Source: https://www.eckertseamans.com/our-practices/intellectual-property-litigation
Timestamp: 2019-04-21 22:57:43+00:00

Document:
Eckert Seamans’ Intellectual Property Group provides nationally-respected counsel to protect our clients’ intellectual property from potential disputes, but there are times when litigation is necessary. When these situations arise, our clients rely on the expertise of our intellectual property litigators who have successfully litigated patent, trade secret, trademark, trade dress, license, copyright, and service mark cases before various U.S. district courts, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, the Supreme Court of the United States, state courts, and administrative agencies such as the International Trade Commission (ITC).
Our patent infringement and trade secret litigation experience includes numerous electronics cases (dealing with low-level semiconductor electronics and high-level consumer electronics), skin care devices, flat glass products, pigment products, corrugated containers, steel processing equipment, global positioning system technology, aluminum, industrial vise equipment, therapeutic devices, paint and chemicals, wearable technology (e.g., integrated headphone/earmuffs and touch-screen capable gloves), and coating materials.
Eckert Seamans has litigated numerous trademark, copyright and unfair competition cases as well as licensing disputes for clients such as an international racetrack operator, a radio station, the largest reconditioned car “mega-store” dealer in the U.S., a home security company, a major university, the largest private educational institution in the U.S., producers of professional hair care products, an international quick service restaurant chain, and major motion picture production companies. We have also litigated such cases for producers of wine, business accessories, storage containers, tools, composite plastic structures, motorcycles, and steel mini-mill and iron carbide production equipment. In addition, we have represented financial services companies, including insurance companies, an investment banking firm, and a mortgage brokerage firm in service mark litigation.
Innovative Memory Solutions, Inc. v. Micron Technology, Inc. (D. Del.) – a multi-patent litigation concerning Flash memory devices.
Advanced Video Technologies LLC v. HTC, Motorola Mobility, Blackberry, and others (SDNY) – a series of litigations concerning video CODECs in consumer electronics.
In Re: Certain Electric Skin Care Devices, Brushes and Chargers Therefore, and Kits Containing Same (ITC Inv. No. 337-TA-959) – an ITC investigation regarding skin care brushes.
Pacific Bioscience Laboratories, Inc. v. Michael Todd LP & MTTO LLC (WD Wash) – the companion district court case related to ITC Inv. No. 959.
Vandor Corp. v. Matthews Int’l Corp. (SD Ind) – a patent litigation concerning funerary products.
David R. Siskin v. Fownes Brothers & Co. Inc. (ND Cal) – a patent litigation concerning headphone earmuffs.
Doctor’s Associates, Inc. v. Sheetz Inc., et al., 09-cv-88, E.D. Va;. (2009) – Successfully defended a motion for TRO and a preliminary injunction brought by parent company of sandwich industry Subway, based on claims of trademark infringement, unfair competition, and dilution.
Noasha LLC v. Nordic Group of Cos., Ltd., et al., 630 F.Supp2d 544 (E.D.Pa., June 18, 2009)—Successfully defended a motion for preliminary injunction brought by the manufacturer of a collectible marble who alleged infringement of a federal trademark registration.
Art’s Toy Manufacturing Co., Inc. v. Chick-Fil-A, Inc., Civ. No. 2:06-cv-00780-TMG (E.D. Pa.)—Successfully defended against a claim of copyright infringement if the design of a plush cow derived from pre-existing art.

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