Intellectual Property Litigation

We conduct trials and appeals. Our attorneys include battle proven veteran jury trial lawyers. We know how to prepare a case for jury, and have done so numerous times. We handle litigation related to patents, trademarks, copyrights, trade secrets, unfair competition in trial courts and appeals courts. We handle trademark opposition and cancellation proceedings. Mr. Rylander has conducted numerous jury trials to verdict, representing both plaintiff and the defense. He has thousands of court appearances, State and Federal. He has handled appellate work and Federal and State litigation both in and outside of the patent and intellectual property realm. He won a 08-1109 before the Federal Circuit dealing with personal jurisdiction in actions for declaration of non-infringement of patents.He has appeared in Federal and State courts and administrative tribunals nationwide. His experience includes areas such as patent infringement, patent interference, patent appeal, intellectual property ownership, trademark opposition, unfair competition, trademark and copyright infringement, among others.

CASE STUDIES

Case Study #1

A client came in after losing a patent priority interference before the Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences (BPAI). The client had represented himself/herself against a large law firm. Every possible ruling of the BPAI appeared to go against the client. With only days left in the statutory time limit to appeal, we recognized that a de novo appeal to Federal District Court provided a better opportunity for the client than a review on the record by the Federal Circuit. By quick action and thorough investigation of all possible witnesses, and navigating the complex interference legal requirements, we succeed in bringing the client favorable relief. The BPAI decision was reversed, and priority awarded to our client.

Case Study #2

A business owner retained us to examine a competitor’s use of the business owner’s name in a nearby city. Investigators snapped pictures showing the offending use. The competitor refused to back down and suit was filed for trademark infringement. We succeeded in receiving an injunction for our client against the competitor’s use of the name, requiring the competitor to change the name.

Case Study #3

A business person who created a unique line of furniture asked us to look into available protection. We determined the possibility of protection under trade dress laws, and under copyright law. We quickly filed copyright applications on each furniture piece, and had the applications in place for the client when the client met with a large regional retailer. The client received favorable results after the retailer’s representative confided that if the copyright applications had not been filed, the retailer had intended to just run the line itself, without making a deal.

Case Study #4

A business owner retained us to examine actions of former employees who had left the company and taken up similar positions with another company. Further, evidence existed that the employees had transferred vendor and customer and pricing information from their work computers to disks and removed the disks from the work place. Through quick action we secured a temporary restraining order, later converted to a preliminary injunction against the employee working for the competitor, and against use of the confidential client information.

Case Study #5

A business owner and inventor was referred to us to examine actions of the Postal Service. The Postal Service had “approved” for placement in rural mailboxes a patented secure mailbox conversion device. After the client had incurred significant costs in running a line and marketing the invention, the Postal Service, without explanation, voided the “approval” leaving the client out significant sums. Through suit in Federal District Court, we succeeded in providing favorable relief for the client to compensate this damage.


PATENT LITIGATION

The Firms's patent litigation practice is substantial. Bolstered by the trial and litigation skills of Mr. Rylander, and the patent prosecution experience of the Firm attorneys, the Firm has provided numerous favorable results for its clients following a simple formula: State the facts clearly and honestly, provide the black letter law, and be persistent. Following this formula, the Firm recently succeeded in securing favorable relief, and a precedential Federal Circuit decision, in Campbell Pet Co. v. Miale.

SOME PATENT CASES HANDLED

(Cases handled by our attorneys were not in all cases handled while at the Firm.  Cases listed are not a representation of any guarantee or expectation).

Pure Imagination v. Adaptics Limited (USDC WD Wash).

Patent infringement action against owners of The Drop Kitchen Recipe App and Scale.

Pure Imagination v. Borei Corporation (Clark County, WA)

Declaration of patent ownership. Settled.

Mentor Group LLC v. Self Defence Supply (USDC D. Or)

Defense of patent infringement suit. Settled.

Ryonet Corp. v. Lodsys LLC (USDC WDW)

Representing the plaintiff in a suit for declaration of noninfringement and invalidity of patents.

Sunmodo Corp. v. Unirac (USDC WDW)

Representing plaintiff in a suit for declaration of noninfringement and invalidity involving patents.

WowWee Group Ltd. v. Wallace et al. (USDC C.D. Cal.)

Defense in patent and intellectual property licensing breach of contract dispute.  Rylander successfully had case transferred out of California to the State of Washington, where the case settled.

Pure Imagination LLC v. WowWee Group Ltd. (Clark County, WA)

Breach of license contract case prosecuted by Rylander involving declaration of ownership of rights.  Rylander had a sister case filed by the defendants in California transferred up to Washington, where he combined and settled the cases.

Bamburgh Marrsh LLC v. Veritest International(Clark County, WA)

Breach of technology licensing agreement, including licensing of patent applications. Representing Plaintiff.

Edwards v. Lemmons et al. (USDC WDW)

Patent infringement. Representing the Plaintiff.

Plant 21 LLC v. Cascade Greenhouse(USDC WDW)

Plant Patent infringement. Representing the Defendant.

Proven Winners North America v. Cascade Greenhouse (USDC WDW)

Plant Patent infringement. Representing the Defendant.

Proven Winners North America v. Cascade Greenhouse (USDC MD FL)

Plant Patent infringement. Representing the Defendant.

Arndt v. Mokai Mfg. (USDC DOR)

Patent infringement. Representing the Plaintiff.

Schumer v. LCS/Telegraphics (USDC WDW)

Patent infringement. Representing the Defendant.

J.E. Hynds LLC v Hopscotch Technology (USDC WDW)

Patent infringement. Representing the Plaintiff.

Cole Screen Print v. PotHuggers, Inc. (USDC WDW)

Patent infringement. Representing the Defendant.

Bamburgh Marrsh LLC v. Wickstead (Clark County, WA)

Ownership of intellectual property, including patents and patent applications. Representing Plaintiff.

Simplar v. Performance (USDC WDW)

Patent infringement, declaration of inventorship, declaration of ownership. Representing the Plaintiff.

Bernardy v. Powell (USDC WDW)

Trial de novo patent interference appeal from the Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences. Representing the Plaintiff

Campbell Pet Co. v. Miale et al. (USDC WDW)

Suit for declaration of non-infringement and invalidity of patents. Dismissed on personal jurisdiction grounds, the Firm appealed to the Federal Circuit and secured a reversal and a precedential decision. After remand, the parties resolved the case including a consent judgment of non-infringement. Representing the Plaintiff.


TRADEMARK LITIGATION

Trademark litigation remains a bastion of the Firm's litigation practice, and the Firm has been retained on numerous cases to protect trademarks, and also to defend against trademark actions.

SOME TRADEMARK CASES HANDLED 

(Cases handled by our attorneys were not in all cases handled while at the Firm.  Cases listed are not a representation of any guarantee or expectation).

Fusion Electric. v. Busack (USDC WD Wash.)

Trademark ownership and infringement. Settled.

Farran v. Jouzine (USDC WD. Wash.)

Trade dress & trademark infringement; trade secret misappropriation.

Metabolic Maintenance Products v. Health Mentors (USDC D. Or.)

Trademark infringement. Settled.

In re MUZZLE HATZ (USPTO TTAB)

Trademark registration appeal. Representing Applicant.

Custom Auto Interiors v. Custom RV Interiors (Clark County, WA)

Common law trade name infringement and trade secret misappropriation. Representing Defendants.

Bourne International v. South Seas Trading Company (USDC WDW)

Trade dress, copyright infringement and trade secret misappropriation. Representing Plaintiff.

Microsoft Corp. v. One Source (USDC WDW)

Copyright and Trademark infringement, among other claims. Representing Defendant.

Kinco Int’l Inc. v. Liberty Glove Co. (USDC DO)

Trademark infringement. Representing Plaintiff.

Fresh & Wild v. Blankenship (USDC EDW)

Trademark infringement. Representing Plaintiff.

General Motors, Inc. v. HummBug (USDC WDW)

Trademark infringement . Representing Defendant.

Integrity Auto. v. Integrity Automotive (USDC WDW)

Trademark infringement. Representing Plaintiff.

Starbucks Corporation v. Lundberg dba Sambucks(USDC DOR)

Trademark infringement and dilution. Representing Defendant.

Metabolic Maintenance v. Blistex (USDC DOR)

Trademark infringement. Representing Plaintiff.

L&A Designs v. xTreme ATVs (USDC DOR)

Trademark infringement. Representing Plaintiff.

Moreno v. Southern Wine Group (USDC DOR)

Trademark infringement. Reprsenting Defendants.

Adidas America, Inc. v. DVS Shoe Company, Inc. (USDC DOR)

Trademark infringement. Reprsenting Defendants.

Webb v. Trailer City, Inc. (USDC DOR)

Trademark infringement. Reprsenting Defendants.

Metabolic Maintenance v. St. Ives (USDC DOR)

Trademark infringement. Representing Plaintiff.


COPYRIGHT LITIGATION

We have conducted suits for copyright infringement against numerous defendants, including the United States and private corporations, covering numerous areas of original expressions, such as paintings, software (structure, interactivity, and graphics), among others.

SOME COPYRIGHT CASES HANDLED

(Cases handled by our attorneys were not in all cases handled while at the Firm.  Cases listed are not a representation of any guarantee or expectation).

Fleming et al. v. Parnell et al. (USDC WDW)

Declaration of noninfringement of copyright, invalidity of registration and ownership of copyright. Representing plaintiff.

MyGenShare v. Cyndis List (USDC DUT)

Second filed suit in Utah in diversity, representing the defendant (plaintiff in the first filed suit)

Cyndis List v. MyGenShare (USDC WDW)

Copyright infringement suit representing Plaintiff.

Pure Imagination LLC v. WowWee Group Ltd. (Clark County, WA)

Breach of license contract case prosecuted by Rylander involving declaration of ownership of rights.  Rylander had a sister case filed by the defendants in California transferred up to Washington, where he combined and settled the cases.

MEI v. IAT, et al. (USDC DOR)

Copyright infringement and trade secret misappropriation. Representing Third Party Defendant.

Bourne International v. South Seas Trading Company (USDC WDW)

Trade dress, copyright infringement and trade secret misappropriation. Representing Plaintiff.

Microsoft Corp. v. One Source (USDC WDW)

Copyright and Trademark infringement, among other claims. Representing Defendant.

Blueport v. United States (US CFC)

Suit for copyright infringement against U.S. Air Force. Representing Plaintiff.

Safran v. United States (US CFC)

Copyright infringement claim against US SBA. Representing Plaintiff.

Thomas v. Marian Heath Greeting Cards, Inc. (USDC DOR)

Copyright infringement. Representing Plaintiff.


TRADE SECRETS

Our comprehensive intellectual property practice includes counseling in the handling and licensing of trade secrets, as well as lawsuits to protect those secrets when misappropriated. We have secured court injunctions from the use and dissemination of misappropriated trade secrets. In one of our recent cases, a sales person with access to trade secret customer lists and vendor lists, and pricing, jumped ship and signed on with a new competitor and started making sales to those very customers, at lower prices. A quick law suit against the employee for misappropriation of trade secrets was able to secure an injunction of further use of the confidential information. Coupled with a notification letter to the new competitors, the activity was curtailed.

SOME CASES HANDLED WITH TRADE SECRET CLAIMS

(Cases handled by our attorneys were not in all cases handled while at the Firm.  Cases listed are not a representation of any guarantee or expectation).

Farran v. Jouzine (USDC WD. Wash.)

Trade dress & trademark infringement; trade secret misappropriation.

Oram v. Dolan/Dolan v. Oramac (Clark County, WA)

Noncompetition, fiduciary duties, oppression, shareholder derivative claims, and trade secret claims.  Trial was trifurcated, and then settled the day before the second trial was scheduled to begin.  Representing the defendant/third-party plaintiff.

MEI v. IAT, et al. (USDC DOR)

Copyright infringement and trade secret misappropriation. Representing Third Party Defendant.

Fresh & Wild v. Wallace (Clark County, WA)

Noncompetition and Trade Secret. Representing Plaintiff.

Bourne International v. South Seas Trading Company (USDC WDW)

Trade dress, copyright infringement and trade secret misappropriation. Representing Plaintiff.


TRADEMARK OPPOSITIONS & CANCELLATIONS

The Firm maintains a constant trademark opposition and cancellation practice and regulary files oppositions on behalf of clients seeking to maintain the integrity of their reputation endowed marks.

In re AIRSHARING (USPTO TTAB)

Trademark registration opposition.  Representing the opposer.

In re AIR SHARE (USPTO TTAB)

Trademark registration opposition.  Representing the opposer.

In re TACK DRIVER (USPTO TTAB)

Trademark registration opposition. Representing Opposer.

In re GRIP GAP (USPTO TTAB) (GRIP GAP II)

Trademark registration cancellation proceeding. Representing Respondent.

In re GRIP GAP (USPTO TTAB) (GRIP GAP I)

Trademark registration opposition. Representing Applicant.

In re SANDHILL (USPTO TTAB)

Trademark registration opposition. Representing Opposer.

In re FRESH & WILD (USPTO TTAB)

Trademark registration opposition. Representing Applicant.

In re MUD BAY (USPTO TTAB)

Trademark registration opposition. Representing Applicant.