Popular

Representative Litigations

Our Counsel Have Represented Leading Corporations for Their High-Stakes Litigations . . . A.V. Imports v. Spirits International, N.V. A.V. Imports v. Spirits International N.V., No. 92043340 (Trademark Trial and Appeal Board (TTAB) May 19, 2004). Representation of plaintiff A.V. Imports, Inc., and its successor A.V Brands, Inc. which sought cancellation of the trademark registration RUSSKAYA for vodka on the grounds of abandonment. A.V. Imports, Inc. v. Col De Fratta,




Claim Construction & Disclaimer –Federal Circuit Sides with the University of Minnesota

07/01/2013 In Regents of the University of Minnesota v. AGA Medical Corp., No. 12-1167 (Fed. Cir. June 3, 2013), the Federal Circuit affirmed the district court’s partial dismissal of a suit brought by the University of Minnesota (“the University”) alleging that AGA Medical Corp. (“AGA”) infringed the University’s medical devices patents. The University’s patents cover medical devices for repairing heart defects. Specifically, the two patents, derived from the same parent




The Lanham Act and Jim Brown

On July 31, 2013, the Ninth Circuit affirmed dismissal of the Lanham Act claims brought by Jim Brown, a former NFL star, against video game developer Electronic Arts, Inc. (EA). The court concluded that the Rogers balancing test was the appropriate standard to evaluate defendant EA’s use of Brown’s likeness in video games, and since the use of his likeness was artistically relevant to games, it is protected by the




The Federal Circuit Rules on Apple v. ITC

On August 7, 2013, the Federal Circuit affirmed-in-part the lower court’s decision in Apple Inc. v. ITC (2012-1338) finding no Section 337 violation in Certain Mobile Devices, and Related Software Thereof (Inv. No. 337-TA-750). The Federal Circuit ruled that Apple’s U.S. Patent No. 7,663,607, which related to a touch panel with a transparent capacitive sensing medium that can detect multiple touches at once, was invalid for anticipation and obviousness, and




Employee Access vs. Misappropriation of Trade Secrets

The Michigan District Court in Dana Limited v. American Axle and Manufacturing Holdings, Inc., 1:10-cv-00450 (W.D. Mich. Aug. 19, 2013) addressed an important aspect of a trade secret misappropriation claims, holding that the mere fact that a former employee had access to a valid trade secret does not necessarily mean that he or she misappropriated the trade secret just, by the act of accepting employment at a competing company. In May




Trade Secrets Litigation

At no other time in history have trade secrets been so vital to the making or breaking of a company. Modern firms, from startups to multinationals, face new challenges daily, as the speed of information exchange itself accelerates to keep up with technology shifts, changing trends and competitive challenge. Yet, as swiftly as companies must exchange information to stay in the game, so may competitive advantages built on years of




Copyright and Architecture

In 2004, the Fourth Circuit revived a two prong test for a copyright claim involving architecture between two home builders in Charles W. Ross Builder, Inc. v. Olsen Fine Home Building, 2012 WL 5447871 (4th Cir. Nov. 8, 2012). Rick and Jennifer Rubin, who wished to build new home, had visited the plaintiff Ross’s model home and received a copy of a brochure, including the “Bainbridge” model allegedly copied by




The White House on ITC Section 337

On June 4, 2013, the International Trade Commission (ITC) issued its Notice of Final Determination in the ’794 Investigation finding that Apple had violated Section 337 with respect to one of Samsung’s patents. Based on this determination, the Commission issued both a limited exclusion order and cease and desist order barring Apple from importing its iPhone 4, iPhone 3GS, iPad 3G, iPad 3 and iPad 2 models for sale in




Do Business Method Patents Hurt or Help?

Do Business Method Patents Hurt or Help? A Financial Industry Perspective, 14 VA. J.L. & TECH. 147 (2009). Abstract The State Street Bank decision of 1998 affirmed U.S. business method patents. Along with the subsequent downpour of patent filings came a shower of commentary from the legal and business communities alike. The literature has generally been thoughtful and well-reasoned, or at least well-meaning. But as practitioners in the fields, we




A Client Centered Approach

Satisfaction in the Eyes of Clients Our attorneys are highly specialized to cover the gamut of legal knowledge and business expertise. We work to maximize value added for clients through participation, collaboration, integration and creativity.