Stites & Harbison’s IPT Group has extensive experience litigating intellectual property matters before federal and state courts throughout the nation. This experience also extends to all levels of appeals, including the United States Supreme Court. Our firm's litigators aggressively protect the intellectual property assets of our clients, and defend those who have been wrongfully accused of infringing others’ intellectual property rights. The firm has handled a number of significant and well-known intellectual property disputes and has served as lead counsel in intellectual property litigation in more than 30 states. Below are examples of the firm's experience:
Patent Infringement Litigation
- Representing a manufacturer of coolant compounds in a patent infringement litigation against a competitor that resulted in a $40 million royalty payment to our client by the defendant
- Representing a patent holder in the lighting industry in a patent infringement trial that resulted in a multi-million-dollar jury verdict
- Defending a developer of financial software and systems in a patent infringement trial in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Texas, which resulted in a judgment as a matter of law in favor of our client
- Defending a toner cartridge manufacturer in an action brought by one of the world's largest printer manufacturers
- Defending a supplier of accelerometers in suit brought by patent holding company against several large automotive manufacturers
- Defending a national manufacturer of athletic pads in an infringement action brought by a competitor. Litigation was heard by the U.S. Supreme Court and eventually resulted in an award of attorneys' fees to our client.
- Representing a manufacturer of nacho cheese dispensers in multiple actions against infringers of its patents
- Defending a manufacturer of cable reels in an infringement action brought by a competitor
Trademark Infringement/Unfair Competition Litigation
- Defending a local automobile service company against a national oil company's claim of infringement of the INSTANT OIL CHANGE mark
- Defending a financial company offering variable annuities under the MARQUEE mark that was accused of infringing a bank's MARQUIS mark used for mutual funds
- Defending a new pizza franchisor accused by a major national franchisor of trade dress infringement
- Representing a cabinet retailer who owned the SCHEIRICH mark in an infringement action against a homebuilder and its related cabinet company using the SCHIERICH mark with kitchen cabinets
- Defending a local, family-owned auto parts business using the ADVANCE AUTO mark in an action brought by a major regional chain using the same mark
Copyright Infringement Litigation
- Representing Microsoft Corporation in several infringement actions against companies who have loaded pirated software onto computers for resale, and against resellers distributing counterfeit software
- Representing a marketing company in several infringement actions throughout the nation against car dealerships and billboard advertisers who misappropriated a distinctive advertising campaign
- Defending a credit information agency accused of infringement by a former software provider
- Representing a dissolved partnership that created and marketed electronic data interface software
- Representing an architect who was dismissed from a project and whose plans were then misappropriated in creating the final plan for the project
- Representing an electronics training company whose advertising materials were copied by a competitor
- Representing a doctor whose scholarly work was infringed in the creation of a monograph for distribution to surgeons
In early September of 2021, the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit clarified the notice requirement of 35 U.S.C. § 287. Patentee’s seeking to recover damages on unmarked goods must ensure their notice to a potential infringer is an actual notice of infringement and not merely notice of a patent.
Article by IP attorney Mari-Elise Paul in the Louisville Bar Association's Bench & Bar discussing rebranding.
Intellectual property attorney, David Nagle, discusses how startups can best manage the intellectual property process when launching a business.
The United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) recently published a final rule implementing the Trademark Modernization Act of 2020 (TMA). The TMA amends the federal trademark statute (Lanham Act) in several ways, but the most significant aspect for the business community is the establishment of new ex parte expungement and reexamination proceedings for cancellation of a registration when the required use in commerce has not been made.
LOUISVILLE, Ky.—Stites & Harbison, PLLC welcomes attorney Christina I. Ryan as Counsel to the firm based in the Louisville, Ky., office. She joins the Intellectual Property & Technology Service Group.
NASHVILLE, Tenn.—Stites & Harbison, PLLC welcomes attorney Samuel A. Raque to the firm’s Nashville, Tenn., office. He joins the Intellectual Property & Technology Service Group as a Registered Patent Attorney.
The Trademark Modernization Act of 2020 (TMA) introduced several amendments to federal trademark statutes, known as the Lanham Act, that should prove favorable to brand owners when the TMA becomes effective on December 27th.
Assignor estoppel is an equity-based doctrine that can be invoked during the course of patent litigation to prevent an assignor, after assigning their interests to a patent to another, from later asserting that the patent is actually invalid.
IP attorney Joel Beres is set to speak at the AIPLA's 11th Annual Trademark Boot Camp webinar Aug. 30-Sept.2, 2021.
LOUISVILLE, Ky.—World Intellectual Property Review (WIPR) has named Stites & Harbison, PLLC attorney Mari-Elise Paul as one of 20 Trailblazers profiled from around the world in WIPR’s Diversity Trailblazers 2021 list.
LOUISVILLE, Ky.—Managing Intellectual Property (Managing IP) magazine recently selected Stites & Harbison, PLLC attorney Mandy Wilson Decker to the 2021 edition of Managing IP’s “Top 250 Women in IP.” This is the seventh time Decker has been honored on this list, and she is the only attorney honored from Kentucky.
LOUISVILLE, Ky.—Managing Intellectual Property (Managing IP) magazine has named nine Stites & Harbison, PLLC attorneys to the 2021 “IP Stars” list. Managing IP recognizes the most highly regarded intellectual property attorneys in the U.S.
LEXINGTON, Ky. —Stites & Harbison, PLLC announces the addition of four attorneys to the firm’s Intellectual Property & Technology (IPT) Service Group.
LOUISVILLE, Ky.—The Leadership Louisville Center has selected Stites & Harbison, PLLC attorney James Hayne to participate in the Ignite Louisville Class of Fall 2021.
INTA recently premiered its first webcast in its “Looking Through the Leadership Lens” series, which features industry officials providing unique perspectives on leadership and development topics. INTA News article by Mari-Elise Paul.
Leading female attorneys share their thoughts with WIPR about what the campaign theme means to them, the issues affecting women in IP and their efforts to tackle them. Louisville office IP attorney Mari-Elise Paul is included in this article.
Peloton Interactive, Inc. cranked up the resistance against Mad Dogg Athletics, Inc.’s tactics of aggressively enforcing its registrations of SPIN and SPINNING. Pressing down on the red button, so-to-speak, Peloton filed petitions to cancel Mad Dogg’s registrations of SPINNING, SPIN, and SPIN PILATES on the ground that “SPINNING” and “SPIN” are generic.
LOUISVILLE, Ky.—Louisville Mayor Greg Fischer has appointed Stites & Harbison, PLLC attorney Morgan Ward as Chair of Louisville Metro Government’s Historic Landmarks and Preservation Districts Commission.
On December 27, 2020, the Trademark Modernization Act of 2020 (the “Act”) was signed into law. The Act introduces a number of changes to trademark law that may be of interest to brand owners. This post will examine just one, and future posts will examine others.