practice_areas
practice_areas

Litigation

Harness Dickey’s foundation is to secure, monitor and protect our client’s intellectual property. We aggressively monitor potential exposures to prevent litigation. However, there are times that the only resolution to a dispute is in the courtroom and litigation is unavoidable.

  Litigation Practice Brochure

We provide zealous, articulate and aggressive advocacy on behalf of our clients. Our experience covers the entire spectrum of intellectual property issues from patent, trademark, trade dress and copyright infringement, to cyber-squatting to complex technology and licensing agreements. What makes our counsel unique is our technical knowledge. Not only do our litigators have prosecution experience, but we are able to draw from Harness Dickey’s industry experience in areas such as the life sciences and biotechnology, electrical engineering, chemical engineering, and mechanical engineering.

This strong combination allows us to efficiently and thoroughly prepare for any court action and gives us the ability to translate the information to a judge and jury that may not be familiar with the technical aspects of the case.

Courtroom Success

We have the experience and technical knowledge to handle complex litigation and arbitration with a sensitivity and appreciation for the economics of litigation. Our recent successes include:

  • A federal judge in Minnesota ruled in favor of CBS Interactive, Inc. and against the National Football League Players Association finding that the First Amendment supersedes any right of publicity in the use of player names, statistics and other public information in fantasy football games. The case is CBS Interactive, Inc. v. National Football League Players Association, Inc., et al., Civil No. 08-CV-5097 (D. Minn.)
  • Secured a major victory for CDM Sports (and the entire fantasy sports gaming industry) in a precedent-setting case against Major League Baseball in C.B.C. Distribution and Marketing, Inc. v. Major League Baseball Advanced Media, L.P. and Major League Baseball Players' Association, Case No. 4:05CV00252MLM
  • In a trade secret misappropriation case involving laser equipment for minimally invasive eye surgery, we won a jury verdict for Synergetics, Inc. for nearly $2.4 million in Synergetics, Inc. v. Charles Richard Hurst, Jr. and Michael McGowan; U.S. Federal District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri, Case No. 4:04CV318DDN
  • For Litecubes, LLC, the manufacture of novelty imitation ice cubes with internal lighting, we obtained a jury verdict of willful patent and copyright infringement in Litecubes, LLC and Carl R. Vanderschuit v. Northern Light Products, Inc., d/b/a Glowproducts.com; US Federal District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri, Case No. 4:04CV485ERW
  • Obtained jury verdict of willful infringement of the "POWERHOUSE" trademark by Chi Hsin Impex, Inc., Costco Wholesale Corporation, Dick's Sporting Goods Inc., Dunham's Athleisure Corporation, and Meijer Inc., in Powerhouse Marks, L.L.C. v. Chi Hsin Impex, Case No. 2:04-CV-73923 (E.D. Mich., May 11, 2006)[docket no 250]
  • Obtained summary judgment of non-infringement of a re-designed product, denial of plaintiff’s motion for contempt for violating a permanent injunction and to enforce a settlement agreement, and an award of $300,000 in attorney fees in Semitool, Inc., v. Dynamic Micro Systems Semiconductor Equipment GmbH, Case No. 01-01391 WHA (N.D. Cal. Feb. 14, 2005)
  • Obtained affirmance by the Federal Circuit of the trial court's grant of summary judgment of non-infringement of a re-designed product, with Semitool agreeing to pay $147,618.11 in attorney fees incurred during the appeal, in Semitool Inc. v. Dynamic Micro Systems Semiconductor Equipment GmbH, 78 U.S.P.Q.2d 1438 (Fed. Cir. 2006)
  • Obtained denial of motion to hold defendant in contempt for allegedly violating a permanent injunction in Pollock v. Thunderline-Z, Inc., Case no. 95-11319-RGS (D. Mass. Feb. 24, 2006)
  • Obtained an Ex Parte Seizure Order for the seizure of counterfeit JOE ROCKET motorcycle jackets and a Preliminary Injunction against further infringement in Robison’s, Inc. v. LoFom, Inc., Than Lee, and Michael D. Wade, Case No. 05-CV-2082 (S.D. Cal. Nov. 11, 2005)
  • Obtained affirmance of summary judgment that a defendant violated the Anti-Cybersquatting Act on behalf of DaimlerChrysler Corporation by the Sixth Circuit in DaimlerChrysler v. The Net, 388 F.3d 201 (6th Cir. 2004)
  • Obtained judgment for $2,535,031.30 on behalf of the University of Michigan, Michigan State University, and VetGen, L.L.C., which included an award of $634,000 in lost profit damages which were trebled by the Court, $577,091.25 in attorney fees, and $53,540.09 in prejudgment interest, in Univ. of Michigan, Michigan State Univ., and VetGen, L.L.C. v. GeneSearch, L.L.C., Civil Action No. 00-60250 (E.D. Mich. Mar. 6, 2003)
  • Trial counsel in utility patent litigation relating to United States Patent No. 6,040,143 titled “DNA Encoding von Willebrand Factor and Methods of Use” and United States Patent No. 6,074,832 titled “DNA Encoding Canine von Willebrand Factor and Methods of Use,” in Univ. of Michigan, Michigan State Univ., and VetGen, L.L.C. v. GeneSearch, L.L.C., Civil Action No. 00-60250 (E.D. Mich. Mar. 6, 2003)
  • Obtained preliminary injunction on behalf of Midwest Guaranty Bank against Guaranty Bank, following Guaranty Bank’s entry into Michigan, in Midwest Guaranty Bank v. Guaranty Bank, 270 F. Supp.2d 900 (E.D. Mich. 2003)
  • Obtained a temporary restraining order and preliminary injunction on behalf of 24 Hour Fitness, in 24 Hour Fitness USA, Inc. v. 24 Hour Fitness, Inc., Case No. 5:01-CV-155 (W. D. Mich. Dec. 10, 2001)
  • Obtained summary judgment of non-infringement of trade dress for color-coded manifolds used with plastic injection molds in CITO Products, Inc. v. R.E. Promotion Services Limited and Injection Molding Industries, Case No. 98C0269S (W.D. Wis.)
  • Successfully recovered dozens of domain names in various ICANN proceedings, including DaimlerChrysler Corporation v. credoNIC.com, Case No. 284954 (N.A.F. Aug. 5, 2004); DaimlerChrysler Corporation v. LaPorte Holdings, Inc., Case No. 363051 (N.A.F. Jan. 4, 2005); DaimlerChrysler Corporation v. KenTech, Inc., Case No. 410056 (N.A.F. Mar. 21, 2005); and DaimlerChrysler Corporation v. Asia Ventures, Inc. Case No. 453735 (N.A.F. May 17, 2005)

We are involved in jury and bench trials before federal and state courts, appear in various appellate courts and prosecute and defend matters before administrative agencies including the Patent Office Board of Appeals and the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board.