Intellectual Property - Representative Cases

Jump to experience:

• Section 337
• Patent Litigtion
• Patent Interference
• Trademarks (District Court)
• Trademarks (T.T.A.B.)
• Copyrights

Section 337

• Components for Installations of Marine Autopilots with GPS or IMU (337-TA-738): Represented respondents FLIR Systems, Raymarine UK Ltd., and Raymarine, Inc. in an investigation related to marine autopilots with a GPS or IMU.  Favorable settlement without exclusion. 
• Adjustable-Height Beds and Components Thereof (337-TA-734): Represented complainant Invacare in an investigation related to adjustable hospital beds.  Successfully obtained Consent Order whereby respondent agreed to the exclusion of accused products from entry into the United States.
• Mobile Telephones and Wireless Communication Devices Featuring Digital Cameras (337-TA-703): Represent complainant Kodak in parallel district court action and consult daily with ITC counsel related to infringement allegations against respondent RIM.
• Machine Vision Software and Systems (337-TA-680): Represented respondents Fuji America Corp. and Fuji Machine Co. in investigation related to machine vision systems.  Favorable settlement was obtained before hearing.
• Wireless Communication Devices and Components Thereof (337-TA-675): Represented respondents Kyocera, Sprint, MetroPCS, and VirginMobile in investigation brought by SPH America relating to wireless communication devices.
• Semiconductor Integrated Circuits (337-TA-665): Obtained Final Determination of non-infringement on five patents for respondent LSI Inc.
• Wireless Communication Chips and Chipsets and Products Containing Same (337-TA-614): Successfully represented Qualcomm in investigation regarding cellular service and device industry.  Obtained early termination of investigation without trial.
• Semiconductor Chips With Minimized Chip Packages Size and Products Containing Same (337-TA-605)Represented complainant Tessera against respondents STMicroelectronics, Inc. and ST NV.  Resulted in Commission finding of a violation of: Section 337, overturning ALJ's Initial Determination holding that the patents were valid but not infringed.
• Hydraulic Excavators and Components Thereof (337-TA-582): Successfully represented Caterpillar in an investigation to bar gray market Caterpillar-branded excavators.  Obtained complete relief in the form of a general exclusion order and cease and desist orders.
• Laminated Floor Panels (337-TA-545): Represented 6 respondent Chinese laminate flooring manufacturers.  Key patent invalidated, another patent rendered wholly non-infringed, and on the remaining patent, mixed infringement and non-infringement found.
• Baseband Processor Chips and Chipsets (337-TA-543): Successfully represented Intervenor Sprint Nextel in investigation brought by Broadcom against respondent Qualcomm during remedy phase, the Presidential Review Period, the appeal to the Federal Circuit, and at Customs. Obtained a stay pending appeal and convinced Federal Circuit to vacate the limited exclusion order issued against Sprint Kyocera Wireless Corp. et al., v. International Trade Commission decision.
• Color Television Receivers and Color Display Monitors (337-TA-537): Represented complainants against multiple respondents for alleged infringement of five patents on components and processes within color televisions and display monitors.  The case settled on confidential terms after close of the hearing. 
• Network Communications Systems for Optical Networks (337-TA-535): Obtained summary determination result for respondent, Nortel.
• Disk Drives and Products Containing Same: Negotiated settlement for proposed respondents that prevented institution of an investigation.
• Musical Instrument Products: Successfully brought suit on behalf of Yamaha Musical Instruments against foreign importers of gray market goods, wherein respondents settled before institution by ITC.
• Disc Drives, Components Thereof, and Products Containing Same (337-TA-516): Represented respondent in a 337 action concerning alleged infringement of seven patents on components and processes within disc drives.  The case settled on confidential terms on the eve of the hearing.
• Gun Barrels Used in Firearms Systems (337-TA-505): Represented respondents concerning alleged infringement of two patents on gun barrels used in forearms training systems.  Settled without exclusion.
• Automobile Tail Light Lenses (337-TA-502): Obtained summary determination verdict for respondent Daimler.
• Garage Door Operators (337-TA-497): Represented respondents in an investigation concerning two reissue patents on the electrical components of garage door openers.
• Bearings and Packaging Thereof (337-TA-469): Represented respondents in an action concerning alleged trademark infringement and gray market goods.  Confidential settlement before hearing. 
• Personal Watercraft (337-TA-452): Represented respondent Bombardier in an action brought by Yamaha Motor Company, Ltd. et al. concerning the alleged infringement of 11 patents on personal watercraft.  Invalidated 8 of 11 patents and settled without exclusion after hearing.
• Optical Drive Controller with a Host Interface for Direct Connection to IDE/ATA Data Bus (337-TA-409): Represented complainant Oak Technology, Inc. in an investigation regarding optical disc drives. 

Patent Litigation

• Agere v. Macronix (S.D.N.Y): Represented defendant in this 2001-2002 patent dispute, obtaining a stay of litigation pending arbitration (settlement was reached after arbitration).
• Apcon v. Curtiss-Wright and Systran et al. (C.D. Cal.):  Represented defendants in infringement action involving high-speed fiber optic switching technology (after filing infringement counterclaims, obtained favorable settlement).
• Aptar v. Summit (N.D. Ill.): Won willful infringement verdict, and defeated infringement counterclaims, regarding various patents concerning mounting caps and other features of aerosol spray valves.
• Arlington Industries, Inc. v. Bridgeport Fittings, Inc. (M.D. Pa., Fed. Cir.): Representing plaintiff Arlington Industries in patent infringement action involving electrical fittings on appeal to Federal Circuit (won jury verdict, including willful infringement).
• Automotive Technologies International, Inc. v. General Motors Corp, et al. (E.D. Tex.):  Representing defendant Mercedes-Benz in patent infringement action involving vehicle sensor and airbag technology.
• Bendix Commercial Vehicle Systems v. ArvinMeritor (N.D. Ohio):  Representing plaintiff Bendix in patent infringement action involving brake systems.
• Bendix Commercial Vehicle Systems v. Haldex Brake (N.D. Ohio):  Represented plaintiff Bendix in patent infringement action involving brake systems (won jury verdict, including willful infringement).
• Black & Decker v. Catalina Lighting (E.D. Va.): A 1996 patent infringement lawsuit involving the "Snakelight" product in which a Crowell & Moring attorney represented the defendant. (after obtaining partial summary judgment for defendant, a favorable settlement was achieved for this client).
• Brand Management, Inc. v. Betco Block & Products, Inc. (E.D. Va.):  A 1995 patent and copyright case in which a Crowell & Moring attorney handled the damages portion of the bifurcated jury trial on behalf of the defendant.
• Chameleon v. Brown Shoe (D.N.J.): Represented patentee in infringement action involving intermittent flashing lights on children's sneakers.
• Ciena v. Nortel Networks (USITC): Defended telecommunications company in action involving patented optical network technology, securing early dismissal.
• Clear with Computers v. Basset et al. (E.D. Tex.):  Representing various UTC defendants in patent infringement action involving web-based purchasing systems.
• Curtiss-Wright v. Velan (W.D. Tex.; Fed. Cir.): Represented patentee in infringement action involving life-saving coke drum de-heading valve used in oil refining industry (won on appeal).
• Curtiss-Wright v. Zimmermann & Jansen et al. (C.D. Cal.): Represented patentee in infringement action involving automated coke drum de-heading technology         (obtained favorable settlement).
• Entrust Inc. v. Addison Avenue (N.D. Cal.): Represented plaintiff in this 2006 patent infringement suit relating to two-factor authentication for remote connection to a computer network (settlement was reached during discovery).
• EON Corp. IP Holdings, LLP v. SkyTel Corporation et al. (E.D. Tex.):  Representing defendant Carrier in patent infringement action involving a communication network with a base station and subscriber units.
• Every Penny Counts v. First Data Corp. et al. (M.D. Fla.):  Represented financial services company in patent infringement action involving prepaid gift cards (won on Markman decision; upheld on appeal).
• F&G v. Giga-Byte et al. (S.D. Fla.): Represented Chinese computer equipment manufacturer defendant against non-practicing entities in patent infringement case involving computer mouse scrolling technology.
• Florida Digital Network v. Nortel Networks (Fla. Cir. Ct.): Defending declaratory judgment action against telecommunications equipment manufacturer relating to proprietary telecommunications software (need outcome).
• FotoMedia Technologies v. Alltel Communications, Inc., et al. (E.D. Tex.):  Representing defendant Sprint Nextel in patent infringement action involving online photo sharing applications (case is currently in discovery).
• Freedom Wireless v. Sprint Nextel (D. Mass.; Fed. Cir.): Defended telecommunications company in patent infringement action involving prepaid wireless technology (obtained favorable settlement after successfully disqualifying plaintiff's attorneys from case).
• Fulhorst v. DaimlerChrysler AG, et al. (E.D. Tex.):  Represented defendants DaimlerChrysler and BMW in patent infringement action relating to panic alarms for vehicles (obtained favorable settlement).
• Gerber Scientific v. Satisloh (D. Conn.):   Representing plaintiff Gerber Scientific in patent infringement action involving optical machinery.
• Green Source Energy v. NEEI (D. D.C.): Patent dispute over ownership of devulcanization technology in which a Crowell & Moring attorney represented the intervenor-patent owner.
• Greenville Communications, LLC v. Verizon Wireless (D. N.J.): Representing Sprint Nextel Corp. in patent infringement action (won early transfer motion to better venue; case is currently in discovery). 
• GTX Corporation v. Kofax, et al. (E.D. Tex.):  Representing defendant Eastman Kodak in patent infringement action involving digital scanning technology.
• Harris Industries v. Macronix International (E.D. Va.): A 2000 patent infringement lawsuit involving semiconductor devices in which a Crowell & Moring attorney represented the defendant, a Taiwanese manufacturer of semiconductors (settlement was reached immediately after the Markman hearing).
• Hayes v. Penny & Giles et al. (D. N.J.): Represented four aerospace companies in patent infringement suit involving endothermic chemical heat sink used in flight data recorders (obtained favorable settlement).
• Henrob v. BMW (E.D. Mich.): Defending German automaker in patent infringement action involving riveting process used in manufacturing vehicles imported into the United States.
• Invacare Corp. v. Drive Medical (N.D. Ohio): Represented plaintiff Invacare in patent infringement action involving adjustable height beds (obtained ITC Consent Order, where defendant agreed to stop importing accused products).
• Johnson v. Heine (BPAI): Won interference proceeding for patent applicant on color-separation technology for video displays.
• Knorr-Bremse v. Dana (E.D. Va.; Fed. Cir.): Won willful infringement decision and attorneys fees following trial on patent relating to air disc brake technology used in commercial vehicle industry, leading to seminal Federal Circuit decision on willfulness.
• Linex v. Nortel et al. (S.D. Fla.):  Represented defendant Nortel in patent infringement action involving distributed telecommunications network using spread spectrum modulation.
• MAN Roland v. Heidelberg Web Systems (D. N.H.): Represented plaintiff in patent litigation involving high-speed printing press technology (obtained favorable settlement during trial).
• Minerva Industries, Inc. v. Motorola, Inc., et al. (E.D. Tex.):  Representing defendant AT&T Mobility in patent infringement action involving cellular telephones.
• MIT v. Abacus Software et al. (E.D. Tex.): Represented software developer in multi-party patent infringement litigation involving color reproduction technology (obtained favorable settlement).
• Mobil Oil v. Inteplast et al. (D. Del.): Won willful infringement verdict at trial on patent directed to tear-resistant plastic bags.
• Morris Reese v. AT&T, Inc. et al. (E.D. Tex.):  Represented defendant AT&T in patent infringement action involving telephony systems providing call waiting with caller ID; won on Markman decision (upheld on appeal).
• NCR v. Hewlett Packard (E.D. Va.): A 1997 patent infringement lawsuit involving HP ink jet printer patents brought as a declaratory judgment action. A Crowell & Moring attorney represented HP and was first chair in this jury trial (the jury returned a verdict for HP).
• Oakley v. BMW (S.D. Cal.): Represented defendant BMW in patent infringement action involving automotive accessories.
• Oldcastle v. Techo-Bloc (E.D. Va.): A 2001 patent infringement lawsuit brought as a declaratory judgment by our client Oldcastle to invalidate a block patent (settled).
• Orion IP v. Mercedes-Benz USA, et al. (E.D. Tex.):  Represented defendants BMW and Porsche in patent infringement action involving electronic proposal generation (settled after invalidity contentions).
• Orion IP v. Xerox Corporation, et al. (E.D. Tex.):  Represented defendant Eastman Kodak in patent infringement action involving electronic proposal generation.
• PGSI et al. v. RSI et al. (W.D. Tex):  Representing defendant RSI in action involving oil well technology.
• Pharmaceutical Solutions v. Vitamax RX et al. (D. Mn.): Represented PSI in infringement action involving veterinary pharmaceuticals (settled after summary judgment motions).
• PSN Illinois v. Den-Mat et al. (N.D. Ill.): Represented dental supply company in multi-defendant patent infringement action involving method for manufacturing porcelain veneer tooth restorations (won on summary judgment).
• Quickturn Technologies v. Mentorgraphics (D. Or.): Secured dismissal of foreign defendant and transfer of action against domestic defendant in infringement case involving computer chip technology.
• R.R. Donnelly & Sons v. Quark et al. (D. Del.): Defending digital imaging company in patent infringement action involving patents directed to controlling an electronic printing press to print fixed and variable information (obtained favorable settlement after winning Markman).
• Rembrandt Data v. AOL et al. (E.D. Va.):  Representing defendant Canon USA in patent infringement action involving V.34 modem patents (won summary judgment on license exhaustion).
• RIM v. Eastman Kodak (N.D. Tx.): Representing defendant Kodak in patent infringement suit concerning patents on digital camera technology and operating system technology.
• Rossin v. Kanno (BPAI): Representing patent applicant in interference proceeding directed to abatement of perfluorinated compounds.
• Screentone Systems Corporation v. Canon U.S.A., Inc., et al. (E.D. Tex.):  Representing defendant Eastman Kodak in patent infringement action involving methods for producing digital halftone screens.
• Sorensen v. DaimlerChrysler AG (D.N.J.; USITC): Defended automobile manufacturer against claims involving patented method for manufacturing plastic taillight lenses.
• Sorin Biomedical v. Cobe Laboratories (S.D. Cal.): Secured dismissal of action seeking declaratory judgment of noninfringement.
• Star Scientific v. R.J. Reynolds Tobacco (D. Md.): Representing patentee in infringement action involving innovative curing method that substantially prevents formation of primary carcinogen in cured tobacco (on appeal).
• Surety Technologies v. Entrust Technologies (E.D. Va.): A 1999 patent infringement lawsuit involving encryption software in which a Crowell & Moring attorney represented Entrust as first chair. The verdict in this jury trial was returned in favor of Entrust, invalidating the patent at issue.
• Symbility v. Xactware (E.D. Mich.): Represented patentee in declaratory judgment action involving graphics-based construction estimation software (settled).
• TA Instruments v. Perkin-Elmer (D. Del.): Won infringement verdict at trial on patent relating to differential scanning calorimeter technology.
• Tampa Electric v. Nortel Networks (M.D. Fla.): Defended indemnification claims against telecommunications equipment supplier arising from alleged infringement of patents on interactive voice response systems.
• Tanashin Denki Co. v. Emerson Radio (E.D. Va.): A 1998 patent infringement lawsuit involving components for recording devices in which a Crowell & Moring attorney represented Emerson Radio (settlement was reached immediately prior to trial).
• TiVo v. EchoStar Communications et al. (E.D. Tex.): Special counsel in jury trial resulting in $74 million award for infringement of patent on "multi-media time-warping system."
• Thomas v. Sprint Nextel et al. (M.D. N.C.): Defended telecommunications company in patent infringement action involving technology for controlling provision of utility services to consumers.
• Value Behavioral Health, Inc. v. Health System Design Corp. (E.D. Va.): A 1993 patent case in which a Crowell & Moring attorney represented the defendant (settled shortly after discovery commenced).
• Wang Laboratories v. AOL (E.D. Va.): A 1997 patent infringement lawsuit involving certain Internet technology. A Crowell & Moring attorney represented the plaintiff, Wang Laboratories.

Patent Interference

• Rossin v. Kanno (Guild Associates Inc. v. Hitachi Ltd.), Interference Nos. 105,402 and 105,512 (BPAI). Represented Hitachi Ltd. in interferences directed to abatement of perfluorinated compounds.
• Johnson v. Heine (ColorLink, Inc. v. Unaxis Balzers AG), Interference No. 105,310 (BPAI). Represented patent applicant in interference directed to color-separation technology for video displays.
• ZymoGenetics v. Ludwig Institute for Cancer Research, Interference No. 105,433 (BPAI). Represented patent applicant in interference directed to fibroblast mitogenesis.
• SomaLogic, Inc. v. Santa Coloma, Interference No. 105,493 (BPAI). Represented patent applicant in interference directed to methods of obtaining aptamers.
• Rowells v. Vichinsky (International Truck and Engine Corp. v. Mann & Hummel GmbH), Interference No. 105,518 (BPAI). Represented patentee in interference directed to fuel rail for intake manifold of internal combustion engine.

Trademarks (District Court)

• Symbility v. Xactware (E.D. Mich.): Representing trademark owner in declaratory judgment action involving infringement of trademarks through improper use in connection with Internet search engines.
• Weight Watchers International, Inc. v. Curves International, Inc. (S.D.N.Y.): Ongoing trademark infringement/dilution/false advertising case in which we represent plaintiff in connection with a commercial aired by the defendant, obtained preliminary injunction.
• American Airlines v. Google (N.D. Tex.): Represented the plaintiff in this 2007-2008 trademark infringement case involving sale of AA trademarks as keyword triggers for sponsored links.
• Retail Services, Inc. v. Freebies Publishing (E.D. Va.): Represented defendant in trademark dispute regarding the mark "FREEBIES." The Fourth Circuit ultimately held that the term was generic.
• NetZero v. At Home (C.D. Cal.):  Represented trademark owner in securing defendant's agreement to abandon accused mark in infringement litigation. 
• First Franklin v. Franklin First (C.D. Cal.):  Represented Franklin First in trademark infringement action in which court denied preliminary injunction and plaintiff thereafter voluntarily withdrew action. 
• Columbia University v. Columbia HCA (S.D.N.Y.):  Represented defendant in winning judgment dismissing all counts in trademark infringement action for infringement of COLUMBIA mark.
• DuPont v. Helen of Troy (W.D. Tex.):  Represented DuPont in trademark infringement action for infringement of TEFLON mark. 
• DuPont.v. Enzo Milano (C.D. Cal.):  Represented Du Pont in securing default judgment against defendant in trademark infringement action. 
• Caterpillar v. CAT Ltd. (C.D. Ill.):  Represented Caterpillar in obtaining preliminary injunction for infringement and dilution of Caterpillar's CAT trademark.
• Lucasfilm v. American Media, et al. (N.D. Cal.):  Represented Lucasfilm in winning preliminary injunction for infringement and dilution of Lucasfilm's trademarks.

Trademarks (T.T.A.B.)

• Nextel Communications  v. Motorola (T.T.A.B.): Represented telecommunications service provider in trademark opposition relating to aural signal emitted by two-way radios.
• Leica Microsystems v. Krauter (T.T.A.B.): Represented trademark owner in cancellation proceeding involving optical goods and related products. 
• DuPont v. duPont Registry (T.T.A.B.):  Represented Du Pont in opposition to applications to register variations of DUPONT PUBLISHING. 
• Southwestern Management v. Ocinomled (T.T.A.B.): Represented restaurant in complex concurrent use proceeding involving the DELMONICO name.
• Orange Personal Communications Services v. ING Direct (T.T.A.B.):  Represented Opposer in complex multi-opposition proceeding.
• Association for Financial Professionals v. International Management Association (T.T.A.B.): On-going opposition proceeding.

Copyrights

• Lucasfilm v. H&S Media et al. (N.D. Cal.):  Represented Lucasfilm for copyright issues related to Phantom Menace movie release and Internet infringements.
• Filmtown Entertainment, Inc. v. Image Comics, Inc. (Cal. Sup. 2002). Represented defendant, obtained dismissal of action on grounds that Copyright Act preempted state law claims and Lanham Act "reverse passing off," "credit-deprivation" claim.
• Quantum Systems Integrators v. Sprint Nextel (E.D. Va. and 4th Circuit): Represented long-term licensee in copyright infringement action involving right to use upgrades to licensed software; achieved favorable jury result and affirmation on appeal.
• Skywalker Sound v. Villegas (N.D. Cal.):  Represented Lucasfilm on copyright issues related to Lost World  movie release; obtained favorable result on sound infringement matter.
• Marshall & Swift/Boeckh v. URS Corp, et al. (C.D. Cal.): Ongoing copyright dispute in which the firm represents one defendant accused of using "proprietary" data in a software application prepared for FEMA, raising important issues for government contractors under the copyright provision of 28 U.S.C. § 1498.
• Entrust Inc. v. Corel Corporation (E.D. Va.): Represented plaintiff software developer alleging that defendant had exceeded the scope of a "test license."
• Lowry's Reports v. Legg Mason (D. Md.): Represented defendant in jury trial in which Legg Mason was accused of copyright infringement for posting a financial newsletter on an intra-company webpage.
• Business Software Association v. Engineering Design (D.D.C.): Represented plaintiff in copyright infringement case relating to pirated software. Obtained an ex parte seizure order, led a "raid" of defendant's premises to seize infringing software, and ultimately won a permanent injunction.
• CoStar Realty Information, Inc. v. LoopNet, Inc. (D. Md.): Represented plaintiff in copyright and trademark infringement case involving unauthorized use of copyrighted photographs by competing commercial real estate website, achieved favorable settlement before trial.
• Gund, Inc. v. Aspen Pet Products Co., Inc. (S.D.N.Y.):  Represented defendant in copyright infringement case alleging unauthorized copying of plush toy animal designs, achieved favorable settlement and licensing arrangement before trial.  
• Magic Mall Education Foundation, Inc. v. Socci (E.D. Va.):  Represented creator of educational curriculum and materials in copyright infringement case against unauthorized user, achieved complete relief by way of settlement before trial.
• Goldman v. AK-FFA, Inc. (D.D.C.):  Represented defendant in copyright case alleging infringement of exclusive U.S. distribution rights for "The Return of Martin Guerre," resolved by settlement before trial.
• CoStar Realty v. Alliance Valuation Group, et al. (D. Md.):  Represented plaintiff real estate information company in litigation asserting copyright infringement and violation of the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act.
• 1-800-Contacts v. WhenU.com (S.D.N.Y.):  Represented plaintiff in trademark/copyright case alleging that manner in which defendant's software copied code from plaintiff's website in order to display pop-up ads was unlawful, obtained preliminary injunction in the district court.
• Nortel Networks Inc., et al. v. Arbinet-Thexchange (E.D. Va.):  Represented plaintiff in case involving copyright, breach of license agreement, and misappropriation of trade secrets claims against defendant that copied client's telecommunications software without authorization, achieved favorable settlement.
• Nortel Networks Inc., et al v. AIT Wireless Inc., et al. (M.D. Fl.):  Represented plaintiff in case involving copyright, breach of license agreement, and misappropriation of trade secrets claims against defendant that copied client's telecommunications software without authorization, achieved favorable settlement with respect to one defendant and entry of default judgment with respect to a second defendant.
• Florida Digital Network, Inc. v. Northern Telecom, Inc. (M.D. Fl.):  Represented defendant in declaratory judgment action relating to plaintiff's copyright violations, breach of license agreement, and misappropriation of trade secrets claims involving the copying of client's telecommunications software without authorization, successfully litigated removal to federal court and achieved favorable settlement following successful mediation.
• U.S. South Communications, Inc. v. Northern Telecom, Inc.(W.D. N.C.):  Represented defendant in declaratory judgment action relating to plaintiffs' copyright violations, breach of license agreement, and misappropriation of trade secrets claims involving the copying of client's telecommunications software without authorization, achieved favorable settlement.
• Experian Information Solutions, Inc. v. Logic Quest Solutions, Inc., et al. (C.D. Cal.). Represented plaintiff in action for copyright infringement, misappropriation of trade secrets, unfair competition and fraud, arising out of software piracy and kickbacks. Obtained a temporary restraining order, preliminary injunction, summary judgment and permanent injunction.
• PCI Video Products, Inc. v. Video Conferencing Communications, Inc. (D. Or.). Representing plaintiff, obtained temporary restraining order without bond and subsequent permanent injunction for copyright infringement and misappropriation of trade secrets relating to video compression and decompression software.
• Sylvan Learning Systems, Inc. v. National Computer Systems, Inc.(D. Minn):  Represented defendant computer software manufacturer in infringement case relating to testing software and written materials.
• Tranzact Systems v. The Stanley Works (E.D. Ill.):  Represented defendant Stanley regarding computer software infringement allegation.
• Carodel v. Zeeman(Commercial Court of Antwerp, Belgium; President of the Commercial Court of Antwerp, Belgium; Courts of The Hague in the Netherlands): Representing plaintiff in a copyright case involving counterfeited children's clothing.
• Lannoo v. Several Others (Courts of Ghent, Belgium; Courts of Brussels, Belgium): Representing defendant in several alleged copyright infringement cases.
• Ikea v. Facebook, Immoweb and Others (Courts of Brussels, Belgium): Representing plaintiff in copyright and trademark infringement case involving unauthorized use of copyrighted photographs and trademarks for an advertising campaign.
• Toei Animation v.  Melimedias (Commercial Court of Nivelles, Belgium): Representing plaintiff in copyright infringement case involving counterfeited Manga DVDs.
• Eglo v. Brico (Commercial Court of Brussels, Belgium): Representing plaintiff in copyright case involving counterfeited lighting.
• Eddy Merckx Cycles v. Selle Italia (Commercial Court of Brussels, Belgium): Representing plaintiff in copyright and trademark infringement case involving unauthorized use of copyrighted photographs and trademarks for an advertising campaign.
• Panamarenko v. Several Others (Courts of Antwerp, Belgium): Representing plaintiff in a copyright case involving unauthorized use of copyrighted artwork for a non-profit organization.
• DMLights v. Artemide (Commercial Court of Antwerp, Belgium): Representing defendant in copyright case involving counterfeited lighting.
• Gudrun v. Inno.com (Commercial Court of Antwerp, Belgium and Commercial Court of Brussels, Belgium): Representing plaintiff in copyright case involving counterfeited software.

Highlights