• Represented Artists in Copyright Infringement matter against multi-national car manufacturer for improper use of artwork in international advertising campaign resulting in settlement.
• Successfully represented Plaintiff in patent infringement action against medical equipment manufacturer resulting in fully paid up license.
• Represented copyright owner in successful fee suit against a major oil and gas engineering firm for illegal use of software in the U.S. and overseas resulting in a settlement.
• Successfully defended Chewy Vuitton parody dog chew purses from claims of trademark and copyright infringement filed by Louis Vuitton. In a case of first impression, the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed finding that the parody enhanced the value of the Louis Vuitton trademark, rather than diluting it. Decision reported at 507 F.2d 252 (4th Cir. 2007).
• Successfully represented a plaintiff in design patent case resulting in jury verdict of damages and injunction. The underlying judgment was affirmed by the Federal Circuit Court of Appeals and the U.S. Supreme
  Court denied the defendant's petition for further review.
• Represented patent owner in successful suit against Chicago Board of Trade and Chicago Mercantile Exchange in pioneer patent for electronic trading of futures. After initiating suit in Dallas, Texas and successfully defeating a defense motion to transfer the case to Chicago, we negotiated a partial transfer of the patent rights to Cantor Fitzgerald’s electronic trading arm, eSpeed and ultimately settled the case. Our client was paid for his patent rights and participated in the settlement.
• Represented an entrepreneur who was marketing parody perfumes with names like CK-9, Timmy Moledigger, Pucci who was sued by Tommy Hilfiger. Resulted in defense summary judgement where Tommy Hilfiger was “advised to chill.”
• Obtained successful verdict for Plaintiff in a medical device patent litigation resulting in damages awarded for the entire profits obtained by the infringer
• Successfully defended a patent involving plant growth regulators before the Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Sampling of reported cases:

• TriVascular v. Samuels, 812 F.3d 1056 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (Patent Validity Inter Partes Proceeding after one of the first successful IPR defenses of a patent)
• Owens Corning v Fast Felt, IPR2015-00650 (Successful decision on InterPartes Review)
• United Galvanizing, Inc. v. Imperial Zinc Corporation, No. H-08-0551, 2011 WL 11185 (S.D.Tex. Jan. 3, 2011) (Failure to provide merchantable goods)
• Amazing Spaces, Inc. v. Metro Mini Storage, 608 F.3d 225 (5th Cir. 2010) (Trademark Defense)
• Junker v. Eddings, 396 F.3d 1359 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (Patent Enforcement)
• Fine Agrochemicals Limited v Stoller Enterprises, Inc., IPR2020-00683 (Decision Denying Institution of Inter Parties Review)
• Junker v. Med. Components, Inc., No. 13-4606, 2021 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 7694 (E.D. Pa. Jan. 14, 2021)
• Havel v. Honda Motor Europe Ltd., No. H-13-1291, 2014 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 140983 (S.D. Tex. Sep. 30, 2014)