Patent, IP & Technology Litigation

Intellectual property litigation can be a powerful offensive or defensive tool and a vital component of business strategy. Whether driven by a preemptive or preventative approach, patent litigation can stop competitors from designing, launching, importing and marketing products that infringe your patent rights and protect against claims that threaten your investments and assets. Trademark, trade secret, copyright, and unfair competition claims can be deployed separately or as part of a coordinated litigation strategy to protect key investments, including your irreplaceable reputation and goodwill.


Our patent litigation team mobilizes technical and scientific knowledge, business understanding, and courtroom experience to protect your patent rights. Our attorneys have handled hundreds of patent litigations in courts throughout the United States, including in those jurisdictions known for speedy dispositions and expedited paths to trial.

We are recognized nationally for our patent litigation capabilities, which includes a network of attorneys throughout the world who facilitate a global approach, where needed, to the resolution of patent disputes. Our patent litigators and prosecutors work closely on specialized USPTO post-grant proceedings, including reissues, reexaminations and inter partes reviews (IPRs).

Our litigation team also draws upon deep experience litigating trademark, copyright, unfair competition, licensing, and trade secret issues — both as stand-alone legal claims and as elements of broader intellectual property or business disputes.  Our attorneys apply these diverse legal theories across a broad range of industries, from online marketing and the latest digital and virtual technologies to established industries such as  manufacturing and forest products. 

We handle intellectual property disputes in courts across the country, and we also have experience leveraging alternative forums including domestic and international arbitrations, the Trademark Trial and Appeals Board, and industry self-regulatory review proceedings for false advertising.  Our experience gives us the perspective to weave together a variety of legal claims and theories across multiple potential venues into a coordinated litigation strategy tailored to your business objectives.

Our Services

  • All phases of patent, trademark, copyright, unfair competition, and trade secret litigation
  • Patent licensing and monetization
  • Patent infringement, validity and enforceability opinions 
  • Patent reexaminations, reissues and IPRs
  • Trademark opposition and cancellation proceedings
  • International and domestic arbitration and mediation
  • ITC actions and proceedings
  • Appeals
  • Alternative dispute resolution
  • Domain name disputes (UDRP)

Experience Across a Broad Range of Technologies and Industries

  • Biotechnology
  • Business Systems
  • Consumer Products
  • Display Technology
  • Electronics
  • Exercise and Sporting Goods
  • Food Products and Distribution
  • Instrumentation
  • Lasers
  • Mechanical Devices
  • Medical Devices
  • Petroleum
  • Software
  • Telecommunications
  • Wineries
  • Wood Products

Strategy Aligned with Business Objectives

The path to resolving a patent, trademark, or other intellectual property dispute is guided by numerous factors including venue, current/future value of the asset, competitive issues, and company strategy. We’ll communicate with you at the outset to map the path forward, assess merits and risks, and decide on the right options and strategies to achieve your goals. We align the litigation strategy with your business objectives and priorities to minimize interruption and risk.

  • Represented American Traffic Solutions, Inc., the nation’s leading supplier of automated traffic enforcement technology, in patent litigation against a competitor in multiple jurisdictions. The case resulted in a judgment of patent infringement, validity and enforceability in favor of our client; the entry of a permanent injunction against the competitor; and the assignment of the competitor’s own patent portfolio to our client. 
  • Defended, Inc., against charges of infringement brought by an owner of various patents covering consumer goods. Amazon was accused of violating the plaintiffs’ patent, copyright, trademark, publicity and competition rights. The case resulted in claim dismissal, summary judgment, declaratory judgment and an award of attorneys’ fees and costs in our client’s favor.
  • Represented ITEX Corporation in a trademark, advertising and deceptive trade practices litigation involving virtual currency and barter exchanges, resulting in a judgment of false and misleading advertising, entry of a permanent injunction and an award of attorneys’ fees and costs.
  • Successfully overcame attempts by patent assertion entities (also referred to by courts and commentators as “non-practicing entities” or “patent trolls”) to demand licensing payments from clients based on patents of contested economic and innovative value. 
  • Defended Targus, Inc., against infringement claims directed at Targus’s laptop computer bags. We obtained summary judgment of non-infringement and a unanimous decision from the Federal Circuit affirming that judgment. Wleklinski v. Targus, Inc., No. 2007-1273 (Fed. Cir. Dec. 17, 2007).
  • Represented Park City Group, Inc., in a series of infringement actions against competitors infringing Park City Group’s business software patents for such innovations as labor scheduling and demand forecasting.
  • Represented Spectra-Physics in enforcing a patent against IPG Photonics Corporation. The patent covered Spectra-Physics’ groundbreaking fiber laser technology.
  • Represented Xerox Corporation in three related lawsuits concerning the manufacture, distribution and marketing of solid ink supplies for use in Xerox’s Phaser® brand color office printers. Xerox pursued claims against a manufacturer of non-Xerox brand solid ink for infringement of various Xerox solid ink patents and unfair competition. Final judgments of patent infringement, validity and compliance with antitrust laws were entered in Xerox’s favor in all three cases with an injunction prohibiting further infringement of the Xerox patents.
  • Defended MetroChem against accusations of patent infringement by a competitor that had successfully enforced its patent in over 10 other cases. Although the patent had survived prior reexaminations unscathed, we successfully requested reexamination, causing all asserted claims to be substantively amended. This resulted in summary judgment of non-infringement and dismissal with prejudice of all claims.  
Insights & Presentations
Saved Pages

Use the arrows to arrange content.  Download pages as a .pdf file or share links via email..

{{ item.Title }} {{ item.AttorneyPosition }}, {{ item.AttorneyLocation }} , C. {{ item.AttorneyCell }} , P. {{ item.AttorneyPhone }} , F. {{ item.AttorneyFax }} {{ item.TypeText }} Remove
You have no pages saved
            {{ state | json }}