Litigation

Irwin IP concentrates on intellectual property and technology-related litigation.  We defend our clients in bet-the-company intellectual property and technology-related matters, and we help our clients enforce and monetize their intellectual property, including through litigation when necessary.

COPYRIGHT

Irwin IP's lawyers have a long history of success in copyright infringement matters, and their experience involves a diverse range of media.  Perhaps the best evidence of Irwin IP's expertise in copyright infringement matters is the fact that when a premier intellectual property law firm was sued for copyright infringement in connection with their patent prosecution procedures, they reached out to Irwin IP founder, Barry Irwin, to handle its defense. Long-time client, Massarelli’s Lawn Ornaments, a leader in the lawn and garden statuary sector, continues to rely upon Irwin IP to protect its valuable designs, and to defend it in copyright matters.  Since Irwin IP was formed, we have successfully handled several copyright infringement matters, including a case involving plagiarism of a frequently-cited medical article, another case involving unauthorized use of a famous photograph, and several music sampling matters for well-known recording artists.  

Representative matters for Irwin IP, or its lawyers, include: 

Ameriprise v. Oppenheimer. Lead counsel for Ameriprise in a copyright infringement matter relating to personal financial management pamphlet wherein a permanent injunction against continued distribution of the infringing work was obtained. 

Crider v. Alan Rado. Lead counsel for plaintiff obtaining consent judgment and permanent injunction preventing unauthorized use of a television commercial. 

Kahns v. Chicago Human Rhythm Project. Lead counsel for plaintiff in a copyright infringement matter relating to unauthorized use of photography obtaining damages and an agreement to cease and desist. 

Massarelli’s Lawn Ornaments. Lead counsel for Massarelli’s Lawn Ornaments in connection with numerous copyright infringement matters, both offensive and defensive, relating to lawn and garden ornaments.

 

Mata v. Orchard Enterprises and International Managing Rights. Lead counsel for Patrick Mata of Kommunity FK in offensive copyright infringement suit against record label and music distributor for copyright infringement based on unauthorized reproduction and distribution of several compositions and sound recordings from Kommunity FK’s album “The Vision and The Voice,” which suit was amicably resolved.

Novoseletsky v. Our Film Festival, Inc. d/b/a Fandor. Lead counsel for photographer Michael Novoseletsky in an offensive copyright infringement matter against a media company that used his copyrighted photograph without permission, culminating in a favorable judgment and an award of reasonable attorney's fees.

Dr. Shira Miller v. Dr. Thomas Rohde. Lead counsel for Dr. Miller in a matter asserting plagiarism of Dr. Miller's frequently cited medical article by Dr. Rohde obtaining damages and an agreement to destroy all copies of the offending article.  

Wiley v. McDonnell Boehnen Hulbert & Berghoff. Lead counsel for MBHB in successful copyright infringement defense, leading to recovery of attorneys fees. 

Zimnicki. Lead counsel for Zimnicki in several copyright infringement matters relating to decorative Christmas light displays resulting in numerous settlements totaling over seven figures.

 
 
 
TRADE SECRET

Irwin IP lawyers have successfully protected trade secrets from unlawful misappropriation, and enforced non-compete agreements. In doing so, Irwin IP lawyers not only saved their clients’ businesses, but made new law. 

Irwin IP has also successfully defended its clients against claims of wrongful misappropriation and breach of non-compete agreements, preserving their ability to continue working and selling key product lines. 

As with trademark and advertising matters, non-competition and trade secret matters also often require urgent attention in the form of a preliminary injunction or TRO proceeding. We work around the clock to pursue or defend these matters. 

Representative matters of Irwin IP, or its lawyers, include: 

CFC v. Spectratek. First-chair for Spectratek in a trade secret misappropriation defensive matter favorably resolved prior to preliminary injunction hearing. 

Geannopulos v. Neurensic. Represented an entrepreneur in a dispute with his former business partner regarding a restrictive covenant and valuation of stock options.

I.S.I. Claims Services v. Wherley. First-chair for Wherley in a misappropriation of trade secrets and breach of restrictive covenant defensive matter in a multi-day preliminary injunction evidentiary hearing favorably resolved prior to court's ruling. 

Latanick v. Kimberly-Clark. Counsel for Kimberly-Clark in trade secret defense jury trial, favorably resolved during trial. 

Nobel Biocare v. Astra Tech, et al. First-chair for Nobel Biocare, obtaining a preliminary injunction preventing client's former salesman from contacting "high volume" customers after a two day evidentiary hearing. 

PDC v. Ramberg, et al. Trial counsel for PDC in series of related actions involving several multi-day evidentiary hearings where client asserted breach of restrictive covenants and trade secret misappropriation, obtained preliminary injunctions against the defendants and settlement where defendants discontinued business operations. 

Shuffle Master v. MindPlay, et al. Lead counsel for Shuffle Master, obtaining summary judgment on, and dismissal of, a trade secret counterclaim with the Court finding that 48 different purported trade secrets were either in the public domain, or not used.

Staple Ease v. Ecoturf. Represented Staple Ease in a contractual licensing dispute with its exclusive licensee, resolving the dispute and reacquiring Staple Ease's licensing rights at an expense of less than $10,000 in attorney's fees.

 
PATENT

Irwin IP is proud to have been retained for numerous patent infringement litigation matters in the short time since its founding.  For example, Irwin IP litigated, or is litigating:

  • a multi-patent offensive matter for a mid-sized software company resulting in an eight-figure jury verdict after three-week jury trial;

  • two related multi-patent, defensive matters for a small, disruptive media streaming company against a large, multi-national company; 

  • several defensive patent infringement matters for the industry leading supplier of a popular self-balancing vehicle; 

  • a defensive patent infringement matter for a mid-sized agricultural equipment supplier against its primary competitor; 

  • offensive and defensive patent infringement matters for a medical products company against the dominant market participant; 

  • a defensive patent infringement matter for an e-commerce start-up bringing a new business to market against a non-practicing entity; and 

  • two different defensive patent infringement matters for mid-sized industrial equipment suppliers against their competitors.  

 

Not only has Irwin IP been retained on these matters, but we have been successful.  For example we have obtained summary judgment of no infringement in two of the defensive matters, and a $16 million jury verdict in the offensive matter.


Irwin IP lawyers have a long history of success in patent infringement matters, including: a complete defense verdict in a $500 million, multi-patent infringement defense; a $16 million jury award in three-week patent infringement trial; a permanent injunction and $7.3 million jury award in an offensive matter protecting a $100-million-dollar-a-year product line; and numerous pre-trial victories.

Irwin IP takes pride in its ability to master virtually any technology area. Our lawyers have handled patent matters involving authentication systems; automatic vehicle identification systems; automatic card shufflers; biopharmaceuticals; cable television systems; cellular telephones; cellular switching systems; chemical and petrochemical manufacturing processes, clothes washers; cold-rolled motor laminate steel; computer processing and memory devices; consumer products; dental technologies (both chemical and mechanical); digital multimedia (video and audio) data streaming; digital signal processing; digital signage; encryption systems; enhanced facsimile services; gaming systems; HVAC systems; internet display and content delivery systems; internet transmission protocols; medical devices; ophthalmic surgical equipment; pharmaceuticals; radio frequency identification (RFID) systems; silicon ingot manufacturing; slot machines; surgical equipment; telephone call back systems; trocars, and ultrasonic scalpels.

Representative matters for Irwin IP or its lawyers, include:

 

Action Gaming. Lead counsel for Action Gaming in several patent infringement matters involving patented poker games, including first-chairing several successful preliminary injunction arguments and obtaining dozens of voluntary cease and desist agreements.
 

Activision TV v. NEC, et al. Lead counsel for Activision TV in multi-patent, patent assertion matters involving internet display and content delivery systems resulting in several license agreements.

Adobe v. Wowza Media Systems. Lead counsel for Wowza Media Systems in two multi-patent infringement, false advertising and unfair competition defensive matters involving video streaming formats (RTMP, RTMPe, HTTP Dynamic Streaming) which were settled on confidential terms after obtaining summary judgment of no patent infringement and the court announcing its intention to grant summary judgment for Wowza on the non-patent claims.

Apple Computer, Inc. Represented Apple Computer, both in federal district court and before the International Trade Commission, in multiple patent infringement matters relating to multiple devices and GUI's, operations, and designs.

Avaya. Lead counsel for Avaya on several patent infringement matters, including a multi-patent infringement defense involving enhanced facsimile services, and a patent infringement defense that resulted in a non-infringement judgment for an internet over cable system.

Baxter Healthcare Corporation, et al. v. Fresenius Medical Care Holdings, Inc., et al. Represented Baxter where plaintiffs asserted infringement of nine patents relating to peritoneal dialysis.

Bayer v. Zoetis. Represented defendants Pfizer and Zoetis defending against Bayer's assertion of a patent against Pfizer's single-dose fluoroquinolone product, ADVOCIN, for treating bovine respiratory disease. Defeated motion for temporary restraining order that sought to block launch of the product.

BIAX Corporation v. Sun Microsystems, Inc., et al. Represented defendant in patent infringement case involving both processor architecture and software claims.

BIAX Corporation v. Int'l Business Machines. Represented Motorola in patent infringement case involving dual processor technology.

Borden v. AMF Bowling. Lead counsel in a patent infringement defensive matter related to glow-in-the-dark bowling.

BRK Brands, Inc. v. Nest Labs, Inc. Represented Nest in defending against BRK's assertion of six patents against Nest's smart CO/smoke alarm product. Successfully defeated motion for preliminary injunction.

Cisco, Moto, Netgear v. Innovatio (MDL). Represented wireless product manufacturers Motorola, Cisco, and Netgear, as well as scores of their customers, in a consolidated Multi-District Litigation proceeding covering nearly two dozen patents relating to allegations of infringement based upon implementation of the 802.11 wireless standard. The case settled shortly after the court set a favorable FRAND licensing rate.

Cygnus v. Telegroup. First-chair in a patent infringement damages trial involving a discontinued telephone call-back system technology, where the case was "reverse-bifurcated" such that damages were tried first and the verdict was a tiny fraction of estimated cost of a liability trial.

DAK v. Indorama. Represented defendant in a case involving patent infringement and trade secret misappropriation allegations involving technologies relating to methods of making polyethylene terephthalate (PET) resins and polyesters. The case was favorably settled prior to trial.

The Dow Chemical Company v. Shell Oil Company. Represented plaintiff in breach of contract case relating to a joint development effort in liquid redox chemistry. The case settled on favorable terms shortly before trial.

Greenheck Fan Corp. v. Loren Cook Company. Represented defendant in patent infringement case involving mixed flow and in-line centrifugal fan technology. The case settled on favorable terms shortly after a favorable claim construction ruling.

Indufil v. Hy-Pro. Lead counsel for plaintiff-patentee involving industrial oil filtration, obtaining consent judgment and permanent injunction against accused infringer.

International Game Technology. First or second chair in numerous patent infringement matters involving a diverse range of technology, including "virtual reel" technology, "method of play" patents, cashless technology, authentication technology and progressive systems obtaining numerous preliminary injunctions, successful verdicts and permanent injunctions.

Invista and Auriga v. M&G. Represented plaintiff Auriga in patent infringement case involving patents relating to active and passive polymer barrier technologies.

IQ Biometrix. Lead counsel for IQ Biometrix in several patent infringement matters resulting in numerous license agreements and consent judgments.

Mark IV v. Transcore. Lead counsel for Mark IV in multi-patent patent assertion matter, arguing claim construction on over 30 terms, and prevailing on each construction; settled on confidential terms.

McDavid Knee Guard, Inc. v. Nike USA, Inc. Represented plaintiff in patent infringement matter relating to padded athletic sportswear, settled on confidential terms.

Medtech Products Inc. v. Ranir, LLC. Represented Ranir in a defensive patent infringement matter relating to thermoplastic nightguard design, defending against claims of infringement against multiple Medtech patents, and countersuing for unfair competition and tortious interference, culminating in a settlement on confidential terms.

Outboard Marine v. Orbital Engine. Counsel for Outboard Marine in patent declaratory judgment action involving fuel injection technology.

Pfizer v. Apotex. Represented Plaintiff Pfizer in ANDA litigation seeking to halt the entrance of a generic version of Zyvox. The case was favorably settled prior to trial.

Pfizer v. Inventia. Represented Plaintiff Pfizer in ANDA litigation seeking to halt the entrance of a generic version of Detrol LA. The case was favorably settled prior to trial.

Ronald A. Katz Tech. Licensing L.P. v. Time Warner Cable, Inc. et al., (D. Del. 2006) - Represented Qwest Communications International Inc., Qwest Wireless, L.L.C., Qwest Communications Corporation, Qwest LD Corp., Qwest Broadband Services, Inc., and Qwest Interprise America, Inc., in patent infringement action relating to telecommunications. The case settled on confidential terms.

Rambus , Inc. v. Infineon Technologies AG. Represented Infineon in fraud and patent infringement matter involving SDRAM and DDR-SDRAM, invalidity and inequitable conduct.

Ranir, LLC v. DenTek Oral Care Inc., et al. Represented Ranir in offensive patent infringement litigation against DenTek Oral Care, Inc. regarding disposable nightguard technology.

Razor v. Swagway, et al. Lead counsel for industry leader Swagway LLC in defensive patent infringement matters relating to self-balancing vehicle design and control logic both in Federal district court and before the International Trade Commission.

Research in Motion Corp. ("RIM"). Represented RIM in a breach of contract claim, an anti-trust claim, and several patent infringement matters relating to PDA technology, including text disambiguation.

Rotec v. Potain, et al. Lead counsel for Potain before obtaining dismissal for lack of personal jurisdiction.

Security & Access v. Motorola. Second-chair in two-week patent infringement jury trial that resulted in a complete defense verdict for client, Motorola.

Shuffle Master. First-chair in numerous offensive and defensive patent infringement matters involving a diverse range of technology, including automatic card shufflers, proprietary table games, and table game monitoring systems obtaining numerous preliminary injunctions and successful verdicts.

Segway v. Swagway.  Lead counsel for industry leader Swagway LLC in defensive multi-patent infringement matters relating to self-balancing vehicle technology both in Federal district court and before the International Trade Commission.

Smart Options v. Options Away. Lead counsel for Options Away in patent infringement aspects of multi-faceted patent infringement and breach of contract matter.

Sturdy Floss v. CVS. Lead counsel for CVS in patent infringement matter involving flossing tool.

Tech-ni-Fold v. F.P. Rosback. Lead counsel for F.P. Rosback in a defensive patent infringement matter involving industrial equipment for creasing and scoring paper products, obtaining summary judgment of no infringement on three separate, independent grounds.

Trading Technologies v. CQG. Counsel for Trading Technologies in an offensive patent infringement matter culminating in a $16 million jury verdict after a three-week trial.

Unverferth v. Par-Kan. Lead counsel for Par-Kan in patent infringement defensive matter involving farm agricultural equipment.

Wi-LAN v. Acer, Inc., et al.; Wi-LAN v. Westell Technologies, Inc., et al. Represented defendant Intel in patent infringement case involving two patents relating to 802.11 wireless communications standards.

Wi-LAN v. Research in Motion, Motorola Inc., and UTStarcom, Inc. Represented defendant Motorola in patent infringement case involving two patents relating to CDMA and 802.11 wireless communications standards.

WorldGate Communications. Lead counsel for WorldGate Communication in several patent infringement matters involving data over cable technology and interactive television guides.

Qualcomm v. Motorola. Counsel for Motorola in multi-count intellectual property litigation.

TRADEMARK

Irwin IP's lawyers recognize that your brand and your trademarks —and the goodwill they represent— are among your company’s most valuable assets. We are experienced and adept at handling the litigation of trademark and false advertising disputes arising under the Lanham Act and related state unfair competition laws. We understand that frequently, trademark and unfair competition matters require urgent attention in the form of a preliminary injunction or a TRO proceeding. We are willing and able to work around the clock to pursue or defend expeditious matters relating to your company’s goodwill. We also have counseled our clients on how to protect and promote their brand and their marks, both offensively and defensively. We have represented clients from a wide array of industries. 

Representative matters of Irwin IP, or its lawyers, include:

Apple's Bakery v. Big Apple Bagels. First-chair at preliminary injunction evidentiary hearing for Big Apple Bagels in defense of trademark infringement claim. Case resolved on favorable terms prior to ruling. 

Better Government Association v. Better Government Association. Lead counsel negotiating consent judgment against accused trademark infringer. 

GCA Industries v. C&L Performance. Lead counsel for GCA in a trademark infringement suit involving concurrent use dispute in connection with the mark "True Flow" for automotive parts, which was resolved with client retaining exclusive rights to the mark. 

In re Exide Technologies et al. Successfully represented the debtor in its effort to reject as “executory” under the Bankruptcy Code a trademark license for a competitor to use a key trademark in connection with industrial products. (Represented by different counsel, the decision was later reversed by the court of appeals.) 

Massarelli v. Pace. Lead counsel for Massarelli in successful arbitration action requiring the defendant to transfer infringing domain name. 

MicroStrategy Inc. v. Motorola, Inc. Successfully defended expedited trademark infringement and unfair competition suit permitting client to continue use of phrase “Intelligence Everywhere.” 

 

Oasis Legal Finance Operating Company, LLC v. Gary Chodes et al.  Achieved summary judgment for client that an agreement unambiguously transferred ownership of intellectual property. 

Rand McNally. Lead counsel for Rand McNally in trademark and copyright dispute with former distributor. 

Ricoh Co., Ltd. v. Katun Corp. Achieved summary judgment for client on fair use defense to claims of trademark infringement and unfair competition. 

Schwan's v. Kraft Pizza Company. Achieved summary judgment for client in trademark infringement dispute over use of generic term “Brick Oven” in connection with pizza. 

Shuffle Master v. Gaming Entertainment, Inc. Lead counsel for Shuffle Master, obtaining preliminary injunction, summary judgment and permanent injunction on Shuffle Master's trade dress claims, dismissal of several of Defendants' counterclaims for failure to state a claim, and summary judgment on Defendants' remaining claims, including antitrust, unfair competition and trade libel. 

Sportcraft v. Wilson Sporting Goods. Lead counsel for Sportcraft in matter involving alleged violation of a trademark license agreement. 

Top Tobacco v. North Atlantic Operating Co. Achieved summary judgment for defendant in trademark infringement and dilution case; filed successful motion to recover client’s attorney’s fees upon proving plaintiff’s conduct “exceptional.”

UL v. Swagway. Lead counsel for Swagway in a trademark infringement and unfair competition matter, culminating in an amicable resolution and resumption of business relations.

World Kitchen Inc. et. al. v. American Culinary Corporation. Successfully sought dismissal of counterclaims for patent infringement and breach of contract in connection with kitchenware products; reached favorable settlement as to Lanham Act claims. 

 
OTHER COMPLEX LITIGATION

Irwin IP has also litigated myriad complex non-IP business matters, such as matters before the International Trade Commission, antitrust and unfair competition claims, U.S. Customs seizures, and breach of contract claims.

Excellence.Integrity.Success.

222 South Riverside Plaza Suite 2350

Chicago, IL 60606

312.667.6080

  • LinkedIn - Grey Circle
  • Facebook - Grey Circle
  • G+ - Grey Circle

© 2017 Irwin IP LLC. All Rights Reserved. Disclaimer | Sitemap

Attorney Advertising. The material and information contained on these pages and on any pages linked from these pages are intended to provide general information only and not legal advice. You should consult with an attorney licensed to practice in your jurisdiction before relying upon any of the information presented here. The acts of sending email to this website or viewing information from this website do not create an attorney-client relationship. The listing of verdicts, settlements, and other case results is not a guarantee or prediction of the outcome of any other claims.