IP Litigation

Select Page

Author: Dickinson Wright

Attorney John A. Artz – 40 Years Of Experience In Intellectual Property Litigation

John A. Artz has over 40 years of experience in Intellectual Property, particularly specializing in patent litigation. Since coming to DW, John has worked primarily on patent litigation, although he also has continued his counseling and patent/trademark prosecution activities. In 2016, he worked on a successful 4-week patent infringement trial against the U.S. Government (Oak Ridge National Laboratory) in the U.S. Court of Claims. Currently, he is representing the University of South Florida Research Foundation in several litigation matters.  USFRF has one of the basic patents in digital mammography with many infringers. In 2011, he successfully represented Federal Mogul accused of patent infringement by securing a favorable Markman claim construction followed by a summary judgment of no infringement – all within a year. John also secured over a million dollar award for patent infringement in a case involving two vehicle mirror companies in the E.D.N.Y. Before coming to Dickinson Wright in 2007 to head their patent litigation department, John represented several companies in Silicon Valley for over a decade, including Paul Allen’s secretive Interval Research in Palo Alto. He also founded Artz & Artz, an IP boutique firm which grew to 12 attorneys.  Artz & Artz represented many large companies in various fields of technology (Hughes Aircraft, GE’s cat scan/x-ray division, Ford Motor Company, Warner Lambert (now Pfizer), Boeing, as well as local favorite Warrior Lacrosse Co.  Artz &...

Read More

ITC Rules on SolarWorld Suniva Investigation

In spring of 2017, Suniva Inc. (“Suniva”) and SolarWorld Americas, Inc. (“SolarWorld”) (together, the “Petitioners”), filed Investigation No. TA-201-075 with the International Trade Commission (the “ITC”) under Section 201 of the Trade Act of 1974, Pub. L. 93-618, 88 Stat. 1978, 19 U.S.C. §§ 2101 et seq., which allows the ITC to investigate whether increased imports of a given article are a “substantial cause of serious injury, or the threat thereof, to the domestic industry producing an article like or directly competitive with the imported article[.]” 19 U.S.C. § 2251(a). Upon making a finding of serious injury, the ITC may recommend that the President “take all appropriate and feasible action within his power which the President determines will facilitate efforts by the domestic industry to make a positive adjustment to import competition and provide greater economic and social benefits than costs.” Id. The Petitioners asserted that increased imports of crystalline silicon photovoltaic (“CSPV”) cells and modules seriously injured domestic manufacturers. On September 22, 2017, the ITC unanimously determined that increased imports of CSPV cells and modules were a substantial cause of serious injury to the domestic industry and, following a remedies hearing on October 3, 2017, the ITC on October 31, 2017 issued its recommendations to President Trump. Although their recommendations varied significantly, in general, the Commissioners advised that the President impose tariff-rate quotas (“TRQ”) on CSPV imports. For...

Read More

Dickinson Wright Successfully Defends IdeaVillage Products Corp. – an “As Seen On TV” Product Manufacturer – Against Claim of Patent Infringement

By: Franklin M. Smith and John S. Artz John S. Artz (Member, Troy) and Franklin M. Smith  (Associate, Troy) recently won a motion for summary judgment establishing that Dickinson Wright’s client, IdeaVillage Products Corp. (“IdeaVillage”) does not infringe a competitor’s patent.  The suit, filed by Choon’s Design, Inc. (“Choon’s”) in the Eastern District of Michigan (Case No. 13-cv-13568), centers around two patents on hand-held looms for creating rubber band bracelets, with Choon’s seeking damages in excess of $20 Million for alleged infringement by IdeaVillage. IdeaVillage, a developer and marketer of consumer products in the “As Seen On TV” industry, sold its product, the FunLoom, to large retailers throughout the United States. Choon’s, on the other hand, sold a competing loom product, known as the Rainbow Loom, in the specialty toy market. Choon’s holds several patents related to loom products and filed suit against IdeaVillage, seeking a finding that IdeaVillage infringes two of these patents. After initiation of the lawsuit and the filing of a preliminary injunction, IdeaVillage retained Dickinson Wright to spearhead its defense. Dickinson Wright successfully caused Choon’s to withdraw its motion for preliminary injunction. After, Dickinson Wright secured a favorable Markman claim construction ruling from the district court, Dickinson Wright filed a motion for summary judgment that, in view of the Court’s favorable claim construction ruling, Choon’s first patent-in-suit is not infringed either literally or under the doctrine...

Read More

Dickinson Wright Defeats Motion to Dismiss Unfair Competition Claims

By: Franklin M. Smith and John S. Artz John S. Artz (Member, Troy) and Franklin M. Smith (Associate, Troy) recently defeated a motion to dismiss a Dickinson Wright client’s complaint for unfair competition. The Defendants, ZURU, Ltd. and ZURU, Inc. (collectively, “ZURU”) are global toy distributors. In spring 2017, ZURU sent communications to various third party toy retailers asserting it owned intellectual property rights in a Lego tape product and, in view of these rights, the third parties should not engage in business with Dickinson Wright’s client, Ontel Products Corp. (“Ontel”). On behalf of Ontel, Dickinson Wright filed suit in United States District Court for the District of New Jersey against ZURU (Case No. 3:17-cv-3658), alleging unfair competition in violation of the Lanham Act, 15 U.S.C. § 1125(a), common law unfair competition, tortious interference with a prospective business advantage, and unjust enrichment. In sum, Ontel asserted that Zuru lacked any such intellectual property rights and its communications were simply intended to interfere with Ontel’s existing business relationships. ZURU moved to dismiss Ontel’s complaint on the basis that its statements to third parties were protected under the Noerr-Pennington doctrine. The Noerr-Pennington doctrine arises from anti-trust law, where it allows competitors to exercise their right to petition the government and avoid liability for the anti-competitive effect associated with the petitioning activity. The doctrine has since been extended, on a limited basis,...

Read More

IP Litigation Attorney Spotlight Features Michael Feder

Michael Feder, a member of the firm’s Litigation Department, practices in the Las Vegas office. With extensive experience in all aspects of intellectual property litigation matters, including copyright infringement, patent infringement, and trademark infringement. Michael was honored this year by Best Lawyers in America® as 2018 “Lawyer of the Year” for Litigation – Intellectual Property, an honor he also received in 2013. Michael is rated by Martindale-Hubbell® as an “A/V Preeminent Attorney®” and is consistently recognized by Best Lawyers in America®, Super Lawyers and Chambers for his abilities, professionalism and integrity. In addition to intellectual property litigation, Michael focuses on commercial and business litigation matters involving banking, contracts, corporate law, employment law, entertainment and sports law, franchise law, fraud, gaming, real estate, RICO, securities law, shareholder and partnership disputes, and unfair competition, among others. He also represents clients in appellate, bankruptcy, gaming, regulatory and transactional related matters. Michael’s ability to excel in his practice is likely due to his love of litigation. He started his career straight out of law school with a firm that focused on litigation and he knew immediately that it was the ideal practice area for him. Whether in IP law or other settings, Michael revels in the opportunity to strategize and implement the strategy—traits that mesh perfectly with litigation. Michael has practiced law for over 25 years and has represented clients in many different...

Read More

Newsletter Subscription

Disclaimer

IP Litigation Blog is published by Dickinson Wright PLLC to inform the public of important developments within the firm and practice areas. The content is informational only and does not constitute legal or professional advice. We encourage you to consult a Dickinson Wright attorney if you have specific questions or concerns relating to any of the topics covered in this blog.

Categories