Fayetteville, AR
Litigation Lawyer at Fayetteville, AR
Practice Areas: Litigation, Trademark Infringement ... +3 more
OUTCOME: Client won $12.4 million
Computer code (Plaintiff) — e-commerce software – Two-week jury trial whereby a unanimous jury awarded a $12.4 million dollar verdict to our client against WalMart for misappropriation of trade secrets ... and computer coding know-how.
OUTCOME: Defendants (our clients)
Plaintiffs Redwoodventures Ltd. filed this trademark, trade dress, and copyright infringement case against our clients - the Canadian toy producers, Irwin RX, Ltd. In defending the case for Irwin, we d ... iscovered serious problems with plaintiff Redwoodventures Ltd.'s intellectual property claims. The plaintiff claimed trade dress in a product they had not used, it claimed trademark rights using dates well prior to when any actual sales occurred, and there were numerous other problems with the copyright applications. As a result of these revelations, our client Irwin RX filed and aggressively advanced many counterclaims and sought a determination the rights were invalid or unenforceable. Our clients denied all wrongdoing and were preparing for trial; however, prior to trial, Redwoodventures dismissed its entire case. The plaintiff received no payment from our clients and Redwoodventures released our clients from any infringement allegations or claims.
OUTCOME: Client won more than $500,000
After a weeklong trial in Fayetteville Federal District Court, a jury determined that the defendant engaged in a bait-and-switch operation in this trademark infringement case. Our firm represented the ... New Zealand trademark owner, Rotoworks Int’l Ltd. The defendant, Grassworks USA, would advertise the New Zealand manufactured equipment but then ship a knock-off version to the customer. A jury returned a verdict of $375,000 for intentional trademark infringement and the court additionally awarded $191,699 in attorneys’ fees.
OUTCOME: Variety owner's rights enforced
Secured three-party settlement for unauthorized use of proprietary Barracuda variety of redtop bentgrass for small seed company developer of the technology.
OUTCOME: Jury Award in PVPA infringement
Won jury verdict following two-week trial for PVP infringement of multiple protected wheat varieties against multiple Arkansas defendants.
OUTCOME: Case settled
Sought declarative relief for coverage of intellectual property claims under business liability policy.
OUTCOME: Client obtained insurance coverage for previously denied coverage
Received declaratory judgment against insurance company for failure to provide coverage of farm products liability claims.
OUTCOME: Denial of Preliminary Injunction sought against client for trademark infringement
Defended derivative claims of trademark infringement against a corporation's largest shareholder, resulting in the denial of a motion for preliminary injunction.
OUTCOME: Jury Trial Award plus award of attorneys' fees
Obtained a preliminary injunction and a substantial jury verdict against the exclusive U.S. distributor of a New Zealand agricultural implement for engaging in a bait-and-switch operation in this trade ... mark infringement case. Later, a jury returned $375,000 for intentional trademark infringement and the Court additionally awarded $191,699 in attorneys' fees.
OUTCOME: Counterplaintiff/Defendant receives Consent Judgment
Defended patent infringement in Northern District of Oklahoma having original demand against our client of $16,000,000. In connection with a multi-day jury trial, we invalidated the underlying patent ... using admissions of inventor-Jones while he took the stand. On directed verdict, the Court made specific factual finding of inequitable conduct on the part of the inventor-Jones and ruled the patent invalid pursuant to Secs. 102 and 103. After situating earlier-stated counterclaims for fraud in the procurement of the patent and following directed verdict, the firm advanced the counterclaims on theory of Handgards and Walker-Process anti-trust liability. Before the case was given to the jury on these counterclaims, Jones settled in our client's favor by executing a consent judgment of $200,000 payable to our client, S.A. Walls, to help recoup cost to defend the baseless suit.