Registered Patent Attorney

Steven Rinehart

Steven Rinehart has been a registered patent attorney for 18 years. He has filed and prosecuted over 600 patent applications and almost 1,000 trademarks. He is licensed in Virginia and before the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO), and maintains an office in Alexandria. He offers expeditious, cost-effective to all of his clients. Steve has handled patent and trademark infringement matters in U.S. district courts in twenty different states, and handled over 300 UDRP domain name disputes. Steve regularly handles litigation before the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board (TTAB), the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB), and the World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO). Steven Rinehart represent parties to Section 337 ITC investigations before the International Trade Commission, and is experienced dealing with Amazon-related patent and trademark matters for Amazon sellers, including Amazon’s Neutral Patent Evaluation Program. Examples of Steve’s work is detailed below.

Steve is a partner with Vested Law LLP and owns a webdesign company which he can use to help his clients begin commercial use of trademarks. Steve is also on the Board of Directors of Friends of the Lusitania in Ireland, a 501(c)(3) nonprofit organization which owns the salvage rights to the RMS Lusitania (torpedoed off the coast of Ireland in 1915 brining the U.S. into WWI).

Registered Patent Attorney

Steven Rinehart

Contact

icon_phone icon (703) 898-0476

icon_pushpin icon211 N. Union Street
Alexandria, VA 22314

icon_mail icon steve@utahconstructionattorney.com

Education

• Juris Doctorate: U. of Utah College of Law (2003)

• Bachelors: Brigham Young Unversity (2000)

• Licensed Pilot: Federal Aviation Admin.

• Ecclesiastical Latin: Veterum Sapientia Institutum

Admissions

• U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (61,403)

• Utah Bar Association (11,494)

• Virginia State Bar (81,738)

• U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (2016)

• Eastern District of Texas

• U.S. International Trade Commission (ITC)

• Court of International Trade (2021)

Examples of Steve’s Work

Design Patent Samples

Concealed Cabinet Assembly

Egg-Crushing Implement

Brush Assembly

Invertible Multifunction Shovel

Ladder with Hinged Rungs

Door with Integrated Shelves

Skid-Steer Pallet Fork Rack

Eyewear

Cantilever Rack with Backset Braces

Angle Stop Valve

Medial Bench and Pew Cushion

Locking Barbell Collar with Side Magnets

Bucket-Scrapping Apparatus

Planter

Trademark Samples

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).

Recent Publications by Steve

• Rinehart, Steven L., Regula Pro Lege Si Deficit Lex: The Latin Sapience of High Judges; FEDERAL LAWYER 63, 52 – 57 (Sep. 4, 2016).

• Rinehart, Steven L., Small Claims Court: Getting More Bang for Fewer Bucks, 23 UTAH BAR J. 32-34 (Sep. 4, 2010) (quoted by the Supreme Court in Allen v. Moyer, 2011 UT 44, 259 P.3d 1049).

• Rinehart, Steven L., Officivm Tvvm; 30 UTAH BAR J.30 (May 2, 2017).

• Rinehart, Steven, Are We Too Smart for Metric? In Defense of the Imperial System of Measurement in Law; 71 VIRGINIA LAWYER No. 5 (Nov. 2022).

• Rinehart, Steven, Improbable Cause; COEUR D’ALENE PRESS (Sep. 2021 – Feb. 2023).

• Rinehart, Steven L., In Defense of the Imperial System of Measurement in Law; 35 UTAH BAR J. 6 (Nov. 2022).