Nathan C. Brunette

Nathan Brunette draws on his behind the scenes as a federal judicial clerk, both at the trial court level (U.S. District Court for the District of Maryland) and at the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit to effectively represent technology and consumer products companies in high-stakes patent and IP litigation.  He has represented clients in state and federal courts, private arbitration, and International Trade Commission Section 337 investigations. His experience includes litigating patent, trademark, trade dress, licensing, cybersquatting, trade secret, IP-related antitrust, and IP-related commercial matters. In addition, he counsels clients about the protection, enforcement, and monetization of technology and intellectual property assets in the context of business opportunities and transactions.

Education

Georgetown University Law Center, J.D., 2006, magna cum laude; Order of the Coif; Dean's List; Managing Editor, State and Local Tax Lawyer

Georgetown University, B.S., 2003, magna cum laude; Phi Beta Kappa; Dean's List; Captain and Secretary, Mock Trial Team; Steering Committee Member, John Carroll Scholars Honors Program

Admissions

Oregon

Maryland

United States District Courts for the District of Oregon, District of Maryland, and Western District of Texas

United States Courts of Appeals for the Fourth, Ninth, and Federal Circuits

Patent Litigation

• Represented SnapRays, LLC d/b/a SnapPower in a Section 337 investigation before the International Trade Commission (ITC) seeking a general exclusion order to prevent the importation of products infringing the client’s patents, including multiple direct competitors’ products. Following the hearing in early 2019, the ITC found a violation of Section 337 and entered a general exclusion order that would bar any party from importing infringing products into the United States. Certain Powered Cover Plates, No. 337-TA-1124.
• Represented security technology company in defending patent infringement and trade secret misappropriation action originally filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois and subsequently transferred to the U.S. District Court for the District of Oregon. Patent infringement claims were dismissed following claim construction, and the remainder of the case then settled on confidential terms.
• Represented medical device manufacturer in a patent infringement action. After the court dismissed the case with leave to amend and expedited expert discovery, our team successfully defeated a motion for preliminary injunction seeking to halt all sales of the accused product and won a stay of the litigation pending reexamination. The case subsequently settled.
• Obtained permanent injunction and judgment on multiple counts of patent infringement, validity, and enforceability in a case involving claims for patent infringement, tortious interference, and unfair competition against an infringing competitor in the public safety technology space.
• Represented designer and manufacturer of recycling handling systems sold worldwide, in a series of three patent infringement and declaratory judgment cases in the Middle District of Tennessee and the Western District of Washington. The court granted our team’s motion to dismiss declaratory judgment claims for lack of personal jurisdiction in Tennessee, and our motion for costs. Our motion to dismiss a patent infringement action in Tennessee was pending when the parties settled the dispute.

Federal Circuit Appeals

• Represented internet technology company in Federal Circuit appeal from Patent Trial and Appeals Board decision in inter partes review proceeding.
• Represented military contractor patentee in successful Federal Circuit appeal resulting in reversal of summary judgment of non-infringement and subsequent confidential settlement of case shortly prior to scheduled trial.
• Represented a patent licensing business in amicus curiae brief supporting rehearing en banc in a case involving the scope of intervening rights before the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit. Rehearing en banc was granted, and the original panel decision was reversed. Reports credited our team’s brief as the catalyst for the court’s decision to rehear the case.

Copyright, Trademark, and IP Litigation

• Defended multiple technology and business service companies accused in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California of infringing a database software company’s copyrights through use allegedly exceeding license terms, resulting in confidential settlement in all cases.
• Represented branded supplier of over-the-counter drugs in a series of trademark disputes involving third parties using and attempting to register a variety of confusingly similar marks, including through demand letters, U.S. District Court litigation, an opposition proceeding before the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office’s Trademark Trial and Appeals Board, and settlement negotiations. Most of the infringing parties agreed to cease infringement without litigation.
• Obtained preliminary and permanent injunctive relief for insurance company in trademark and cybersquatting litigation against unauthorized seller of merchandise bearing the company’s name and newly launched updated logo. Our team filed litigation in the U.S. District Court for the District of Idaho, resulting in a settlement, permanent injunction, and transfer of the offending domain name.
• Represented emergency medical equipment manufacturer as part of litigation team asserting and defending competing Lanham Act false advertising claims against a direct competitor. The parties ultimately resolved their dispute through a confidential settlement.
• Obtained preliminary injunctive relief for Troy Healthcare LLC in a trademark and trade dress infringement case brought against Troy’s former distributor, Nutraceutical Corporation, in the Western District of Washington. Our team acted swiftly to obtain an injunction against the defendant’s use of the mark DROPAIN and trade dress confusingly similar to that used with Troy’s STOPAIN^® topical analgesic products and requiring a recall of products from resellers nationwide. The case ultimately settled.
• Represented Harry and David in a series of disputes asserting that competitors’ use of Harry and David’s trademarks in internet search engine keyword advertising constituted trademark infringement. Results: Most cases settled.

Speaking Engagements

Publications

Press Releases

Special Reports

• Listed in the IAM Patent 1000: The World’s Leading Patent Practitioners, 2023–present

Professional

• Intellectual Property Owners Association Standing Committee on Discovery, Former Member
• Oregon State Bar sections on Intellectual Property; Litigation; and Antitrust, Trade Regulation, and Unfair Business Practices, Member 

Civic

• Friends of the Multnomah County Library, Former Board Member and Former Chair of Technology Committee