Intellectual Property Litigation
Stites & Harbison’s IPT Group has extensive experience litigating intellectual property matters before federal and state courts throughout the nation. This experience also extends to all levels of appeals, including the United States Supreme Court. Our firm's intellectual property litigation attorneys aggressively protect the intellectual property assets of our clients, and defend those who have been wrongfully accused of infringing others’ intellectual property rights. The firm has handled a number of significant and well-known intellectual property disputes and has served as lead counsel in intellectual property litigation in more than 30 states. Below are examples of the firm's experience:
Patent Infringement Litigation
- Representing a manufacturer of coolant compounds in a patent infringement litigation against a competitor that resulted in a $40 million royalty payment to our client by the defendant
- Representing a patent holder in the lighting industry in a patent infringement trial that resulted in a multi-million-dollar jury verdict
- Defending a developer of financial software and systems in a patent infringement trial in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Texas, which resulted in a judgment as a matter of law in favor of our client
- Defending a toner cartridge manufacturer in an action brought by one of the world's largest printer manufacturers
- Defending a supplier of accelerometers in suit brought by patent holding company against several large automotive manufacturers
- Defending a national manufacturer of athletic pads in an infringement action brought by a competitor. Litigation was heard by the U.S. Supreme Court and eventually resulted in an award of attorneys' fees to our client.
- Representing a manufacturer of nacho cheese dispensers in multiple actions against infringers of its patents
- Defending a manufacturer of cable reels in an infringement action brought by a competitor
Trademark Infringement/Unfair Competition Litigation
- Defending a local automobile service company against a national oil company's claim of infringement of the INSTANT OIL CHANGE mark
- Defending a financial company offering variable annuities under the MARQUEE mark that was accused of infringing a bank's MARQUIS mark used for mutual funds
- Defending a new pizza franchisor accused by a major national franchisor of trade dress infringement
- Representing a cabinet retailer who owned the SCHEIRICH mark in an infringement action against a homebuilder and its related cabinet company using the SCHIERICH mark with kitchen cabinets
- Defending a local, family-owned auto parts business using the ADVANCE AUTO mark in an action brought by a major regional chain using the same mark
Copyright Infringement Litigation
- Representing Microsoft Corporation in several infringement actions against companies who have loaded pirated software onto computers for resale, and against resellers distributing counterfeit software
- Representing a marketing company in several infringement actions throughout the nation against car dealerships and billboard advertisers who misappropriated a distinctive advertising campaign
- Defending a credit information agency accused of infringement by a former software provider
- Representing a dissolved partnership that created and marketed electronic data interface software
- Representing an architect who was dismissed from a project and whose plans were then misappropriated in creating the final plan for the project
- Representing an electronics training company whose advertising materials were copied by a competitor
- Representing a doctor whose scholarly work was infringed in the creation of a monograph for distribution to surgeons
USPTO’s New Continuation Fees Prompt Strategic Shifts and Raise Pendency Concerns
With the USPTO’s implementation of new fees for certain continuation patent applications, applicants now face important strategic decisions regarding the timing and management of their filings. IP attorney Mandy Decker takes a look at the new fees in this Stites & Harbison Client Alert.
Securing Global Patents: U.S. "Obviousness" vs. Chinese "Inventive Step" Standards
If you or your company have developed a new technology, filing a patent application is an important step to protect your investment. However, because patent rights are territorial, it’s often necessary to file patent applications not only in the United States, but also globally. IP attorneys James Hayne takes a look at the difference between the U.S. and the Chinese systems.
Supreme Court Rules Trademark Plaintiffs Can Only Recover Profits from Defendants Named in the Action
On February 26, 2025, the United States Supreme Court unanimously held that a prevailing plaintiff in a trademark infringement case may recover profits only from the defendant named as a party to the proceeding, and may not also recover profits from the defendant’s affiliates who are not parties to the proceeding. Dewberry Group, Inc., fka Dewberry Capital Corp. v. Dewberry Engineers Inc., No. 23-900, _____ U.S. ____ (Feb. 26, 2025). The Court’s decision reinforced the principle of corporate separateness, but also left open the possibility that the federal trademark statute (the “Lanham Act”) might allow trial courts to consider evidence related to a defendant’s affiliates when exercising the discretion to adjust a profits award upwards or downwards for the sake of fairness. IP attorneys Alex MacKay and Sam Miller take a look at the decision in this Stites & Harbison Client Alert.
2025 WTR 1000 Recognizes Stites & Harbison’s Trademark Practice
World Trademark Review (WTR) has recognized Stites & Harbison, PLLC and three attorneys in the 2025 edition of WTR 1000 – The World’s Leading Trademark Professionals.