Appellate
N/AOUTCOME:
Represented Marathon Oil Company in defense of appeal regarding contractual obligations.
Kimberly A. Elkjer's Legal Cases (35)
Dallas, TX
Intellectual property Lawyer at Dallas, TX
Practice Areas: Intellectual Property, Business ... +2 more
Trial Experience
N/AOUTCOME:
Representation of Fina Oil & Chemical Company in eight-week jury trial on intellectual property issues.
Trial Experience
N/AOUTCOME:
Lead counsel representing several clients in Temporary Injunction hearings in different intellectual property cases.
Trial Experience
N/AOUTCOME:
Representation of client as lead counsel in six-day trial regarding complicated property division including commercial buildings and partnership interests.
Trial Experience
N/AOUTCOME:
Lead counsel prosecuting a personal injury claim to jury verdict.
General Corporate
N/AOUTCOME:
Serves as outside general counsel for clients assisting them with both business and legal issues.
Fina Technology, Inc. v. Ewen
N/AOUTCOME:
Owner of patents directed to a type of polypropylene technology brought suit, seeking declaratory judgment that inventorship designation on the patents was correct.
Dexas Intern., Ltd. v. Saunders Mfg. Co., Inc.
N/AOUTCOME:
Manufacturer had standing to assert design patent infringement claims because it was the exclusive licensee and possessed all substantial rights to the patents-in-suit. The defendant argued the manufac ... turer lacked standing to maintain its suit because it was not the named inventor, assignee, or a licensee with sufficient rights to sue on the patents-in-suit. The patentee granted the manufacturer an unlimited right to manufacture and distribute products under the patents-in-suit. Additionally, the manufacturer controlled the right to sue for the infringement of the patents-in-suit with no obligations to the patentee.
Intellectual Property Litigation
N/AOUTCOME:
Representation of client in claims involving patent invalidity, infringement and ownership as well as anti-trust issues in the oil and gas industry.
Intellectual Property Litigation
N/AOUTCOME:
Representation of a client in a 35 U.S.C. § 256 claim (changing inventorship when the inventors refused to cooperate with the Patent and Trademark Office) in federal district court. This case also invo ... lved claims pursuant to sections 101, 111, 166 and 262 of the Patent Act.
Ad
Transform legal challenges into solutions.
Connect now to review your situation.
