LARSON & TAYLOR, PLC
FIRM PRACTICE AREAS
IP LITIGATION
The attorneys of Larson & Taylor, PLC ("L&T") have handled litigation covering virtually every aspect of intellectual property and related subject matter, including patents, trademarks, copyrights, trade secrets and unfair competition, in federal and state courts throughout the country, as reflected in the following summaries of a few of the litigations recently handled by our firm's attorneys:
L&T represented an international oil and gas company in two related lawsuits concerning patent and antitrust issues regarding trenchless underground pipe replacement, one filed in the Southern District of Indiana, and one filed in the District of New Jersey. L&T was able to obtain partial summary judgment for its clients dismissing the plaintiff's antitrust claims, and a copy of this decision is reported at 69 F.Supp. 2d 1129 (S.D. Ind 1999).
L&T represented Maclean Hunter, the prevailing party in a copyright infringement action concerning unauthorized use of its automobile valuation guidebook known as the "Red Book." The Second Circuit's decision in this case, CCC Information Services v. Maclean Hunter Market Reports, has been reported at 44 F.3d 61 and 33 U.S.P.Q.2d 1183 (2d Cir. 1994), and has been cited in the treatise Nimmer on Copyright (see, e.g., Section 5.06 [C]), and other Law Review Articles.
L&T represented plaintiff Santana Products, Inc. in a lawsuit where the defendant was accused of trademark infringement and misappropriation of customer lists and other trade secrets regarding plastic partitions. During the lawsuit, L&T was able to obtain cancellation of the defendant's registered U.S. trademark, and the suit was ultimately settled upon defendant's agreement to stop using the accused trademark. A published decision in this litigation, Santana Products, Inc. v. Compression Polymers, Inc., is reported at 8 F.3d 152 and 28 U.S.P.Q.2d 1707 (3d Cir. 1993).
L&T currently represents a European manufacturer of egg handling equipment in a patent infringement lawsuit which was litigated in the Eastern District of Pennsylvania. Following a trial on the merits, a jury verdict in our client's favor was obtained. The case is currently on appeal to the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit.
L&T recently represented a producer of a smoked sausage product in litigation in the Southern District of Ohio concerning trademark infringement, misappropriation of trade secrets and breach of a confidentiality agreement relating to trade secrets. This litigation was recently settled.
L&T represented a manufacturer of syrup containers which sued a rival company in the U.S. District Court in Vermont on the basis that the trade dress of defendant's syrup containers was confusingly similar to that of plaintiff's. This litigation was ultimately settled after the defendant agreed to discontinue manufacture and sale of the container, which gave rise to the litigation.
L&T represented three individual inventors in a lawsuit filed in Maryland State Court primarily based on a breach of a patent royalty agreement between the inventors and the defendant, their former employer. Following a $2.9 million jury verdict in favor of the three inventors, this case was settled.
L&T represented a company that was sued in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California on the basis of allegations that it was infringing a design patent relating to a dispenser cap. L&T was able to obtain a summary judgment of noninfringement on behalf of the defendant, and the lower court decision was upheld by the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit.
L&T represented the manufacturer of a device for determining the extent of automobile damage that sued a rival company in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California on the basis of patent infringement, copyright infringement, and infringement of the plaintiff's distinctive trade dress. After obtaining a TRO (Temporary Restraining Order) against the defendant, a preliminary injunction was also obtained on behalf of the plaintiff, and the case was settled when the defendant agreed to stop manufacture and sale of the accused product.