John Francis Bennett

John is a highly skilled patent litigator with an impressive track record in handling patent cases as well as trademark, copyright, trade secrets, unfair competition, and other intellectual property (IP) claims. As Service Team Leader for FBT’s IP Litigation team, he consistently delivers successful outcomes for his clients through his meticulous preparation and exceptional communication skills. His legal background spans across numerous technologies, and he has represented clients in cases before federal district courts across the United States, including in the largest patent multidistrict litigation in history. John has also appeared before the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB), the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board (TTAB), and the International Trade Commission (ITC). Additionally, he serves as monitoring counsel for patent litigation insurers.

John has received national acclaim in The Best Lawyers in America for both Patent Litigation and Intellectual Property Litigation. In Ohio, Benchmark Litigation honored him as a State Litigation Star in 2022 and 2023, while in Cincinnati, Best Lawyers awarded him the Patent Litigation Lawyer of the Year in 2019 and 2023 and the Intellectual Property Lawyer of the Year in 2021. Chambers USA ranks John among Ohio’s Leaders in Their Field in Intellectual Property. Furthermore, he is a consistent presence on the Ohio Super Lawyers list for intellectual property litigation and has earned an AV Preeminent rating from Martindale-Hubbell, signifying exceptional legal ability and professional ethics.

As co-chair of the Cincinnati Bar Association’s IP Litigation Committee, John actively contributes to the field by speaking and writing on various intellectual property topics. He also enjoys sharing his experience as an adjunct professor at the University of Cincinnati College of Law.

Representative Experience

• Defended accused infringer against patent claims related to computer forensics technologies—after a trial, the ITC found no violation (In the Matter of Certain Computer Forensic Devices and Products Containing the Same, International Trade Commission, Case No. 337-TA-799).
• Defended accused infringer in largest multidistrict litigation in U.S. history against patent claims involving portfolio of more than 50 patents relating to automated call distributors, interactive voice response products, computer telephone integration, and speech recognition (case is ongoing—In re Katz Interactive Call Processing Patent Litigation, CD California Case No. 2:07-ml-01816).
• Defended accused infringer against patent claims related to DVD scene selection menus—case settled on confidential terms after jury trial (Patent Harbor, LLC v. Audiovox Corporation, ED Texas, Case No. 6:10-cv-00361).
• Represented patent owner against accused infringer related to food packaging technology in declaratory judgment action—case settled on confidential terms during jury trial (Huhtamaki, Inc. v. PWP Industries, Inc., SD Ohio, Case No. 1:09-cv-795).
• Defended accused infringer against patent claims related to on-hold music telephone systems—obtained summary judgment of no liability (Info-Hold, Inc. v. Muzak Holdings LLC, et al., SD Ohio, Case No. 1:11-cv-283).
• Defended accused infringers against patent claims related to DVD technology—case settled on confidential terms (TV Interactive Data Corporation v. Sony Corporation, et al., ND California, Case No. 5:10-cv-00475).
• Represented trade secret owner against former employee for alleged trade secret misappropriation and breach of noncompete agreement—obtained permanent injunction after trial (DNA Diagnostics Center, Inc. v. Pam Brown, Hamilton County, Ohio, Case No. A0702962).
• Defended accused infringers in multidistrict litigation against patent claims related to lip-syncing automation in video games (case is ongoing—McRO, Inc., dba Planet Blue v. Codemasters USA Group, et al., D. Del. Case Nos. 1:13-cv-01017 and 1:13-cv-1756).
• Defended accused infringer in multidistrict litigation against patent claims related to transportation logistics technologies (case is ongoing—R+L Carriers, Inc. v. Pegasus Transtech Corp., SD Ohio Case No. SD OH, 1:09-cv-00177-SJD).
• Represented accused infringer in dispute concerning alleged indemnity obligations arising from patent case—case settled on confidential terms (Kroger Co. v. Ateb, SD Ohio, Case No. 1:2009-cv-00196).
• Represented patent owner against accused infringers related to medical practitioner verification technologies—case settled on confidential terms (Medversant Technologies, LLC v. Morrisey Associates, Inc., CD California Case No. 2:09-cv-05031).
• Defended accused infringer against patent claims related to technologies for monitoring traffic information—case settled on confidential terms (Cincinnati Bell Inc. v. Traffic Information LLC, Oregon, Case No. 3:10-cv-01453).
• Defended accused infringer against patent claims related to interactive video networks—case settled on confidential terms (EON Corp. IP Holdings, LLC v. T-Mobile USA, Inc. et al., ED Texas, Case No. 6:10-cv-00379).
• Defended accused infringers against patent claims related to vehicle status reporting systems—cases settled on confidential terms (Arrivalstar S.A. et al v. Trailer Bridge, Inc. et al., MD Florida, Case No. 8:09-cv-01307; Cincinnati Bell, Inc. v. Arrivalstar S.A., SD of Ohio, Case No. 1:11-cv-00274).
• Defended accused infringer against patent claims related to Internet technologies—case settled on confidential terms (GeoTag v. Medicine Shoppe, ED of Texas Case No. 2:11-cv-404).
• Defended accused infringer against patent claims related to telephone encryption technologies—case settled on confidential terms (ISwitch, LLC v. Cincinnati Bell Inc., ED Texas, Case No. 6:12-cv-118).
• Defended accused infringer against patent claims related to technologies allowing secure financial transactions—case settled on confidential terms (Swipe Innovations, LLC v. Elavon, Inc., ED Texas, Case No. 9:12-cv-0040).
• Represented copyright owner of costume against accused infringers—case settled on confidential terms (Stagecraft Costuming Inc., v. Househaunters, et al., SD of Ohio Case No. 1:10-cv-00917).
• Defended ISP against claims for accused copyright infringement—court granted motion to dismiss (Allure Jewelers, Inc. v. Ulu, et al., SD Ohio Case No. 1:12-cv-00091-MRB).
• Represented aircraft parts supplier against company for unfair business practices related to alleged PMA misuse—case settled on confidential terms (Transicoil LLC v. Aaxico Sales Inc., et al., SD Florida Case No. 1:10-cv-24427-PAS).
• Represented trademark owner against accused infringer—case settled on confidential terms (Situs, Inc. v. Situs Realty Corp., SD Indiana Case No. 1:09-cv-01570).
• Represented patent owner against accused infringers related to laser technologies (case is ongoing—Newport Corporation v. Lighthouse Photonics Inc., CD California, Case No. 8:12-cv-00719).
• Represented patent owner against accused infringer related to variable data printing technology (case is ongoing—Tesseron, Ltd. v. Punch International NV et al., MD Florida, Case No. 6:10-cv-00909).
• Represented patent owner against accused infringer related to technology for analyzing compilations of retail sales data (case is ongoing—dunnhumby USA, LLC v. emnos USA Corporation, ND Illinois Case No. 1:13-cv-00399).
• Defended accused infringer against patent claims related to Internet shopping cart methods (case is ongoing—CWC v. Hugo Boss, ED Texas Case No. 6:12-cv-00674).
• Defended accused infringer against patent claims related to technologies for recording and monitoring of call centers (case is ongoing—Verint Systems, Inc. v. CallCopy, Inc., SD Ohio Case No. 2:13-cv-942).
• Represented copyright owner against alleged infringement related to consumer baby products (case is ongoing—Kohus v. Graco Children’s Products, Inc., et al., SD Ohio Case No. 1:09-cv-503).