Klarquist Sparkman’s litigation attorneys have represented dozens of companies in patent, trade secret, trade dress, copyright, trademark, and unfair competition actions in Federal courts nationwide. The Firm’s litigation group includes a number of attorneys with substantial trial experience and broad technical expertise. Additionally, a number of our attorneys have held prestigious judicial clerkships in Federal Courts around the country. We have litigated cases involving a wide range of technologies, including computer software and hardware, business methods, medical devices, mechanical equipment, consumer electronics, and biotechnology. Klarquist Sparkman attorneys have also handled numerous domain name disputes for Amazon.com, Inc. and other clients. At present, the Firm has approximately twenty attorneys who focus their practice almost exclusively on litigation. The Firm’s patent prosecution attorneys also assist with technical issues that arise during litigation.
Klarquist Sparkman's approach to litigation is to emphasize strategy, speed, professionalism, organization, and candor. The Firm typically adopts a comprehensive strategy within the first weeks of a new case and constantly reevaluates it throughout the case. We strive to be more nimble than our opponent. The Firm respects the court’s perspective and does not attack opposing counsel, exaggerate facts or law, or waste pages addressing unnecessary points. Klarquist Sparkman has developed systems for efficiently apprising clients of facts, schedules, and strategies.
The Firm has litigated cases in venues across the country. In recent years, the Firm has represented clients in significant patent cases in Alexandria, Austin, Baltimore, Chicago, Dallas, Detroit, Duluth, Fort Worth, Indianapolis, Miami, Oakland, Orlando, Portland, San Francisco, San Jose, Seattle, Tucson, Tyler, and Wilmington, among other cities. We have litigated copyright, trade secret, trademark, and unfair competition cases in various venues.
Our Record of Success
Klarquist Sparkman has helped its clients achieve great successes in the courtroom, ranging from large plaintiff jury verdicts to defense summary judgments. Some of our most recent successes are outlined below; for a more complete listing of our cases, please see our Representative Cases:
|
Year |
Case (Klarquist client in bold) |
Result |
| 2010 |
Aristocrat Technologies, et. al. v. International Game Technology and IGT |
Summary judgment of patent non-infringemetn |
|
2009 |
Taylor Brands, LLC v. Columbia River Knife and Tool Company |
Summary judgment of patent non-infringement |
|
2009 |
RCT v. Microsoft |
Stipulation of dismissal of invalidity and non-infringement in favor of Microsoft |
|
2009 |
MEI, LLC v. Integral Applied Technology, Inc. et al |
Summary judgment of copyright infringement and DMCA and Lanham Act violations on MEI’s claims and dismissing defendant’s counterclaims including allegations of trade secret misappropriation |
|
2008 |
Veritas v. Microsoft |
Summary judgment of patent invalidity and the case later settled prior to trial on the non-patent claims |
|
2008 |
Anascape Ltd. v. Microsoft |
Summary judgment of patent non-infringement and no willful infringement |
|
2008 |
International Automated Systems v. Microsoft |
Summary judgment of patent invalidity |
|
2007 |
Aristocrat Technologies, et. al. v. International Game Technology and IGT |
Summary judgment of patent invalidity, reversed and remanded on appeal |
|
2007 |
Motionless Keyboard Co. v. Microsoft |
Summary judgment of patent noninfringement, affirmed |
|
2006 |
Frank T. Buckley v. Freightliner LLC |
Summary judgment of patent invalidity |
|
2006 |
Mentor Graphics Corp. v. IEM |
New York copyright infringement action resulting in consent judgment |
|
2006 |
Shakespeare v. Silstar |
Consent judgment and injunction against trademark use |
|
2005 |
CollegeNET v. ApplyYourself |
Jury verdict of patent infringement, reinstated on appeal |
|
2005 |
Network Commerce v. Microsoft |
Summary judgment of patent noninfringement, affirmed on appeal |
|
2005 |
Shaw v. Microsoft |
Summary judgment of patent noninfringement |
|
2005 |
Kassab Jewelers v. C Kassab Designs |
Preliminary injunction against trademark infringer |
|
2004 |
TransLogic Technologies v. Hitachi |
$86.5 million jury verdict for patent infringement, vacated on appeal in light of reexam decision |
|
2004 |
Slocum Enterprises v. New Generation |
Dismissal for lack of personal jurisdiction |
Attorney contacts for our Litigation group: Stephen Joncus or Jeffrey Love.