| The Firms's patent litigation practice is substantial. Bolstered by the trial and litigation skills of Mr. Rylander, and the patent prosecution experience of the Firm attorneys, the Firm has provided numerous favorable results for its clients following a simple formula: State the facts clearly and honestly, provide the black letter law, and be persistent. Following this formula, the Firm recently succeeded in securing favorable relief, and a precedential Federal Circuit decision, in Campbell Pet Co. v. Miale.
CASE STUDIES
Case Study #1. A client came in after losing a patent priority interference before the Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences (BPAI). The client had represented himself/herself against a large law firm. Every possible ruling of the BPAI appeared to go against the client. With only days left in the statutory
time limit to appeal, we recognized that a de novo appeal to Federal District Court provided a better opportunity
for the client than a review on the record by the Federal Circuit. By quick action and thorough
investigation of all possible witnesses, and navigating the complex interference legal requirements, we
succeed in bringing the client favorable relief. The BPAI decision was reversed, and priority awarded to
our client.
Case Study #2. A business owner retained us to examine a competitor’s use of the business owner’s
name in a nearby city. Investigators snapped pictures showing the offending use. The competitor refused
to back down and suit was filed for trademark infringement. We succeeded in receiving an injunction
for our client against the competitor’s use of the name, requiring the competitor to change the name.
Case Study #3. A business person who created a unique line of furniture asked us to look into available
protection. We determined the possibility of protection under trade dress laws, and under copyright
law. We quickly filed copyright applications on each furniture piece, and had the applications in place
for the client when the client met with a large regional retailer. The client received favorable results after
the retailer’s representative confided that if the copyright applications had not been filed, the retailer
had intended to just run the line itself, without making a deal.
Case Study #4. A business owner retained us to examine actions of former employees who had left
the company and taken up similar positions with another company. Further, evidence existed that the
employees had transferred vendor and customer and pricing information from their work computers to
disks and removed the disks from the work place. Through quick action we secured a temporary restraining
order, later converted to a preliminary injunction against the employee working for the competitor,
and against use of the confidential client information.
Case Study #5. A business owner and inventor was referred to us to examine actions of the Postal Service.
The Postal Service had “approved” for placement in rural mailboxes a patented secure mailbox
conversion device. After the client had incurred significant costs in running a line and marketing the
invention, the Postal Service, without explanation, voided the “approval” leaving the client out significant
sums. Through suit in Federal District Court, we succeeded in providing favorable relief for the
client to compensate this damage.
SOME PATENT CASES HANDLED
(cases handled by our attorneys were not in all cases handled while at the Firm)
(cases listed are not a representation of any guarantee or expectation)
Campbell Pet Co. v. Miale et al. (USDC WDW)
Suit for declaration of non-infringement and invalidity of patents. Dismissed on personal jurisdiction grounds, the Firm appealed to the Federal Circuit and secured a reversal and a precedential decision. After remand, the parties resolved the case including a consent judgment of non-infringement. Representing the Plaintiff.
Bernardy v. Powell (USDC WDW)
Trial de novo patent interference appeal from the Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences. Representing the Plaintiff
Simplar v. Performance (USDC WDW)
Patent infringement, declaration of inventorship, declaration of ownership. Representing the Plaintiff.
Bamburgh Marrsh LLC v. Wickstea(Clark County, WA)
Ownership of intellectual property, including patents and patent applications. Representing Plaintiff.
Cole Screen Print v. PotHuggers, Inc.(USDC WDW)
Patent infringement.
Representing the Defendant.
J.E. Hynds LLC v Hopscotch Technology (USDC WDW)
Patent infringement.
Representing the Plaintiff.
Schumer v. LCS/Telegraphics (USDC WDW)
Patent infringement.
Representing the Defendant.
>Arndt v. Mokai Mfg. (USDC DOR)
Patent infringement.
Representing the Plaintiff.
Proven Winners North America v. Cascade Greenhouse (USDC MD FL)
Plant Patent infringement.
Representing the Defendant.
Proven Winners North America v. Cascade Greenhouse <(USDC WDW)
Plant Patent infringement.
Representing the Defendant.
Plant 21 LLC v. Cascade Greenhouse(USDC WDW)
Plant Patent infringement.
Representing the Defendant.
Edwards v. Lemmons et al.(USDC WDW)
Patent infringement.
Representing the Plaintiff.
>Schumer v. LCS/Telegraphics(USDC WDW)
Patent infringement.
Representing the Defendant.
Bamburgh Marrsh LLC v. Veritest International(Clark County, WA)
Breach of technology licensing agreement, including licensing of patent applications. Representing Plaintiff.
|
