Skip to main content
Daniel Du-Ning Woo

Daniel Woo’s Legal Cases

6 total

  • Collision 1, Inc. v. No 1 Corporation, et. al.

    Practice Area:
    Trademark Infringement
    Date:
    Sep 10, 2007
    Outcome:
    Judgment for Plaintiff for breach of contract
    Description:
    After a nonjury trial, the trial court issued (1) a permanent injunction in favor of client corporation (the Plaintiff) that required defendant corporation to stop all uses of contested name in Washingnton as required in a settlement agreement arising out of an earlier federal Lanham Act lawsuit, and (2) a judgment in favor of client for a partial award of attorney fees and costs.
  • Stardust Technologies, Inc. v. Stardust Materials, LLC, et. al.

    Practice Area:
    Intellectual Property
    Date:
    Jan 31, 2005
    Outcome:
    Award in favor of defense on contested issues
    Description:
    American Arbitration Association Arbitration in favor of clients (a Limited Liability Company and its two founders) (1) against the plaintiff corporation's claim of ownership of inventions, (2) with respect to clients' freedom to invent and to own their inventions, (3) against plaintiff's claim that prior intellectual property agreements should be broadened in their scope, and (4) against plaintiff's request for attorney fees and costs. Clients admitted activities that were prohibited by prior covenants with the plaintiff, but no damages were found and no attorney fees and costs were awarded to the plaintiff. The covenants were extended.
  • Flex-Plan Services, Inc., et al, v. McSpadden, et al.

    Practice Area:
    Intellectual Property
    Date:
    Dec 31, 2003
    Outcome:
    $ 1.3 million jury verdict; assignment copyrights
    Description:
    Clients were two corporations and an individual owner that brought a lawsuit that included copyright and Lanham Act claims against defendants. The copyright ownership and infringement claims were resolved with both defendants prior to trial in favor of clients. One defendant was dismissed after a settlement that included assignments of copyrights in favor of clients. The remaining defendant conceded the copyright claims prior to trial. Trial proceeded before a federal district court jury on breach of contract and fraud claims. Judgment in favor of clients were entered on the jury verdict of $ 1.3 million against the remaining defendant.
  • Juiceman, Inc. et al, v C2L Corporation, et al

    Practice Area:
    Intellectual Property
    Date:
    Oct 31, 2000
    Outcome:
    Defense award, including award for attorney fees.
    Description:
    This case involved an American Arbitration Association proceeding where plaintiffs claimed $ 30 million in damages against clients (a corporation and its founders) and also against another party represented by other counsel. After two years of proceedings, various hearings and then a trial, the arbitrator ruled in favor of clients on all claims and awarded clients attorney fees and costs against plaintiffs. The award was eventually collected.
  • Physician Micro Systems Inc. v. Randak Systems, et al

    Practice Area:
    Copyright Infringement
    Date:
    Jun 01, 1998
    Outcome:
    Award for Plaintiff (including source code)
    Description:
    Client corporation (Plaintiff) filed a federal lawsuit and also made a demand for arbitration against defendants (a software corporation and its founder). The federal lawsuit and arbitration demand were combined into an arbitration that was tried before a three-member panel of the American Arbitration Association. Client asked for an award finding that (1) defendants' wrongfully terminated a license, (2) defendants deliver to Plaintiff certain source code, and (3) royalties for bundled products should be calculated by a different formula than the one demanded by defendants. The arbitration award found that defendants had unlawfully terminated a software license to plaintiff, that respondents had to deliver source code to plaintiff, that plaintiff owed less royalties than demanded by defendants, that a more favorable allocation to plaintiff for bundled software in the determination of royalties was proper, and that no attorney fees or costs would be awarded to defendants for royalties that were withheld by client. The arbitration took place over two years, with some issues determined at separate hearings and a final trial on all remaining issues.
  • El Diablo, Inc., et. al., v. Mel Op & Griff, LLC, et. al.

    Practice Area:
    Trademark Infringement
    Date:
    Mar 20, 2009
    Outcome:
    After 5 weeks trial, case settled.
    Description:
    The central causes of action between competiting restaurants involved Washington common law trade dress infringement and common law unfair competition. Plaintiffs' (clients') restaurant is the Peso's restaurant in the lower Queen Anne neighborhood of Seattle, Washington. The primary defendants own or operate four Matador restaurants in Washington. The settlement with the Washington Matador restaurants and their owners requires: (1) the Seattle Ballard neighborhood Matador restaurant to make substantial changes to its decor with respect to certain trade dress elements claimed by Peso's restaurant, (2) the Washington Matador restaurants to change menus and menu covers, and (3) the Washington Matador restaurants and certain of their owners and founders to pay a settlement amount to plaintiffs. In addition, the founders and Washington Matador restaurants are prohibited from leasing or opening additional Matador restaurants or restaurants of the same genre for three years within defined territorial limits in the cities of Seattle (most of Seattle) and within 4 miles of Lincoln Square in Bellevue, Washington. Case will be dismissed and changes are to be completed by middle of 2009.