Patent and Trademark Litigation

Patent Litigation

Patent litigation is known to be very difficult on courts, the parties, and attorneys; and regarded as the most complex and expensive variety of litigation.  We aim to reduce the stress of patent litigation on our clients by offering them expeditious, cost-effective representation, and doing our best in the early phases of the litigation to terminate it before attorney fees become overwhelming. Many litigants in patent cases face unexpected and rapidly escalating attorney fees which make proceeding with their case impossible after the client has already sunk large amounts of money into a case that would otherwise be winnable.  We offer all of our litigation clients their choice of either hourly biling, or fixed fee billing for the litigation.  Under fixed fee billing, we agree upon a fixed price for all work before each phase of the litigation commences, and bill the client only that amount as they chose to proceed through each phase.  In most of the cases of which we are aware, our fees total only one-fifth to one-third of the total we are made aware is being billed by opposing counsel for work on the same case.  We would be happy to speak with you about filing or defending patent litigation cases in Utah.

Trials in patent litigation are rare because of the complexity and expense involved in getting to trial.  The Office of Administration of US Courts releases annual statistics which show that there were 5,012 patent infringement cases filed in the US before US district courts in 2014, but only about 100 patent infringement cases which went to trial in 2014. Overall, plaintiffs in patent infringement cases prevail 77% of the time in jury trials and 52% of the time in bench trials, prevailing most often in matters involving consumer products, pharmaceutical products, medical devices and electronic devices; while prevailing least often in patents in the industries of software and consumer services. The average time to get to trial in 2014 was 2.5 years.  Two-thirds of patent infringement trials are decided by juries, and the average damage award by a jury in trial in 2014 was $5.4 million.

Our Utah patent attorneys are experienced in patent litigation matters.

In about half of the filed patent infringement matters we handle for defendants, we have been able to settle the case without payment from our client, or have the case dismissed, within two months of its filing. We are able to prevent about 80% of patent infringement cases which law firms threaten our clients with from even filed from being filed through detailed response letters, claim charts, and pre-litigation communication with opposing counsel.  We have handled a variety of matters before the PTAB (Patent Trial and Appeal Board) including rexaminations and petitions for post-grant reveiw.

Click here for a  video clip on common patent questions we have made (Audio only here).

 

Trademark Litigation

Trademark litigation, like patent litigation, is often handled by patent attorneys, who are accustomed to prosecuting patents and trademarks before the US Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO).  As the US economy has grown over the decades, and as commerce on the Internet explodes, so too has the difficulty of picking a brand name which is not thought to be trademarked by someone. Trademark litigation matters have become ever more prevalent on the dockets of US district courts.  We regularly handle these trademark infringement matters, and can quickly identify weaknesses and strengths in threatened or actual trademark infringement matters -- including that common law trademark rights are often only geographic in scope (or do not exist), that registered trademarks are descriptive or geographically descriptive, and alleged use in commerce stemming from corporate filings for domain name registrations are not actual use in commerce.

Understanding the right to register a trademark and enforce it against other parites requires the skill of an experienced attorney who focuses on intellectual property matters.  On the right is a list of trademark cases we have recently handled in federal court.  Though rare, we have also handled trademark matters in state court, dozens of trademark oppositions and petitions to cancel before the TTAB (Trademark Trial and Appeal Board), and over 120 UDRP domain name disputes involving trademark infringement allegations.  We have prosecuted over 100 pending trademarks before the USPTO.  Let our work benefit you.  We are more cost-effective than larger law operations, and offer RESULTS-ORIENTED REPRESENTATION® to all our clients, a phrase we have trademarked for our firm.

A list of all recent federal litigation cases handled by Steven Rinehart follows (please note that this list does not include more than 100 state cases, administrative actions, and arbitrations).

  1. Halo Board v. Equalia, LLC (Case No. 17-1658) U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (patent infringement matter settled on favorable terms).
  2. Equalia, LLC v. Kushgo, LLC (Case No. 2:16-cv-2851) U.S. District Court for District of Nevada (patent infringement matter settled on favorable terms).
  3. Bad Apple, LLC v. Linear Magnitude, Inc. (Case No. 2:17-cv-76) U.S. District Court for the District Utah (settled on favorable terms).
  4. Skywalker Holdings v. YJ IP (Case No. 1:16-CV-64) U.S. District Court for the District of Utah, Central Division (representing defendant in patent infringement matter).
  5. Robinson v. DEFY Waterflight (Case No. 2:16-CV-833) U.S. District Court for the District of Utah, Central Division (representing defendant in patent infringement matter).
  6. Denmel Holdings v. BlueLounge (Case No. 2:15-CV-87) U.S. District Court for the District of Utah, Central Division (represented defendant in patent infringement action, settled on favorable terms).
  7. MeridainLink v. DH Holdings (Case No. CMB2013-00008) U.S. Patent and Trademark Office Trademark (USPTO) Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) (represented complainant in post-grant review proceeding before the PTAB).
  8. American Covers v. Rok Imports (Case No 2:12-CV-279) U.S. District Court for the District of Utah, Central Division (represented defendant in patent infringement matter in which defendant successfully dismissed).
  9. Associated Recovery v. Butcher (Case No. 2:16-CV-126) U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Texas (represented plaintiff in cybersquatting matter involving 200 domains).
  10. Sater v. Kriss (Case No. 2:16-CV-932) U.S. District Court for the District of Arizona (cybersquatting matter).
  11. Savage Companies v. Savage Logistics (Case No 2:16-CV-265) U.S. District Court for the District of Utah, Central Division (representing defendant in trademark infringement matter).  
  12. Savage Logistics v. Savage Companies (Case No. 4:15-CV-5015) U.S. District Court for the District of Washington (representing plaintiff in trademark infringement matter).
  13. Denis Reah v. Electronics Show Place (Case No. 2:09-CV-601) U.S. District Court for the District of Utah, Central Division (represented defendant in patent infringement case successfully dismissed for lack of jurisdiction).
  14. Planet Blue v. Harmonix (Case No. 1:99-MC-9999) U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware (represented defendant in patent infringement matter).
  15. Planet Blue v. OC3 Entertainment (Case No. ) U.S. District Court for the District of California, Northern Division (represented defendant in patent infringement matter).
  16. West Coast Trends v. Ogio International (Case No. 6:10-CV-688) U.S. District Court for the District of Utah (represented plaintiff in patent infringement matter settled on favorable terms).
  17. Universal Trim Supply v. K & K Companies (Case No. 2:09-CV-18) U.S. District Court for the District of Utah, Central Division (represented defendant in patent infringement matter settled without payment).
  18. Bullex v. JinHakYoo (Case No. 2:10-CV-668) U.S. District Court for the District of Utah (prevailed representing plaintiff in cybersquatting matter with injunction).
  19. RMV Enterprises v. <ksoftware.com> (Case No. 1:12-CV-335) U.S. District Court for the District of Virginia (prevailed representing plaintiff in in rem cybersquatting matter).
  20. Carpenter v. myschool (Case No. 1:15-CV-212) U.S. District Court for the District of Virginia (represented defendant in cybersquatting matter lost on summary judgment days before trial).
  21. Innovative Staffing v. ISHR (Case No. 2:14-CV-927) U.S. District Court for the District of Utah, Central Division (representing defendant settled on favorable terms).
  22. Fashion C.C. v. Apple Computer (Case No. 2:10-CV-195) U.S. District Court for the District of Utah, Central Division (representing plaintiff settled with permanent injunction).
  23. Strong College Students v. CHHJ Franchising (Case No. 2:12-CV-1156) U.S. District Court for District of Arizona (represented plaintiff in cybersquatting matter lost on summary judgment).
  24. EZQuest v. Baorui (Case No. 2:12-CV-730) U.S. District Court for the District of Utah (prevailed representing plaintiff in cybersquatting matter and secured preliminary injunction).
  25. Goulding v. Hill (Case No 2:14-CV-905), U.S. District Court for the District of Utah, Central Division (cybersquatting case representing Plaintiff terminating with transfer of the disputed domains).
  26. International Marketing v. Bradley Morris (Case No 1:10-CV-26) U.S. District Court for the District of Utah, Central Division (prevailed representing Plaintiff with case dismissal).
  27. Web Entertainment Limited v. y8.org (Case No. 1:14-CV-1416) U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia (represented defendant in settled cybersquatting matter).
  28. Atkinson v. Ronald Fisher (Case No. 2:09-CV-601) U.S. District Court for the District of Utah, Central Division (represented Plaintiffs in fraud action).
  29. The Joint Sugarhouse v. I4 Solutions (Case No. 2:16-CV-151) U.S. District Court for the District of Utah, Central Division (representing Defendants in copyright infringement action).
  30. TruckMaster Logistics Systems v. Internet Enterprises (Case No. 2:09-CV-374) U.S. District Court for the District of Utah, Central Division (prevailed representing plaintiff in cybersquatting matter involving <truckmaster.com>).
  31. Matthew Crowder v. Heavy Lifting (Case No. ) U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California (cybersquatting case).
  32. Park City Transportation v. Park City Limousines (Case No. 2:15-CV-24) U.S. District Court for the District of Utah, Central Division (representing defendant in trademark infringement matter).
  33. Rinehart v. Eighty B.N. (Case No. 120700582) Utah’s Second Judicial District Court (prevailed representing plaintiff in rare state court cybersquatting case involving the Lanham Act (a federal statute)).
  34. Phi-ten USA v. Rocky Mountain School of Baseball (Case No. 1:10-CV-145) U.S. District Court for the District of Utah, Central Division (represented plaintiff in trademark infringement matter).
  35. PrizeWise v. Oppenheimer (Case 2:07-CV-792) U.S. District Court for the District of Utah, Central Division (represented plaintiff in breach of NDA matter which was lost on summary judgment).
  36. RentMaster v. Shain Trading Corporation (Case No 2:10-CV-319) U.S. District Court for the District of Utah, Central Division (represented plaintiff in cybersquatting case dismissed for lack of personal jurisdiction).
  37. FPS Games v. Kyle Meyers (Case No. 91208378) U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) Trademark Trial and Appeal Board (TTAB) (represented respondent and prevailed in cybersquatting/trademark opposition proceeding).
  38. Innovative Staffing v. ISHR (Case No. 91214407) U.S. Patent and Trademark Office Trademark (USPTO) Trademark Trial and Appeal Board (TTAB) (represented respondent and prevailed in cybersquatting/trademark opposition proceeding).
  39. Alamo v. Wagmar Technologies (Case No. 91227082) U.S. Patent and Trademark Office Trademark (USPTO) Trademark Trial and Appeal Board (TTAB) (represented respondent and settled in cybersquatting/trademark opposition).
  40. Strong College Student Moving v. Freidman (Case No. 92058063) U.S. Patent and Trademark Office Trademark (USPTO) Trademark Trial and Appeal Board (TTAB) (represented complainant in trademark opposition).
  41. Fashion C.C.  v. Little (Case No. 91217375) U.S. Patent and Trademark Office Trademark (USPTO) Trademark Trial and Appeal Board (TTAB) (represented complainant in trademark opposition).
  42. Elevation Distillery v. Salt Lake Distillery (Case No. 91217045) U.S. Patent and Trademark Office Trademark (USPTO) Trademark Trial and Appeal Board (TTAB) (represented complainant in trademark opposition settled on favorable terms).
  43. Oceanside Capital v. AB (Case No. 91205819) U.S. Patent and Trademark Office Trademark (USPTO) Trademark Trial and Appeal Board (TTAB) (represented complainant in trademark opposition settled).
  44. Under Armor v. Gatlin (Case No. 91203875) U.S. Patent and Trademark Office Trademark (USPTO) Trademark Trial and Appeal Board (TTAB) (represented respondent in trademark opposition).
  45. Scimone v. Tinnus (Case No. 92051876) U.S. Patent and Trademark Office Trademark (USPTO) Trademark Trial and Appeal Board (TTAB) (represented complainant in trademark opposition).
  46. Savage Logistics v. Savage Companies (Case No. 91221522) U.S. Patent and Trademark Office Trademark (USPTO) Trademark Trial and Appeal Board (TTAB) (represented complainant in trademark opposition).

 

 

Consultation

 

Contact Information

Utah Patent Attorneys
110 S. Regent Street, Suite 200

Salt Lake City, UT 84111
(888) 941-9933
(801) 347-5173
(801) 665-1292
steve@utahpatentattorneys.com

Recent Patent Litigation Cases

• West Coast Trends v. Ogio International, Inc. No. 2:11-CV-1190 (D. Utah) (Representing the Plaintiff, the case was successfully settled on favorable terms after four years of litigation following discovery, reexamination before the PTAB, summary judgment, and a change of venue).

• Denmel Holding, LLC v. Bluelounge Distribution, LLC, No. 2:15-CV-87 (D. Utah) (Representing the Defendants, the case was successfully dismissed before discovery).

• Denis Reah v. Re.Source, Inc. No. 2:09-CV-601 (D. Utah) (Representing the defendant, the case was successfully dismissed for our client on a motion to dismiss filed before discovery).

• Universal Trim Supply Company, LTD v. K & K Trading Co. No. 2:09-CV-19 (D. Utah) (Representing the defendants in a case invovling both a Chinese plaintiff and Chinese defendants, the case was successfully dismissed following conclusion of fact discovery).

• Micro, Inc v. Harmonics, Inc., 1:12-CV-1510 (D. Delaware) (Representing third-party defendant is patent licensing idemnity claim). 

Recent Trademark Litigation Cases

• Bad Apple LLC v. Linear Magnitude, No. 2:17-cv-76 (D. Utah) (Settled on favorable terms).

• Accuity v. Acuity Benefits, Inc., No. 2:15-CV-428 (D. Utah) (In litigation).

• Park City Transportation, Inc. v. Park City Limousines, LC. No. 2:15-CV-24) (D. Utah) (In litigation).

• Innovative Staffing, Inc. v. ISHR, LLC. (2:14-CV-927) (D. Utah) (In litigation).

• Strong College Students Moving, Inc v. CHHJ Franchising, 2:12-CV-1156. (D. Arizona) (Concluded after three years of litigation on summary judgment).

• RMV Enterprises v. ksoftware.com, 1:12-CV-335. (E.D. Virginia) (Representing Plaintiff, won domain name transfer to client).

• EZQuest, Inc. v. Baorui, No., 2:12-CV-730 (D. Utah) (Won ex-parte preliminary injunction transfering the domain ezq.com to client).

• Web Entertainment v. y8.org, 1:14-CV-1416 (E.D. Virginia) (Settled).

• Joe Carpenter v. myschool.com, No. 1:15-CV-212 (E.D. Virginia) (Case lost on summary judgment).

• Internet Enterprises, LLC v. Truckmast Logistics Systems, No. 2:09-CV-374 (D. Utah) (Representing Defendant, Plaintiff settled and transfered domain name to our client).

• Bullex, Inc. v. JinHakYoo, 2:10-CV-668 (D. Utah) (Won transfer of domain name for New York client from China).