case-dispositive Daubert motions to exclude plaintiffs’ expert testimony on damages and liability. In particular, the court excluded plaintiffs’ damages testimony that relied on a royalty rate that was solely dependent on a license achieved in a litigation settlement and excluded plaintiffs’ damages testimony based on a “profits at risk” analysis, finding those analyses to be inferior to the cost of implementing available non-infringing alternatives. (Brandeis Univ. v. Keebler (N.D. Ill.)).
Successfully defended Google in a patent case involving a patent titled “Safe Transaction Guaranty,” which sought patent protection over a method of providing a guaranty service for online transactions. If valid, the patent would prevent third parties from providing performance guarantees for online transactions. Successfully had the patent deemed invalid on Bilski grounds, namely, that the patent claimed patent-ineligible subject matter under Section 101 of the Patent Act. (buySAFE Inc. v. Google Inc. (USDC D. Del.)).
Represents Google and Motorola Mobility in defense of patent litigation cases relating to patents for allegedly providing demographically targeted advertising on tablets and smartphones. (B.E. Technology L.L.C. v. Google Inc. and B.E. Technology L.L.C. v. Motorola Mobility (W.D. Tenn.)).
Represented Coby Electronics in an ITC Proceeding involving patent infringement claims for five different patents held by Vizio and relating to “QAM” tuners for use in digital TVs. Served as co-lead trial counsel. (Vizio, Inc. v. Coby Electronics Corp., et al., Case No. 8:11-cv-0783-DOC (C.D. CA), and In the Matter of Certain Digital Televisions and Components Thereof (ITC Investigation No. 337-TA-789)).
Represented Waggin’ Train (a subsidiary of Nestlé Purina PetCare Company) in a patent infringement suit involving allegations that certain Waggin’ Train pet chews infringe a patent for a method of processing porkhide dog chews. Won dismissal of the complaint under Rule 12(b)(6) for failure to state a claim under Twombly and Iqbal (Prestige Pet Products, Inc. v. Pingyang Huaxing Leather and Plastic Co., Ltd. (USDC E.D. Michigan)).

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