Ensuring Your Future

IP Litigation



Patent Infringement

We handle patent litigation cases in U.S. district courts across the United States. We maintain five offices in four states, including an office in Alexandria. We have handled infringement lawsuits in 20 states. Please consult with us without charge about prospective patent litigation matters. Each case is unique and requires special attention.



Trademark Infringement

We frequently handle trademark litigation cases in U.S. district courts, including Amazon-related seller disputes. We can help you defend or file trademark infringement matters. Examples of cases we have handled are detailed below. Please consult with us about the specifics of your trademark infringment situation.



Cybersquatting Cases

We have handled over 300 cybersquatting matters, including domain seizure actions under the UDRP before WIPO and the NAF. We frequently handle in rem ACPA (Anticybersquatting Consumer Protection Act) matters in the Eastern District of Virginia, where Steven Rinehart maintains an office.

Economic

Increase in Litigation Costs

In the last ten years, the average hourly rate of patent litigators has increased 68 percent and was already 35% higher than regular litigators.

Average

Increase in Number of Trademarks

In the last ten years, the number of trademark applications being filed with the USPTO has increased almost 100%, creating difficulty securing and maintaining trademarks.

Reduced

Decrease in Successful Cases

In the last ten years, fewer patent infringement cases are being won. The winning rate of Plaintiffs, including patent trolls, is down over a third.

Protecting Your Future

The Challenge

The challenge with any patent or trademark infringement matter is not just the risk inherent in the case itself, but the attorneys fees with must be paid throughout the case. Many clients, in a effort to protect themselves, hire the largest firms with the most expensive attorneys, then lose the case or are forced into a losing settlement position simply because of the prohibitive expense of litigating. Oppsoing parties know this, and plan on the attorney fees alone bringing other parties to the settlement table and protracting the litigation for the extortionary effect the attorney fees have on opposing parties. Clients often misunderstand the amount of hours it takes to litigate a case. Litigation cases can frequently take more than a hundred hours a month. Even small cases may take dozens of hours per month. Litigation can be very involved, and require expenditures on expert witnesses, patent searchers, surveys, court reporters, and travel.

Building the future

The Solution

It is important when planning a litigation strategy to not only evaluate the merits of the case, but use competent and cost-effective counsel who will not bankrupt a client seeking to protect their financial assets, particularly as involved as litigation can become. It may be a mistake to hire a larger firm when a client has a limited litigation budget.

Building the future

The Result

We have handled over 100 patent and trademark infringement matters in U.S. district courts. Some of our results are shown below and list of cases we have handled is also listed below. We offer RESULTS-ORIENTED REPRESENTATION® to all clients, a byline we have trademarked.

Recent Federal Litigation

• Penn State v. Keystone Alternatives (Case 3:2-AT-6000) (2020), U.S. District Court | Pennsylvania (trademark infringement/cybersquatting) (Pending).

• Guangdong v. R. Right Stuff (Case IPR2023-853) (2023), PTAB (patent infringement) (Pending).

• In Re Centrifugre Utility (Case 337-TA-1311) (2022), International Trade Commission (ITC).

• Storage Designs v. Patsy Store (Case 2:21-cv-324) (2022), U.S. District Court | Utah.

• Blue Water Innovations v. Vevazz (Case 6:20-cv-774) (2019), U.S. District Court | Florida (Venue successfully changed).

• Nut Dust Ltd v. Wemer (Case 91270030) (2021), Trademark Trial and Appeal Board (TTAB) (Pending).

• Homevestors v. Joe Homebuyer et al. (Case 3:22-cv-1759) (2022), U.S. District Court | Texas (Trademark).

• H&H Brands v. Manny Rivas (Case 2:22-cv-180) (2022), U.S. District Court | Utah (Trademark).

• Rayware Ltd v. New Creation Brands (Case 2:23-cv-355) (2023), U.S. District Court | Utah (Trademark).

• Bucks & Bulls v. AZ Buck and Bulls (Case 1:24-cv-49) (2024), U.S. District Court | Utah (Trademark).

• Blue Water Innovations v. Vevazz (Case 6:20-cv-208) (2019), U.S. District Court | Wyoming (Settled on favorable terms).

• 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).

• Avus Holdings v. Next Distributions (Case 2:19-CV-228) (2019), U.S. District Court for the District of Utah (patent infringement).

• 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).

• Strong College Students v. CHHJ Franchising (Case No. 2:12-CV-1156) U.S. District Court | Arizona (represented plaintiff in cybersquatting matter lost on summary judgment).

• 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).

• 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).

• 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).

• Equalia, LLC v. Kushgo, LLC (Case No. 2:16-cv-2851) U.S. District Court | Nevada (patent infringement matter settled on favorable terms).

• RMV Enterprises v. ksoftware.com (Case No. 1:12-CV-335) U.S. District Court | Virginia (prevailed representing plaintiff in in rem cybersquatting matter).

• 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).

• 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).

• Carpenter v. myschool (Case No. 1:15-CV-212) U.S. District Court | Virginia (represented defendant in cybersquatting matter lost on summary judgment days before trial).

• 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).

• 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).

• 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).

• 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).

• Web Entertainment Limited v. y8.org (Case No. 1:14-CV-1416) U.S. District Court | Virginia (represented defendant in settled cybersquatting matter).

• 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).

• 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).

• 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).

• Associated Recovery v. Butcher (Case No. 2:16-CV-126) U.S. District Court | Texas (represented plaintiff in cybersquatting matter involving 200 domains).

• 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).

• Sater v. Kriss (Case No. 2:16-CV-932) U.S. District Court | Arizona (cybersquatting matter).

• 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).

• Savage Logistics v. Savage Companies (Case No. 4:15-CV-5015) U.S. District Court | Washington (representing plaintiff in trademark infringement matter).

• 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).

• Planet Blue v. Harmonix (Case No. 1:99-MC-9999) U.S. District Court | Delaware (represented defendant in patent infringement matter).

• 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).

• Planet Blue v. OC3 Entertainment (Case No. ) U.S. District Court | California, Northern Division (represented defendant in patent infringement matter).

• Matthew Crowder v. Heavy Lifting (Case No. ) U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California (cybersquatting case).

• 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).

• 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).

• 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).

• 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).

• TruckMaster Logistics Systems v. Internet Enterprises (Case No. 2:09-CV-374) U.S. District Court for the District of Utah, Central Division (settled representing counterclaimant in cybersquatting matter involving truckmaster.com).

• 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)).

• 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).

• 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).

• 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).

• JIVE Commerce d/b/a Vino Grotto v. Wine Racks America (Case 1:18-CV-49) (2019), U.S. District Court for the District of Utah (trademark infringement).

• 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).

• 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).

• 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).

• 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).

• 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).

• 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).

• 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).

• 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).

• Aperture Net v. Kyocera International (Case 3:19-CV-2091) (2020), U.S. District Court | California (patent infringement).

• Sock City, Inc. v. Oceanside Capital Corp (Case 2:19-CV-831) (2020), U.S. District Court for the District of Utah (cybersquatting case under Lanham Act).

Get connected

Do you need to consult about a case?

Please contact us about prospective IP litigation matters.

Call Now