Whether an Intellectual Property Dispute involves cease-and-desist demands or legal action in the Federal Courts or Administrative Tribunals of the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (“USPTO”), the Firm’s attorneys are experienced in navigating such matters. Importantly, all of the Firm’s litigators have the unique advantage of their extensive background in prosecuting applications before the USPTO and Copyright Office, the procedural details of which are often critical to achieving results as Patents, Trademarks, Copyrights, and other Intellectual Property Rights arise in contested matters. Similarly, our attorneys are involved in drafting IP Agreements, including Licenses and Franchises, of the type that are often the subject of Litigation. An Intellectual Property litigator must fully understand the mechanics of the rights involved, as well as the ways of the courtroom.
The Firm takes a strategic and pragmatic approach in every case, representing both Plaintiffs and Defendants. Each and every Dispute and Litigation will require a unique strategy in accordance with a client’s goals. Whether the matter calls for aggressive litigation, emergency action involving Temporary Restraining Orders and Preliminary Injunctions, strict adherence to a limited budget for legal expenses, mediation and alternative dispute resolution, or negotiation of creative out-of-court settlement terms, the Firm’s attorneys have experience achieving favorable outcomes for individuals, small companies, and large entities and institutions. The Firm is also panel counsel for insurance companies that call upon the Firm to serve as appointed counsel to insured parties involved in Intellectual Property Litigation.
The Firm’s attorneys also serve frequently as trusted Local Counsel to other firms across the country, given the Firm’s extensive Litigation experience in Florida, knowledge of local rules and practices, and high-level involvement of the Firm’s attorneys in bar organizations.
Legal decisions of particular importance are published in legal reporters. Below are just a handful of the many published decisions achieved by the Firm acting on behalf of both Plaintiffs and Defendants.
Badia Spices, Inc. v. Gel Spice Co., Inc. (S.D. Fla.) – jury verdict in trademark infringement action in favor of a national food manufacturer Plaintiff, along with an order of permanent injunction against the Defendant.
EWC P&T, LLC advs. Boigris, 7 F.4th 1079 (11th Cir. 2021) – represented the owner of the European Wax Center intellectual property and obtained summary judgment in a U.S. Trademark Trial and Appeal Board proceeding; then obtained summary judgment and an award of damages for cybersquatting when the opposing side appealed to federal court; then briefed and argued the subsequent appeal, resulting in an opinion affirming the summary judgment ruling on the cybersquatting claim.
Woodard C-M, LLC advs. Pride Family Brands, 992 F.Supp.2d 1214 (S.D. Fla.) – summary judgment in favor of a national manufacturer Defendant in case involving allegations of design patent and trade dress infringement, and successfully argued for the invalidation of two of the Plaintiff’s asserted patents.
Merit Diamond Corporation v. Sears Roebuck & Co, Kmart Operations, LLC et. al. (S.D. Fla.) – monetary judgment against multiple Defendants in a copyright infringement lawsuit on behalf of a national jewelry designer and manufacturer Plaintiff.
Great Healthworks, Inc. v. Bedoya et. al. (S.D. Fla.) – obtained seizure of counterfeit products, a favorable settlement, and an order of permanent injunction for a national health and wellness products company Plaintiff.
Carnival Corp. v. SeaEscape Casino Cruises, Inc., 52 USPQ2d 1920 (S.D.Fla.) — defeated world’s largest cruise line in trademark bench trial.
Benard Industries, Inc. v. Bayer A.G., 38 USPQ2d 1422 (S.D. Fla.) — dismissal of claims in complex case of international trademark rights.
Eveready Battery Co. v. L.P.I. Consumer Prods., 464 F. Supp. 2d 887 (E.D. Mo.) — dismissed declaratory judgment action brought by national manufacturers.
M.G.B. Homes, Inc. v Ameron Homes, Inc., 903 F.2d 1486 (11th Cir.), 30 F.3d 113 (11th Cir.) — reversed decision of trial court regarding copyright ownership, and thereafter achieved and defended attorney fee award.
P&L Sales Group, Inc. v. Twisted Brands, LLC, et. al, Case No. 20-cv-00810 (D. Nev. March 23, 2021) – granting motion to dismiss and transferring the case.
Stiefel Labs., Inc. v. Galenium USA, LLC, 2006 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 43973 (S.D. Fla) — injunction entered on behalf of multinational skincare company.
Helver v. Novo Industries, Inc., 49 USPQ2d 1593 (S.D. Fla.) — patent summary judgment in favor of inventor.
Int’l Cosmetics Exch., Inc. v. Saba, 303 F.3d 1242 (11th Cir.) – reversal of trial court in case of international trademark rights.
Pena-Rivera v. Editorial America, S.A., 43 USPQ2d 1059 (S.D. Fla.) — dismissal of claims in copyright case against multinational publisher.
Salt Life, LLC v. Shaka Life, Inc., 2018 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 225879 (M.D. Fla. Nov. 30, 2018) – granting motion to dismiss and transferring the case.
Jeff Foxworthy v. Sun Art Designs, Inc., 42 USPQ2d 1317 (S.D. Fla.) — protection of customer lists in case against television actor/comedian.
Nailtiques Cosmetic Corp. v. Salon Sciences Corp., 41 USPQ2d 1995 (S.D. Fla.) — preliminary injunction with finding of famous trademarks and trade dress entered on behalf of national cosmetic company.
Baratta v. Homeland Housewares, LLC, 242 F.R.D. 641 (S.D. Fla) — nullified unfavorable settlement negotiated by client’s prior counsel against maker of “Magic Bullet” blenders.
Majors Medical Supply, Inc. v. Majors Medical Supply, Inc., 38 USPQ2d 1703 (E.D. Mich.) — preliminary injunction without trademark registration on behalf of national franchisor.