Litigation & Appeals

Click here to view our Litigation & Appeals professionals

Our attorneys have an exceptional range of litigation experience and technical knowledge.

We try cases and we win. Our attorneys represent clients aggressively, effectively, and efficiently in all types of intellectual property litigation before all forums, including the federal courts, the International Trade Commission, the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office, and in private mediation. Our clients include a wide range of companies, from small start-ups to Fortune 100 companies. We represent both plaintiff and defense positions in litigation.

Our attorneys are experienced with litigating disputes over patent, trademark and copyright infringement, trade secret misappropriation, and unfair competition. We represent clients in interference proceedings and trademark opposition and cancellation proceedings. Our technical skills extend to numerous technology areas, including biotechnology, business methods, chemical, computing, electrical, mechanical and materials, pharmaceuticals and diagnostics, and telecommunications.

At MBHB, our broad litigation experience and technical knowledge are particularly valuable to clients in protecting and enforcing their rights through a variety of infringement litigation procedures, including temporary restraining orders, preliminary injunctions, Markman hearings, bench and jury trials, and appeals. Even in the heat of litigation, we keep our focus on our clients' business goals. We always understand what is truly important to our clients.

P: 312.913.2104
F: 312.913.0002
P: 312.935.2369
F: 312.913.0002
P: 312.913.2140
F: 312.913.0002
P: 312.913.2130
F: 312.913.0002
P: 312.913.2144
F: 312.913.0002
P: 312.913.3330
F: 312.913.0002
P: 312.913.2131
F: 312.913.0002
P: 312.913.3345
F: 312.913.0002
P: 312.913.3341
F: 312.913.0002
P: 312.913.3317
F: 312.913.0002
P: 312.913.2109
F: 312.913.0002
P: 312.913.2121
F: 312.913.0002
P: 360.379.6514
F: 312.913.2557
P: 312.913.2143
F: 312.913.0002
P: 312.913.3315
F: 312.913.0002
P: 312.913.3333
F: 312.913.0002
P: 312.913.2107
F: 312.913.0002
P: 312.913.3366
F: 312.913.0002
P: 312.913.3395
F: 312.913.0002
P: 312.913.2116
F: 312.913.0002
P: 312.913.2106
F: 312.913.0002
P: 312.913.3331
F: 312.913.0002
P: 312.913.2122
F: 312.913.0002
P: 312.913.2137
F: 312.913.0002
P: 312.935.2372
F: 312.913.0002
P: 312.913.3377
F: 312.913.0002
P: 312.913.3304
F: 312.913.0002
P: 312.913.2125
F: 312.913.0002
P: 312.913.2112
F: 312.913.0002
P: 312.913.3372
F: 312.913.0002
P: 312.913.2129
F: 312.913.0002
P: 312.913.2101
F: 312.913.0002
P: 312.913.3344
F: 312.913.0002
P: 312.913.3350
F: 312.913.0002
P: 312.913.3302
F: 312.913.0002
P: 312.935.2370
F: 312.913.0002
P: 312.913.2145
F: 312.913.0002
P: 312.913.3354
F: 312.913.0002
P: 312.913.3396
F: 312.913.0002
P: 312.913.3335
F: 312.913.0002
P: 312.913.3349
F: 312.913.0002
P: 312.913.2118
F: 312.913.0002
P: 312.935.2366
F: 312.913.0002
P: 312.913.3303
F: 312.913.0002
P: 312.913.3376
F: 312.913.0002
P: 312.913.3347
F: 312.913.0002
P: 312.913.2133
F: 312.913.0002
P: 312.913.3356
F: 312.913.0002
P: 312.913.2119
F: 312.913.0002
P: 312.913.3336
F: 312.913.0002
Of Counsel
P: 312.913.3384
F: 312.913.0002
P: 312.913.3348
F: 312.913.0002
P: 312.913.3329
F: 312.913.0002
P: 312.913.3300
F: 312.913.0002
P: 312.935.2379
F: 312.913.0002
P: 312.913.2128
F: 312.913.0002
P: 312.913.3368
F: 312.913.0002
P: 312.913.2138
F: 312.913.0002
P: 312.913.3301
F: 312.913.0002
Partner
P: 312.913.3390
F: 312.913.0002

Publications

October 5, 2017
MBHB snippets Alert - October 5, 2017

In Aqua Products Inc. v. Matal, a highly fractured en banc Federal Circuit determined that the PTAB, in ruling whether to allow claim amendments in an IPR proceeding, can no longer place the burden to establish the patentability of the amended claims on the patent owner. This should result in more claim amendments being allowed in such proceedings, and it also opens the possibility that more motions to amend will be filed. However, this decision is unlikely to be the panacea hoped for by patent owners.
September 22,2017 (snippets Alert)
In In re: Cray, Inc, No. 2017-129, the CAFC issued a writ of mandamus vacating Judge Gilstrap’s decision involving venue under 28 U.S.C. §1400(b) in Raytheon Co. v. Cray Inc., Case No. 15-cv-1554 (E.D. Texas). That earlier decision raised concerns over whether the Supreme Court’s venue holding in TC Heartland LLC v. Kraft Foods Group Brands LLC, 137 S. Ct. 1514 (2017), would be given full effect. Judge Gilstrap had applied a broad 4-factor test for finding whether a defendant such as Cray had a “regular and established place of business” in the Eastern District of Texas under §1400(b). Judge Gilstrap’s test had attracted significant attention, and posited the Eastern District of Texas against most other district courts in applying § 1400(b).
Summer 2017 (snippets)
With cannabis policy reform and legalization continuing to gain momentum nationwide and internationally, the “Green Rush” is well underway. For companies and entrepreneurs entering this industry, comprehensive intellectual property (“IP”) protection is vital for their developing cannabis brands and inventions.
Summer 2017 (snippets)
In Water Splash v. Menon, the Supreme Court presents guidance for multinational plaintiffs and defendants charting the rarely tested waters of international service. Specifically, in determining that service by direct mailing is not expressly prohibited under the Hague Service Convention, the Court opened the flood gates for parties to attempt Convention-compliant service by direct mailing.
Summer 2017 (snippets)
On May 11, 2017, the Defend Trade Secrets Act (DTSA) – the law that created a Federal cause of action for trade secret misappropriation – celebrated its first birthday. From the first year of enforcement, it appears that the DTSA got the balance right with some provisions, may need to be tweaked with others, and has yet to render clear results in some.
Summer 2017 (snippets)
On May 22, 2017, in TC Heartland LLC v. Kraft Foods Group Brands LLC, the Supreme Court reversed decades of expansive patent venue interpretation by the Federal Circuit. The ruling in TC Heartland immediately overturns long-standing “forum-shopping” practices and introduces a longer-term issue of defining “a regular and established place of business.”
Close
Generate a PDF of your page(s)
Clear
Close
Remove
Page has been queued
An error has occurred
Add
Added to queue
View
Confirm Delete All Message
No Items in Packet Message
To add a page, select Add. To view the package, select View.
false
https://www.mbhb.com/services/xpqServiceDetail.aspx?xpST=ServiceDetail&service=295&pdf=yes
a[href='javascript:packetBuilderSingleClick(document.title);']